Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  3 4 5 6 7  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Father Tom
CPA, VietNam Vet, Not a Priest
06:33 PM on 10/28/2010
Laying the groundwork for more DADT game-playing.
PaulArt
Under 50 and Screwed by the TParty65+
06:28 PM on 10/28/2010
The timing of course is impeccable! This was not mentioned all during our major legislative brawls but is trotted out now. One wonders if Obama wants to wish away the filibuster because he fears true Liberal Democrats in the Senate will thwart the Blue Dog-GOP-Obama agenda after the election? I mean, thats what Clinton did after 1994, right? 1994-2000 was one long party for the Blue Dogs and DINOs.
06:12 PM on 10/28/2010
Republicans won't allow fillibuster reform. They don't actually want to pass their extremist policies into law, because if they did they wouldn't win an election for a decade. It's much better for them to string along their base like they've always done. They want a government that can't do anything because that's what large corporations tell them to do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nanoscare
a bio to fill up every space that it possibly can.
10:29 PM on 10/28/2010
That is why so many Senate Democrats are silent on this issue as well. They want the excuse of blaming the other side.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DrDooit
Damn! It feels good to be a liberal!
06:02 PM on 10/28/2010
The Rebiblicans will filibuster the filibuster reform. Anything that has the word "reform" attached to it, the Party of No will refuse to legislate it. The Rebiblicans have no interest in promoting the general welfare nor ensuring domestic tranquility. Congress as a whole work no more for the common good.
06:13 PM on 10/28/2010
I don't believe they can use a filibuster during the establishment of the rules that starts each congress. I may be wrong on this but I think any rules changes are a simple majority vote. The issue is that each change sets precedent thus the "nuclear option" that the right was threatening to use a couple years ago would never have been used because it would have set the precedent that the filibuster could not be used.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nanoscare
a bio to fill up every space that it possibly can.
10:27 PM on 10/28/2010
I thought the nuclear option was to have the parliamentarian rule in effect that they could change the rules by simple majority at any time... not just at the beginning of a new session.
photo
apiazza
There is no such thing as a fiscal conservative.
06:01 PM on 10/28/2010
I don't think eliminating the filibuster is the answer. Reforming it should be. Perhaps make it a requirement that anyone who uses the filibuster must stand up there and talk for all of the time they want to delay.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:58 PM on 10/28/2010
Don't know if he's noticed or not, but most have sent him the signal that they don't care what he wants.
06:13 PM on 10/28/2010
His 54% popularity puts Republican presidents to shame.

Face it. He's a winner and your guy is a war criminal.
06:26 PM on 10/28/2010
I'm a liberal democrat who voted for Obama....and "winner"...is a little over the top.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:30 PM on 10/28/2010
Really? Still in Iraq? Still in afganistan? Still using drones? Still killing civilians? Still using extraordinary rendition? Still using secret prisons? Still doing whatever the corps tell him to do?

Wait... What's the diff again?
06:38 PM on 10/28/2010
Who cares if you care or not. He is you president for at least two more years. Deal!
05:55 PM on 10/28/2010
No, no, and no again. I hope the President is merely trying to be presidential here. The Democrats are always trying to take the moral high ground and "do what's right." Unfortunately, doing "what's right" would leave the Democrats without a big enough weapon to stop the Republicans from dismantling the social safety net from top to bottom and imposing their own radical fundamentalist, free market agenda on the rest of us. The Democrats need to look to the day when the Republicans have the White House, the House, and the Senate. If you want people like Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, and Rand Paul to have carte blanche authority to remake the country, go ahead and reform the filibuster. The Democrats can then sit among the ruins and take comfort in the fact that they "did the right thing."

I say that if the Democrats really want to do something to help the American people, they should change their own party from the inside out. Get a political message machine and go nuclear on the GOP. The Democrats' wimpy, wonkish approach to politics is what has put them on the ropes in this election. This isn't debate club, people. It's politics, and it's a bloodsport. It's time to put away the "goody two shoes" handbook and start playing by the prison rules of the GOP.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Wong23
Card-carrying Progressive
05:55 PM on 10/28/2010
The filibuster is an undemocratic and elitist tool designed to increase the power of each individual Senator at the expense of the American people.

These Country Club good lo boys and girls will not voluntarily give it up. They just feed us that rhetoric every so often.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
stopthemadness69
We The People or We The Corporations?
05:48 PM on 10/28/2010
A democracy is supposed to run off of what the majority wants, regardless of who's in power at any given time. If we the people put democrats in control then democrats should get to do things their way and vice versa. Do away with it and maybe the senate can deal with the 300 pieces of legislation waiting for their attention.
05:48 PM on 10/28/2010
Democrats worry about changing fillibuster rules because it could hurt them when they are out of power. Maybe, but one way for Democrats to guarantee they will be out of power is to continue to let Republicans block every bit of progressive legislation introduced in Congress.
05:47 PM on 10/28/2010
Some of the right-wingers had dreams of overturning the New Deal, after Republican Dwight Eisenhower was elected President.

(They were the teabaggers of their time.) Eisenhower wouldn't go for it. In 1954, he said:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate

labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.

There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt

(you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or

businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
1murillo
Can't be neutral on a moving train - Zinn
05:43 PM on 10/28/2010
Reid, speaking with Maddow, also said the filibuster needed to be reformed. Finally they're talking about it as if they seriously think it's a problem.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
devildog21
"War is a Racket" -Smedley D. Butler MajGen USMC
05:48 PM on 10/28/2010
Too little, too late I'm afraid.
05:39 PM on 10/28/2010
The "Kilibuster" is killing us.

We can't even get free debate.
05:35 PM on 10/28/2010
"Gibbs: Obama Wants Filibuster Reformed Even If GOP Takes Over Congress"

Of course he does!

Now that the only people it will help will be the Republicans.

They'll take over the House &, when all is said & done, in Jan. 2011 they will be in control of the Senate.

mark my words
05:42 PM on 10/28/2010
The filibuster is nowhere to be found in the Constitution --

it was an invention of the elitist Senate.
photo
apiazza
There is no such thing as a fiscal conservative.
06:06 PM on 10/28/2010
The filibuster is not in the Constitution, yet it is Constitutional. Article 1, Section 5 states that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,".
06:11 PM on 10/28/2010
The Constitution gives the Senate the power to make it's own rules.

Lots of stuff isn't in the constitution.
photo
apiazza
There is no such thing as a fiscal conservative.
05:43 PM on 10/28/2010
GOP will not get the Senate. They will have to run the table for that.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
whirlybird
Time's a-wastin'!
07:07 PM on 10/28/2010
true dat
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
1murillo
Can't be neutral on a moving train - Zinn
12:38 PM on 10/29/2010
Agree, it won't get the Senate.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:35 PM on 10/28/2010
In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the Senate unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted Rule 22, at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation until cloture was invoked after a 57 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths.
05:41 PM on 10/28/2010
The filibuster is nowhere to be found in the Constitution --

it was an invention of the elitist Senate.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
1murillo
Can't be neutral on a moving train - Zinn
05:45 PM on 10/28/2010
It was also a rule in the House until they got rid of it in the late nineteenth century.