Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Grand Obstructionist Party Blocks Pro-Troop Amendment and More

Posted by Steve Benen at 6:49 AM on September 20, 2007.


Steve Benen: A Republican colleague told Sen. Conrad (D-ND) it's their strategy to prevent any accomplishment of the Democratic Congress.
trentlottmg5
Trent

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

Looking over today's posts thus far, a trend emerges -- Republican blocked a habeas corpus bill from coming to a vote. They also blocked a bill to give DC residents a voice in Congress from coming to a vote. Jim Webb's amendment to give troops equal time off for the time they spend in combat will be blocked from coming to a vote. The Senate Democratic leadership is working on a funding bill for Iraq that includes a withdrawal timeline, which Republicans will block from coming to a vote.

And that's just from news items today. Kevin Drum highlights the problem we've been watching all year.

Republicans aren't just obstructing legislation at normal rates. They're obstructing legislation at three times the usual rate. They're absolutely desperate to keep this stuff off the president's desk, where the only choice is to either sign it or else take the blame for a high-profile veto.
As things stand, though, Republicans will largely avoid blame for their tactics. After all, the first story linked above says only that the DC bill "came up short in the Senate" and the second one that the habeas bill "fell short in the Senate." You have to read with a gimlet eye to figure out how the vote actually broke down, and casual readers will come away thinking that the bills failed because of some kind of generic Washington gridlock, not GOP obstructionism. [...]
Would it really be so hard for reporters to make it clear exactly who's responsible for blocking these bills?
This isn't a new problem, but it is an unprecedented (and undemocratic) one. Indeed, senators have been taking advantage of filibusters for generations, but we've never had a Senate minority that is as reckless and obstructionist as Senate Republicans in 2007.

For years, Republicans, with a 55-seat majority, cried like young children if Dems even considered a procedural hurdle. They said voters would punish obstructionists. They said it was borderline unconstitutional. They said to stand in the way of majority rule was to undermine a basic principle of our democratic system.

And wouldn't you know it, the shameless hypocrites didn't mean a word of it.

The Republican minority has created a de facto 60-vote minimum to do anything of substance in the Senate. They'll allow routine up-or-down votes on renaming post offices, or those rare bills that enjoy near-unanimous support, but otherwise, it's filibuster time on the Senate floor. And while the number of filibusters has been going up pretty consistently for 20 years, these Republicans appear to be in a league of their own.

Their excuses are pretty pathetic.
"You can't say that all we're going to do around here in the United States Senate is have us govern by 51 votes -- otherwise we might as well be unicameral, because then we would have the Senate and the House exactly the same," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
To which Reid responds: "The problem we have is that we don't have many moderate Republicans. I don't know what we can do to create less cloture votes other than not file them, just walk away and say, 'We're not going to do anything.' That's the only alternative we have."
McCain's rationale is pretty absurd. He's effectively arguing: Water down bills or we'll bring the chamber to a halt. This from a man who used to say "elections have consequences."

If Republicans don't like a bill, they can vote against it. If it passes anyway, they can urge the president to veto it. But holding the chamber hostage just further demonstrates why the modern GOP is unwilling to govern responsibly.

Besides, this isn't about the GOP waiting for bipartisan bills; it's about obstructionism. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said a Republican colleague of his told him that a strategy has been adopted by the minority to "prevent any accomplishment" by the new Congress:

"I had a Republican colleague tell me it is the Republican strategy to try to prevent any accomplishment of the Democratic Congress. That is set in their caucus openly and directly that they don't intend to allow Democrats to have any legislative successes, and they intend to do it by repeated filibuster."
The only resolution is public outrage, which might encourage the GOP to allow the Senate to start voting on bills again, and which might happen if reporters would do their jobs.

In April, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail ... and so far it's working for us."

And it's failing for the rest of the country.

Digg!

Tagged as: webb, warner, iraq war, lott, mccain, republican party, democratic congress, us troops, conrad

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


China on Reducing Its Carbon Footprint: Why Should We Have to?
They've got a point. Per capita, China only produces 20 percent of America's carbon emissions.
Post by Robert Dreyfuss. November 24, 2009.
Supremes to Decide if Idle Rich's Scenic Ocean Views More Important than Public Beaches, the Environment
A popular coastal reclamation program is being threatened by short-sighted scumbags.
Post by Joshua Holland. November 24, 2009.
Will Joe Lieberman Be the Only Dem to Sabotage Health Reform?
Joe Lieberman will work with Republicans to kill health care reform, no matter the consequences for the millions who are counting on this bill to pass.
Post by Steve Benen. November 24, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
the surprise is: there is no surprise to this!
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Sep 20, 2007 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i, for one, think guns should be mandatory for members of congress. when a sonofabitch crosses you like this, you take out the opposition. given that, there would be fewer candidates for the job and fewer obstructionists barring 'the work of the people'. what a bunch of whining panty-waist, constitution-raping, chickensh*t republicans.

*wakes up*

*oh, god. this IS kansas, toto!*

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Irresponsible
Posted by: dayenta on Sep 20, 2007 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Repugs have been governing irresponsibly since they took the majority. Why should they change now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A representative assembly is based upon parliamentary and legal procedures.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Sep 20, 2007 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Granted when the Republicans are in the minority and use procedure to 'stone wall' or 'slow down' legislation the Democrats will complain. And granted when the Democrats are in the minority and do the same thing Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans will cue and cry "obstructionists" and "just vote". Unfortunately most people never have taken civics, apparently, or aren't familiar with 'Roberts Rules of Order' or the Congressional and Senate rules and procedures (or history) to understand that this is by design to protect the minorities, smaller states, and individuals in a republican form of government in a parliamentarian assembly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

time for the nuclear option??...
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Sep 20, 2007 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
tempting..but while that might push needed legislation through the senate.. they still require 67 votes.. and the danger of a repugnican majority in 2009 is too great...if the dems win the POTUS..however..then they should prolly think about it...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time for the Dems to obstruct
Posted by: chaoslegs on Sep 20, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fight fire with fire.

Don't let Bush's nominations out of committees. If they don't move from there, they can't come to a vote. They will whine, scream and kick, but when the reporter follows their tantrum. You then need to shine the light on their tactics and what they have been doing.

How is the different than the fillibuster? How is the different than what you did to Pres. Clinton?

Of course this requires an establishment/inside the beltway media that doesn't provide the valley for the echo chamber of the right, but actually reports. Well I can dream.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» but it is different: Posted by: gregii
14% approval rating
Posted by: Slmncty on Sep 21, 2007 12:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most people understand that Dems. with a slim majority can not invoke cloture to advance a bill to vote. Republicans point to a 14% approval of congress as Dem failure. What republicans don't realize is that 14% is their rating by the people! Dems. only tool is in committee. Investigate, investigate, investigate along with gridlock all other business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]