AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I do know how you define the word. Obstructionism is the use of lawful and time honored parliamentary rules and united voting opposition to resist the agenda of the holy Democrat party led by the sainted trio of Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

True though: I don't think it is bad at all.

As I rather clearly noted above there is far more to parliamentary maneuvering than just fillibusters. The perogatives of the majority include the decisions of committe chairmen on a host of issues ranging from the drafting of legislation to the rules of procedure for debating them; the Speaker and majority leader have ample powers to control debate, the addition (or prohibition) of amendments to pending legislation .... all of which the Democrats usef to the fullest measure during the now ending Congressional term. The fillibuster is simply the tool of the minority.

all of which the Democrats usef to the fullest measure during the now ending Congressional term.

Quote:

all of which the Democrats usef to the fullest measure during the now ending Congressional term.

And your evidence of this is....?

unwilling to negotiate on, were unwilling to allow amendments on, were unwilling to allow debate on

This is a good thing.
However, the dems need to realize that when the repubs are back in the majority, and it will happen, that they will be forced to abide those same rules.
This is a case of "be careful what you wish for, you might get it".

See my above post - the Dems are going to make that tool a hell of a lot harder to use, in large part because the Republicans have abused the rule to every extent possible.

I would remind you that the Filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution and has no basis in history as something that should be respected - at all. The Senate was never intended to work this way by those who created it.

I shouldn't have to point out that the way the minority is supposed to get power is through negotiation and argumentation. Not through trickery

Cycloptichorn wrote:

See my above post - the Dems are going to make that tool a hell of a lot harder to use, in large part because the Republicans have abused the rule to every extent possible.

A bullying approach like that is not likely to succeed unless Republicans also believe some reform is needed.

Given the results of the recent election, I believe we will find that the unity of Congressional Democrats is no longer what it once was. My impression is that a major factor in the public change of heart with respect to the progressive Democrat platform was precisely that all-to-obvious conviction on the part of left wing Democrats that what they wanted was right beyond doubt or correction and that they had some kind of right to impose it on everyone else. These battles, of course, aren't over but the game is profoundly different now.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would remind you that the Filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution and has no basis in history as something that should be respected - at all. The Senate was never intended to work this way by those who created it.

Have you suddenly become an advocate of "original intent" with respect to the Constitution and the operations of our government? If so there are many other direct consequences of that position that I will be glad to explain to you.

The filibuster is what it is and that is an explicitly permissable parliamentary procedure in accordance with Senate rules.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I shouldn't have to point out that the way the minority is supposed to get power is through negotiation and argumentation. Not through trickery

How do you define "trickery"? Is Nancy Pelosi's unprecedented decision to roll up thirteen or so independent government appropriations bills - all of which should have been passed or voted on last summer , but were delayed because they didn't want to face the deficit music before the election - into a single omnibus appropriation in the last days of a lame duck Congress, and then salt it with wasteful giveaways targeted at key members of the Congress in order to lure votes a form of trickery?

You are sometimes very self-servingly selective in defining the boundaries of the issues you raise. Not as bad as Parados, who is always slyly (but still obviously) selective in the data he chooses to examine, but bad enough.

Trickery is when the minority uses parlimentary maneuvers to prevent the majority from passing bills. Trickery is when the House Republicans vote to adjourn 6 times a day, every day of the term, in order to 'run out the clock.' Which is exactly what they did. You should realize that the Dems would have liked to get a LOT of this business done earlier, but the Republicans' insistence on making EVERY VOTE take as long as possible prevented them from doing this.

OK, the Republicans are certainly guilty of trickery as you have defined it. That of course means that instead of proving the point (as you so often fault me for failing to do) you instead resort to definitions to dress your conclusions up as tautologies.