'The Democratic Party and Blanche Lincoln'

[CoolBlue71]

A lot to absorb in what Glenn Greenwald has been writing on the presidency of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. And having followed what Greenwald observes about how a then-supermajority of 60 Democratic caucus, in the U.S. Senate, operated … I never found myself disagreeing with Greenwald. But I'm turning, and despite predicting Obama will landslide whoever the GOP nominates in 2012, it does spark the old adage, "Be careful what you wish for."




http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

The Democratic Party and Blanche Lincoln

By Glenn Greenwald
Salon.com | June 10, 2010

The run-off between Democratic Senate incumbent Blanche Lincoln and challenger Bill Halter, which culminated on Tuesday night in Lincoln's narrow victory, brightly illuminates what the Democratic Party establishment is.

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we've been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn't have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it's not Obama's fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable.

What's going on here couldn't be clearer if the DNC produced neon signs explaining it. Blanche Lincoln and her corporatist/centrist Senate-friends aren't some unfortunate outliers in the Democratic Party. They are the Democratic Party.

 

[NickCole]

The President doesn't preside over Congress.

Greenwald doesn't say the President presides over Congress.

He said:

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we've been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn't have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it's not Obama's fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable.

And the party Obama presides over happens to hold a huge Congressional majority.

The President isn't impotent, Congress is.

They've passed some huge legislation the past year and a half, which will cost you higher taxes the rest of your life. And probably worse. Congress is a lot of things but impotent isn't one of them.

 

[Kulindahr]

Looked like a decent analysis to me. Obama supporters have used the situation in Congress to excuse his lack of leadership -- and yes, that's silly from one angle, because all he does for laws is sign them, but not from another, because he's supposed to be the leader of his party.

But I think the real leaders of the party are the ones who write the big checks -- and the article is spot-on about that.

 

[NickCole]

We don't have a parliamentary system where representatives are required to vote along party lines.

The President ought to help build concensus to pass his agenda. Bush did it. Clinton did it. Reagan did it. And none of them enjoyed anywhere near the margin of majority that Obama has had.

He has it easier and complains it's harder. Classic Obama.

Added to that is the unprecedented use of the filibuster by Senate Republicans which makes any vote on controversial legislation de facto 60 for passage.

The 110th Congress, when Bush was POTUS, saw an unprecedented use of the filibuster.

How many filibusters have happened since Obama took office?

Zero.

 

[CoolBlue71]

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002381/

 

[NickCole]

Actually, passing legislation now is harder than ever. Ever since the 60s, the Senate has seen an increasing use of the filibuster to stop legislation. Every time the parties switch, it keeps getting worse.

There's over 300 bills which have passed the House which now require action in the Senate.

There was a lot on Bush's agenda too which didn't make it to his desk. There was also a lot which the Democratic 110th wanted but couldn't get past him. That's why there is such a pressing need for reform in this country, over almost everything, health care, immigration, energy, gay rights, etc.



Excuse me?

What?

Is that a joke?

The need of cloture votes in the Senate is higher now than ever in American history. The first session of the 111th saw more than half of the cloture motions of the 110th and the current one is set to pass the record.

Nope, not a joke.

You said, "Added to that is the unprecedented use of the filibuster by Senate Republicans which makes any vote on controversial legislation de facto 60 for passage."

How many of these unprecedented filibusters have there been while Obama's been President?

 

[palemale]

He has it easier and complains it's harder. Classic Obama.

Let's see. Obama inherited two wars, a huge budget deficit and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, not to mention the most sustained and unprincipled opposition from the minority party in my lifetime. And he had it easier than prior presidents? I'm not saying Obama has been the paragon of leadership. Indeed, I wish he had been more partisan and rammed better legislation through Congress. He should have leaned on Reid to make Republicans stand in the well and talk for three days straight if they were so determined to filibuster everything in site. To say that Obama had it easier than his predecessors, however, is just silly.

 

[NickCole]

I don't get the question.

What a surprise.

You're not making any sense. LOL

I'm making perfect sense. LOL

You just don't deal well with realizing ObamaCo manipulated you into believing something that is not true.

'Unprecedented use' and 'unprecedented filibuster' are two separate clauses entirely. One refers to statistics and the other either different definitions or magnitudes of filibuster.

Really? What do you claim are the "different definitions or magnitudes of filibuster"? Either there is a filibuster or there isn't.

 

[NickCole]

At least I grew up learning courtesy and manners. Something you obviously lack, and something that my generation is widely purported to according to you isn't it?

Well pot meet kettle.



Manipulated? I had a look at the filibuster statistics myself. Nobody from the Obama administration contacted me to look them up.

The Obama administration doesn't create the Congressional record on cloture motions.



You said "unprecedented filibuser" and not use thereof.

That implies the adjective pertains to the thing itself, and not use thereof.

That's how you phrased the question, and that's why the question did not make any sense.

That's a sad little dance and you still fail to answer the question.

You wrote, "Added to that is the unprecedented use of the filibuster by Senate Republicans which makes any vote on controversial legislation de facto 60 for passage."

How many times have Senate Republicans filibustered since Obama became President?

 

[Zu-Mendel]

But I think the real leaders of the party are the ones who write the big checks -- and the article is spot-on about that.

This statement is absolutely true for every facet of the government.

 

[NickCole]

It would have been nice to have gotten a grammatically correct question the first time.

Wouldn't you know it we are tied with the Democratic record set in the 106th when they filibustered 58 times, and over half of the 112 in the 110th Congress, and the 11th isn't over yet by far. WOOT

If "we are tied with the Democratic record set in the 106th," how does that jive with your claim of "the unprecedented use of the filibuster by Senate Republicans"?

And is it your claim Republicans have filibustered 58 times since Obama became President? If not, how many times do you claim Republicans have filibustered since Obama was sworn into office?

 

[palemale]

The President ought to help build concensus to pass his agenda. Bush did it. Clinton did it. Reagan did it. And none of them enjoyed anywhere near the margin of majority that Obama has had.

He has it easier and complains it's harder. Classic Obama.





The 110th Congress, when Bush was POTUS, saw an unprecedented use of the filibuster.

How many filibusters have happened since Obama took office?

Zero.

The 110th Congress was when the Democrats took control. It was the Republicans who were filibustering.

How can you seriously say there were zero filibusters since Obama took office? Do you read the paper or listen to any news sources. There is no basis in fact for that assertion, you're just making things up. According to the US Senate website, so far there have been 98 cloture motions in the 111th Congress, i.e. since Obama became President. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

Take a look at the graphs on this website and you'll see that Republican obstructionism through the filibuster is indeed unprecedented. http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/

 

[NickCole]

How can you seriously say there were zero filibusters since Obama took office?

Because it's a fact. It's the truth.

I realize ObamaNation doesn't deal in truth but with me truth is what you get.

Do you read the paper or listen to any news sources.

Yup.

There is no basis in fact for that assertion, you're just making things up.

It is a fact there have been no filibusters since Obama took office.

ObamaNation makes things up and believes what they pretend. It's insidious. But I've seen through it from the beginning.

According to the US Senate website, so far there have been 98 cloture motions in the 111th Congress, i.e. since Obama became President. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

And?

Take a look at the graphs on this website and you'll see that Republican obstructionism through the filibuster is indeed unprecedented. http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/

I see an ObamaNation manipulative dance with words at that website. Just Words.

ObamaNation lies. And lying has become so natural with ObamaNation your brain can no longer process when it's happening. I can see JockBoy and you frantically searching the Internet for proof to back up the ObamaNation lie of "unprecedented" filibusters, and finding none. Fools.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's customary in debate for the two sides to define their terms. So -- how are you guys defining "filibuster"? Obviously it's not the same, unless you're currently inhabiting alternate realities.

 

[NickCole]

LOL

Because the session isn't even close to over yet.



There have been 58 cloture votes.

The number of cloture motions has actually been higher.

The total number of Republican filibusters has been even higher still.





What is this new insanity? Are you deliberately trolling?

The Congressional record backs up those claims.

This site tracks all cloture votes and are directly researchable back to Thomas.

You've made excuses and danced several different ways but you still have failed to answer the question.

It's a simple one.

How many filibusters have there been since Obama became President?

FYI: cloture and filibuster are not the same thing.

 

[NickCole]

You could probably split a carbon nanotube if you tried.

What you want me to say is there have been no filibusters which have lasted days on end. A filibuster doesn't have to last a single second. Cloture motions are frequently made to end filibusters before they even start. That being said, there have been fair higher filibusters than cloture motions themselves. Being true, what exactly would that prove again? You got nothing, because before this argument about the use of filibusters you were making arguments about the powers of the President. Obama doesn't have the power to end filibusters either. Read the rules of the Senate. The President of the United States doesn't have the power to end the right of senators to endless debate.

You tried to split hairs in order to make us forget about what the original argument was about so you could pin me to something I didn't say in order to prove your straw-man argument right.

You of all people should know that it doesn't work on me.

ObamaNation. Elmer Gantry. Con. Bamboozle. It's deceit.

Jumble all the words you want into a distraction from your claims that I disputed but that doesn't change the truth.

A filibuster hasn't happened if it doesn't "even start." That's not splitting hairs. That's called the truth.

ObamaNation is being deceitful when they say or imply what you did. Not only have there not been an "unprecedented" number of filibusters since Obama has been President, the fact is there have been no filibusters while Obama has been President.

 

[Kulindahr]

.... you were making arguments about the powers of the President. Obama doesn't have the power to end filibusters either. Read the rules of the Senate. The President of the United States doesn't have the power to end the right of senators to endless debate.

Since we're already wandering here....

I think that if the President can get 3/4 of the House to agree, the Senate should have to get on with business.

Or if he can get 2/3 of the governors of the states to call up their Senators within the same 24-hr period and tell them to get on with it.

 

[NickCole]

There isn't any other reason the Senate seeks cloture.

Cloture is used to cut off a filibuster.

Cloture is used to end debate.

Debate and filibuster are not one and the same. Filibuster is debate but not all debate is filibuster.

It's revealing that you're unable or unwilling to comprehend that the ObamaNation claim of "unprecedented" filibusters is a lie. Not only a lie but an extreme lie because there have in fact been no filibusters at all since Obama was sworn in.

 

[Kulindahr]

There isn't any other reason the Senate seeks cloture.

Cloture is used to cut off a filibuster.

Reviewing the record for cloture in the last few years, it's apparent that it is not infrequently used as a sort of first-strike: we think someone is going to filibuster, so we're going to stop that before anyone starts. In that use, it's fair to say there was no filibuster. It's also used as a pre-emptive strike, when some Senators have said they're going to filibuster, so the countermove is launched first. Technically, there was in such cases no filibuster, but it can be fairly said that cloture was used to counter filibuster. Then there are the cases where it's used after discussion has begun, when Senators have declared they're going to filibuster or are doing so without having said so; then it can be fairly said to have been used to end a filibuster.

I will note that potentially it could be invoked merely to be certain debate is kept short, in which case it has (arguably) nothing to do with filibuster.


So -- you guys care to sort there out accordingly, into:

first strike
pre-emptive strike
close actual discussion


I gather that Nick's case is that it has never been used except for the first two, while Jockboy is maintaining they're all the same. The latter position is a bit simplistic, the former hard to sustain. Suffice it to say, in support of the 'middle ground', that since there have been occasions on which senators declared they would filibuster, and cloture was invoked, it's sheer sophistry to maintain that it has not been used to end filibuster; i.e., there is no case to be made for all the instances falling in the first category.


Care to start tabulating, gentlemen?

 

[Kulindahr]

It's revealing that you....

It's revealing that you....

I think it's revealing that you guys aren't defining your terms. I just offered some distinctions to help sort that out; please make use of them.