2
   

Obstruct/veto/fillibuster:Republicans grind Congress to halt

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 07:15 am
Based on the Senate website -
The 109th Congress had 68 cloture votes in 2 years

The 110th has had 56 cloture votes in less than a year.

The 109th had 20 cloture votes that failed over 2 years
The 110th has had 22 cloture votes fail in 9 months.

I think several of the cloture votes in the 109th are indicative of how the cloture vote can be used to move business along. If you look at some of the nominees where the cloture vote is unanimous, I would consider it just a house keeping move to prevent one or two Senators from dragging a lot of junk to the floor.

But it is interesting how all the instance of cloture in this Senate but one concern legislation or amendments to legislation. The one that is not about legislation was a no confidence vote on Gonzales.

The previous congress had over a dozen cloture votes on nominees. So based on that, there has been a greater need to invoke cloture on legislation in this Congress than in any previous congress.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 07:50 am
nimh wrote:
A vote for cloture is a vote to cut off debate, right. So it is invoked to stop the other side from fillibustering.

Or to cut short genuinely needed debate. There is a difference between the two, but the metric in your initial post ignores it. I don't think it's a very good metric for measuring obstruction by filibuster.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 08:04 am
parados wrote:
According to the Senate rules - cloture is invoked to end debate by limiting the time to 30 hours.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm



Let me just make a quick distinction here - there is a difference between making a motion for cloture and actually invoking it. Invoking cloture requires a roll call vote with 60 or more Senators voiting "Yay". If they don't get the 60 votes then cloture is not invoked (i.e. the motion fails) and debate can continue on indefinitely.

This is why I have questioned the chart from Walter's post. They list 46 cloture votes with the words "invoked to stop debate" but there had only been 20 motions actually invoked as of the July 18 cutoff date they used. The remaining motions either failed or were withdrawn.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 09:06 am
fishin wrote:
parados wrote:
According to the Senate rules - cloture is invoked to end debate by limiting the time to 30 hours.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm



Let me just make a quick distinction here - there is a difference between making a motion for cloture and actually invoking it. Invoking cloture requires a roll call vote with 60 or more Senators voiting "Yay". If they don't get the 60 votes then cloture is not invoked (i.e. the motion fails) and debate can continue on indefinitely.

This is why I have questioned the chart from Walter's post. They list 46 cloture votes with the words "invoked to stop debate" but there had only been 20 motions actually invoked as of the July 18 cutoff date they used. The remaining motions either failed or were withdrawn.


But, the failed motion - the inability to stop debate - is essentially the same thing as killing the bill, unless the Dems wish to shut the gov't down.

You're just plain being disingenuous. For example, when you say 'oh, well, cloture would have passed if two more dems had voted for it, so, really, it's your fault'; that's ridiculous. Nearly all those bills would have passed if Republicans hadn't insisted on motioning for cloture, as they had simple majorities. It is the Republicans who are blocking the legislation through use of the cloture rule; it doesn't have to be invoked, first of all. Second, I can't find any listing at all of cloture being used to start debate; third, the Republicans have been constantly using the rule over the Dem's objections. I think you are full of it when it comes to analysis.

Fact is the Dems have a 1-man advantage in the Senate; it's not enough to overcome continual and constant cloture motions by the Republicans. Now, I personally think the Dems should make them debate ad infinitum if they don't want to invoke Cloture; but with a convenient veto by Bush hanging over the shoulder, I can understand why they don't.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 10:23 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
But, the failed motion - the inability to stop debate - is essentially the same thing as killing the bill, unless the Dems wish to shut the gov't down.


Which is precisely why your cries of obstructionism fail. The failure to invoke cloture is the significant number. Invoking cloture limits debate. Failing to pass it leaves it open for filibuster and then the legislation often dies because no one wants to pull the trigger and face a filibuster. So here's some stastics for you:

2003: 78.57%
1996: 60.00%
1999: 56.82%
1998: 50.00%

1993: 48.84%
1997: 48.48%
1992: 48.39%
2001: 45.45%
2004: 44.12%
1990: 43.48%
2007: 41.07%

1995: 40.48%
1991: 35.71%
2002: 34.00%
2005: 30.77%
1994: 29.73%
2006: 28.57%
1999: 21.43%
2000: 18.52%


Those are the precentage of FAILED cloture motions of reach year back to 1989. The items in blue are when the Democrats were the minority party. Those in red are when the Republicans were the minority. Note where 2007 sits within that grouping so far. (the 2001 and 2002 years switched back and forth between parties in control so they aren't credited to either party.)

Quote:
You're just plain being disingenuous. For example, when you say 'oh, well, cloture would have passed if two more dems had voted for it, so, really, it's your fault'; that's ridiculous. Nearly all those bills would have passed if Republicans hadn't insisted on motioning for cloture, as they had simple majorities.


I'm being disingenuous? lol Look again bud! Where is your evidence that the Republicans made the motions? Maybe we should look at the laundry list of the Senators that made the cloture motion on each of the roll call votes in the list that YOU proivided, eh?

Roll call vote 173: Cloture motion made by: Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Jack Reed, Dick Durbin, Daniel K. Inouye, B.A. Mikulski, Robert Menendez, Amy Klobuchar, Daniel K. Akaka, Maria Cantwell, Jeff Bingaman, Ken Salazar, Dianne Feinstein, Christopher Dodd, Edward Kennedy.

133: Harry Reid, Jeff Bingaman, Chuck Schumer, Jack Reed, Byron L. Dorgan, Ron Wyden, Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Daniel K. Inouye, Daniel K. Akaka, Jim Webb, Dick Durbin, Jay Rockefeller, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara A. Mikulski, Ken Salazar, Edward M. Kennedy, Patrick Leahy.

162: Harry Reid, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Byron L. Dorgan, Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Claire McCaskill, Bernard Sanders, Tom Carper, Max Baucus, Frank R. Lautenberg, Ben Cardin, Robert Menendez, Ken Salazar, Edward Kennedy, H.R. Clinton, Amy Klobuchar.

74: Harry Reid, Carl Levin, Dick Durbin, Byron L. Dorgan, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Barbara Boxer, Edward M. Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Jay Rockefeller, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Debbie Stabenow, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara A. Mikulski, Ben Cardin, Robert Menendez.

228: Ted Kennedy, Russell D. Feingold, Daniel K. Inouye, Tom Carper, Sheldon Whitehouse, Pat Leahy, Richard J. Durbin, Benjamin L. Cardin, Ken Salazar, Frank R. Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Ben Nelson, B.A. Mikulski.

208: Harry Reid, Richard J. Durbin, Kent Conrad, Bernard Sanders, Jeff Bingaman, Dan Inouye, Jon Tester, S. Whitehouse, Debbie Stabenow, Byron L. Dorgan, Amy Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown, Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, H.R. Clinton.

129: Harry Reid, Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, Jack Reed, Jon Tester, Patty Murray, Jeff Bingaman, Amy Klobuchar, Blanche L. Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Benjamin L. Cardin, Max Baucus, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, Byron L. Dorgan, Ken Salazar, Dick Durbin.

23: Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Judd Gregg, Craig Thomas, John E. Sununu, James Inhofe, Jon Kyl, Johnny Isakson, Tom Coburn, Mike Crapo, Wayne Allard, Lamar Alexander, John Cornyn, Jim Bunning, John Ensign, David Vitter, Bob Corker.

206: Harry Reid, Jeff Bingaman, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, Daniel K. Akaka, Jack Reed, Mark Pryor, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Daniel K. Inouye, Herb Kohl, H.R. Clinton, Evan Bayh, Ken Salazar, Debbie Stabenow, Frank R. Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman.

223: Max Baucus, Jay Rockefeller, Kent Conrad, Jeff Bingaman, John Kerry, Blanche L. Lincoln, Charles Schumer, Amy Klobuchar, Byron L. Dorgan, Ron Wyden, Maria Cantwell, Ken Salazar, Daniel K. Akaka, Daniel K. Inouye, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Harry Reid.

130: Harry Reid, Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, Jack Reed, Jon Tester, Patty Murray, Jeff Bingaman, Amy Klobuchar, Blanche L. Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Benjamin L. Cardin, Max Baucus, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, Byron L. Dorgan, Ken Salazar, Dick Durbin.

16: Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Joseph Lieberman, Tom Carper, Ken Salazar, Robert Menendez, Patty Murray, Jon Tester, Jack Reed, Joe Biden, Debbie Stabenow, Daniel K. Akaka, Barbara Mikulski, Benjamin L. Cardin, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy.

Hey! Where are all the Republicans? Shocked



Quote:
I think you are full of it when it comes to analysis.


I think you should stop listening to your own party's propaganda and actually read the Congressiional record. You may think I'm full of it when it comes to analysis but you haven't provided proof of anythng to back up your thinking here yet.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 10:30 am
Jeez, you're dense. You really don't understand how this process works at all.

Debate happens on a bill. Majority leader asks for unanimous consent in moving to a vote. Republicans deny that unanimous consent to move for a vote. Democrats motion for cloture; cloture fails due to Republicans blocking an up-or-down vote.

That's the Republicans insisting on votes for cloture before moving on to the voting period, and the Dems naturally are the ones who have to call for it. So when you list a bunch of Dems on the cloture resolutions, it's meaningless; the Republicans are the ones who force that vote to happen. It is still them who are forcing cloture before moving on with business.

Like I said before - nearly everything the Dems have proposed would have passed this year, if not for Republicans refusing to unanimously consent to moving to a vote. They are using a procedural trick to hold up every piece of legislation they possibly can, and you know it!

I don't think you understand what is being discussed here; with every post, it seems like you get further away from the way the Senate actually works.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 10:50 am
lol I'm dense? I simply responded to YOUR BS claims.

You were the one who claimed "To put it bluntly, the Republicans have fillibustered nearly every vote which has come forth. Much, much, much more then the Dems did in the last two congresses COMBINED." - both of which have been proven to be flat out lies.

Then you claim "Nearly all those bills would have passed if Republicans hadn't insisted on motioning for cloture, as they had simple majorities." which is also false. The Republicans didn't insist on anything. The choice was made by the Democrats.

Quote:
I don't think you understand what is being discussed here; with every post, it seems like you get further away from the way the Senate actually works.


I understand exactly what is being discussed. I'm simply countering your lies and exagerations.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 10:57 am
Okay, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Let's look at just one statement you just made:

Quote:

Then you claim "Nearly all those bills would have passed if Republicans hadn't insisted on motioning for cloture, as they had simple majorities." which is also false. The Republicans didn't insist on anything. The choice was made by the Democrats.


If the Dems didn't move forward with a motion for cloture, in the face of Republicans refusing to unanimously consent to end debate, then there can't be a vote. It wasn't the dems 'choosing' to do anything; the Republicans forced them to do so in order to get the business done.

You do realize, that under normal Senate rules, it only takes a simple majority to pass legislation? And that the vast majority of votes which have come up, have garnered 53-57 votes - enough to pass, in the absence of the Republicans forcing cloture votes on everything?

I can't tell if you are being willfully disingenuous, or just trying to pull my leg. It's as if you believe the cloture motion is something the Dems chose to do, and weren't forced to do, by the Republicans. Your position is ridiculous in the extreme.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 08:05 pm
I'm way behind on this thread.. so much info.

Just to pick on one thing, then:

fishin wrote:
nimh wrote:
A vote for cloture is a vote to cut off debate, right. So it is invoked to stop the other side from fillibustering. Since it is mostly the minority party that is likely to fillibuster, it seems only logical that it would be the majority party leader to propose a cloture vote to stop them from it..


No. Cloture can be to either open or close debate. A cloture motion to proceed is used to open debate. You didn't read the paragraph above the one you quoted here. Wink

I did. You pointed out that cloture can also be used to open debate - but also mentioned the numbers that showed that about twice as often, it is to close the debate.

What I dont get, therefore, is what is supposed to be "really interesting" about the fact that Reid proposed most of the cloture votes?

That's merely logical, isnt it? Since most of these votes are meant to cut off debate, motivated by a justified or unjustified desire to ward off a perceived danger of fillibustering, isnt it merely self-evident that it would be the majority party moving for it?

After all, most any fillibustering will be done by the minority party; so it will be the majority party trying to clamp down on the chances for it.

But you wrote it twice - and it seemed, to me at least, like you were suggesting that Reid having proposed most of those cloture votes contradicted the "Republican fillibustering" claim implied by the graph. So what was it that you thought was "really interesting" about it? What would the contradiction be?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 08:11 pm
Thomas wrote:
nimh wrote:
A vote for cloture is a vote to cut off debate, right. So it is invoked to stop the other side from fillibustering.

Or to cut short genuinely needed debate. There is a difference between the two, but the metric in your initial post ignores it.

I accept that point. It's a good one, and it does relativate the data in the graph at least somewhat.

Considering the towering increase over previous sessions in the graph, I doubt it relativates them enough to undo the bigger picture. But I also accept that there is probably no way to tell with 100% certainty: whether a cloture vote to end debate was brought on to prevent a fillibuster or to cut short genuinely needed debate is probably often just a judgement call.

Open question - and I'm sorry if this has already come up, havent fully read up yet - what do you think? Judging from the info you've seen, do you think the Republicans have been more prone to obstructing legislation that minority parties have generally been in the past, or that it's just been business as usual in this regard?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 08:09 am
nimh wrote:
What I dont get, therefore, is what is supposed to be "really interesting" about the fact that Reid proposed most of the cloture votes?

That's merely logical, isnt it? Since most of these votes are meant to cut off debate, motivated by a justified or unjustified desire to ward off a perceived danger of fillibustering, isnt it merely self-evident that it would be the majority party moving for it?

After all, most any fillibustering will be done by the minority party; so it will be the majority party trying to clamp down on the chances for it.

But you wrote it twice - and it seemed, to me at least, like you were suggesting that Reid having proposed most of those cloture votes contradicted the "Republican fillibustering" claim implied by the graph. So what was it that you thought was "really interesting" about it? What would the contradiction be?


You misunderstood why I saw it as interesting. Reid wasn't the person that initiated most of the motions. That's why I found it interesting that his name was listed for them all. I didn't understand why, for example, if Ted Kennedy was the Senator that proposed the motion and gathered the requisite signatures, Reid's name showed up instead of Kennedy's.

But in digging I found the apparent answer to that. The Senate's WWW site just lists the name of the presiding officer that the motion was presented to - not the person that actually proposed the motion (I suppose they'd have to list all 16 people that signed the motion if they did that.).

In the end it ends up being ho-hum other than that it doesn't provide any way to figure out who the one person was that started the ball rolling on each motion.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 08:07 pm
Quote:
GOP Gets Its Way on the AMT

TNR The Plank
December 07, 2007

It wasn't a proud day for Senate Democrats yesterday, who finally broke down and abandoned their commitment to pay-go budgeting rules by passing a one-year freeze on the Alternative Minimum Tax without any accompanying tax increase or spending cut to make up the lost revenue. (Although it was a proud day for the great state of North Dakota, whose senators Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad provided two of the five votes--all Democratic--in favor of fiscal responsibility.) The House looks like it will soon follow suit, although it at least deserves credit for previously passing an AMT patch with an offset.

No doubt the calculus for Senate Democrats went something like this: it was never going to be possible to get 60 votes for any new source of revenue to offset the AMT, and there could have been big political fallout for Democrats if no AMT patch were passed, so the best course of action was to bite the bullet and get this off the table for a year until after the election, at which time there might be either (a) a bigger Democratic working majority in the Senate, or (b) some bipartisan interest in more fundamental tax reform, of which a permanent AMT fix would be a part. [..]

--Josh Patashnik


Quote:
THE GREAT AMT DEBATE

The Washington Monthly
Political Animal

[..] The backstory here is that in late November Democrats learned that unless an AMT patch was passed quickly, the IRS wouldn't have time to reprogram its computers and lots of people would miss getting their refunds on time. So they fast tracked the patch, but Republicans in the Senate held it up unless they were allowed floor votes on some amendments that would have added additional
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 08:16 pm
Quote:
GOP Gets Its Way on Energy, Too

TNR The Plank
07.12.2007

Another day, another Republican filibuster: McConnell's gang in the Senate just blocked the House energy bill, which would've begun the long, tortuous process of dismantling the country's altar to Big Oil. Dems will now, at the least, have to rip out the provisions requiring states to get 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. (They could try to make the Republicans filibuster the bill "for real," but Reid sounds like he wants to compromise.)

A few years back, Texas passed a similar "portfolio standard" in its statehouse and very rapidly became the wind capital of the countrydidn't want quippedwatch the Chamber of Commerce turn the volume up to 11 on the Lieberman-Warner climate bill that just got sent to the Senate floor (a bill, note, that's likely to be the most lenient cap-and-trade regime big business can ever hope for) ...

--Bradford Plumer
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 03:08 pm
Bookmarked.

I don't understand why the "liberal" media isn't all over this story.

Such a huge amount of obstruction from the republicans, when the democrats barely obstructed them sounds like ripping bad headlines, for both parties.

But the real story that looks bad, is Bush refusing to veto a single bill while the republicans were in power, and now threatening to veto 143.

How partisan does it make both him and his party look?

Maybe they're waiting till next year's election to attack the republicans.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 07:02 pm
Not quite in line with the overall argument of this thread, but on a related note:

Quote:
Dems protest Bush's surprise veto of defense bill

Politico
December 28, 2007

At the behest of the Iraqi government, President Bush has vetoed the annual defense authorization bill, saying an obscure provision in the legislation could make Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks vulnerable to lawsuits.

The veto startled Democratic congressional leaders, who believe Bush is bowing to pressure from the Iraqi government over a provision meant to help victims of state-sponsored terrorism. The veto was unexpected because there was no veto threat and the legislation passed both chambers of Congress overwhelmingly.

Democratic leaders say the provision in question could easily be worked out, but in vetoing the massive defense policy bill, some military pay raises may be on hold, as well as dozens of other programs. The White House contends that pay raises could be retroactive to Jan. 1 if the legislation is fixed.

"We understand that the president is bowing to the demands of the Iraqi government, which is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars invested in U.S. banks if this bill is signed," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), in a joint statement. "The administration should have raised its objections earlier, when this issue could have been addressed without a veto." [..]

At issue is a provision deep in the defense authorization bill, which would essentially allow victims of state sponsored terrorism to sue those countries for damages. The Iraqi government believes the provision, if applied to the regime of Saddam Hussein, could target up to $25 billion in Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks. [..]

"It is unfortunate that the administration failed to identify the concerns upon which this veto is based until after the bill had passed both houses on Congress and was sent to the President for signature," [Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin] said. "I am deeply disappointed that our troops and veterans may have to pay for their mistake and for the confusion and uncertainty caused by their snafu."

What is so unusual about this pending veto is that the White House almost always telegraphs a veto threat while a bill is under consideration so that changes can be made to the legislation to avoid a veto. This defense bill passed the House 370-49 and cleared the Senate on a 90-3 vote. According to Democratic leadership aides, the Bush administration did not raise any objections about the section in question until after the bill was transmitted to the White House.

Lautenberg contends that his provision is aimed at holding countries like Iran responsible for state sponsored terrorism, including the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit in 1983. The measure would allow plaintiffs to target hidden commercial assets owned by countries that sponsor terrorism, and the language is not aimed at Iraq specifically. The Lautenberg amendment has 30 cosponsors, including a handful of conservative Republicans like Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). [..]

A spokeswoman for the families of the Marines killed in the 1983 Beirut bombing issued a statement Friday afternoon saying she was disappointed with the veto.

"We have waited and wept and prayed and worked for 24 long years for justice," said Lynn Smith Derbyshire, whose brother was killed in the Beirut attack. "We implore President Bush and all our national leaders to remember that the goal of these provisions is to hold terrorists accountable for their actions."
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Feb, 2008 11:21 am
The Senate GOP obstructs, McCain ducks
Sen. Obama, take note


Quote:
McCAIN AND THE GOP

By now, everybody knows that the Senate version of the economic stimulus bill failed to overcome a Republican filibuster yesterday. You need 60 votes for that, and the final tally was 59-40. (Harry Reid changed his vote at the end for parliamentary reasons, so the reported tally was 58-41)

Part of story here is that John McCain, alone among senators, failed to show up to vote, and his vote could have made the difference. Mr. Straight Talk apparently didn't want to risk conservative backlash by voting in favor of moving forward, but also didn't want to risk his beloved independent cred by joining a party line vote against it. So he stayed home. It was a real profile in courage.

Mocking McCain's pretensions is always worthwhile, but there's a much bigger point to make too. The differences between the Senate bill and the original House/Bush bill were pretty modest. The Senate bill changed the distribution of the tax breaks slightly, extended unemployment benefits a few weeks, and offered heating aid for the poor, along with a few goodies specifically designed to appeal to Republicans. The grand total of the changes amounted to $44 billion over two years. This is not a huge amount of money.

Now, it's obvious that everyone believes a stimulus bill of some kind is a good idea (the House bill passed nearly unanimously), so it's not as if anyone voted against the Senate version because they believe it's a fundamentally flawed concept. And since the last month's worth of economic news has been uniformly bad, no one who believes in stimulus has any real reason to balk at fattening up the package a bit. This wasn't a principled stand about letting the economy work things out on its own.

But what happened? Republicans filibustered the larger bill and then sustained the filibuster on virtually a party line vote. Why? Because it had a few billion dollars of spending targeted at Democratic priorities. There's nothing more to it.

The moral of the story is this: Republicans have no intention of ever working with Democrats on anything remotely like a bipartisan basis. Even on something as trivial as this, they filibustered and won. They will do the same thing next year no matter who's president. They will do it on every single bill, no matter how minor. They will never stop obstructing. Period. Presidential hopefuls, take note.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Feb, 2008 01:33 pm
Quote:
The moral of the story is this: Republicans have no intention of ever working with Democrats on anything remotely like a bipartisan basis.


We ought to understand that this is not merely a cynical interpretation. It is now an axiom.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Feb, 2008 03:46 pm
blatham wrote:
Quote:
The moral of the story is this: Democrats have no intention of ever working with Republicans on anything remotely like a bipartisan basis.


We ought to understand that this is not merely a cynical interpretation. It is now an axiom.


Fixed.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What makes people vote Republican? - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
The 2008 Republican Convention... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Another Republican Scum-Bag - Discussion by BigEgo
Another Republican Moron Jim DeMint - Discussion by BigEgo
Another Silly, Stupid Republican! - Discussion by BigEgo
Republicans hate the working class - Discussion by BigEgo
Republicans Dumb and Dumber - Discussion by BigEgo
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 03:00:31