@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Do you have demonstrable proof of that assertion?
Sure. The Republicans have filibustered pretty much every single thing that has been put forth in the Senate this cycle - twice as much as the previous high point for filibusters.
It is obvious to everyone - except the rankest of ideologues, George - that the strategy is not based on individual bills, but instead on an overall plan to make Obama and Washington look bad.
Read for yourself - McConnell has as much as admitted that they will do every single thing they can to score political points, by using procedural tricks to slow ALL legislation, not only to make the Dems and Obama look bad (and to water their bills down), but to make Americans lose confidence in Washington - a key Republican talking point.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/02/12/1078256/senate-republicans-filibuster.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yuna-shin/mitch-mcconnells-strategy_b_509216.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html?_r=1
Here's Biden talking about it:
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/06/biden_accuses_g.php
Quote: "I know at least 7 [GOP] senators, who I will not name, but were made to make a commitment under threat of losing their chairmanships, if they did not support the leadership on every procedural vote," Biden said at a fundraiser Monday night.
"Every single thing we did, from the important to the not so important, required for the first time in modern American history, majority votes required 60 votes. All the sudden a majority became 60 instead of 50," the VP added, according to a pool report of the event.
He's correct - McConnell now regularly claims that 60 votes is 'normal' for legislation in the Senate, and that this is 'how the Founding Fathers intended the Senate to function.' Both totally false statements.
This, however, is the statement that I think you will find the most convincing:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100320_9241.php
Quote: McConnell: In January of 2009, I looked at a lot of poll data, and the ray of hope that I could give my members was that the independents that wiped us out in ‘06 and ‘08 held similar views, ones that I knew most of my members had, on spending and national security. I thought we could regain their confidence on spending and national security. Then as the year unfolded — whether it became the stimulus, the budget, Guantanamo, health care — what I tried to do and what John [Boehner] did very skillfully, as well, was to unify our members in opposition to it. Had we not done that, I don’t think the public would have been as appalled as they became over the fact that the government was now running banks, insurance companies, car companies, taking over the student-loan business, which they’re going to try to do in this health care bill, and taking over one-sixth of the economy.
Public opinion can change, but it is affected by what elected officials do. Our reaction to what they were doing had a lot to do with how the public felt about it. Republican unity in the House and Senate has been the major contributing factor to shifting American public opinion. I’ve spent an enormous amount of time working among our members to try to get us all on the same page. This year we had a remarkable level of harmony, and that doesn’t happen overnight. It’s a constant effort to try to interact, communicate, and persuade. My view is that the most important vote is the next vote.
Here's Yglesias describing this admission:
Quote:That’s exactly right. Since January of 2009, instead of sticking their fingers in the wind and only opposing unpopular initiatives, Republicans have reduced the popularity of initiatives by opposing them. The blanket opposition makes Obama’s initiatives look “partisan” and then it leads, necessarily, to Democratic infighting that further reduces support. If you don’t care at all about the welfare of human beings, this is a very smart strategy.
Quote:How can you tell the difference between opposition to the specifics of proposed legislation and "the intent to make Democrats look bad"?
Oh, I think a great way to confirm that is to point out that this year Grassley, Snowe, Lindsey Graham, and McCain all voted against bills
that they originally co-sponsored, in order to keep them from getting cloture and moving forward. You don't see that all that often, unless the goal is to keep anything at all from passing.
Quote:Do you suppose the Democrs aren't trying just as hard to make the Republicans look bad? Do you believe there is any substantial difference here?
The statistics don't lie, George: the Republicans have abused the procedures badly in both the House and the Senate, to a far greater degree than the Democrats ever did. They have held up an unprecedented number of nominations, so many so that it has actively hurt the Democrats' ability to run the country.
And if you think that's not true, go ahead and challenge me to provide data. I dare ya.
Quote:The "mandate for change" the Denocrats claimed after the last election appears to be slipping out of their hands. Whose fault is that?
I would blame that on the Department of Useless and Baseless Assertions, George. The only Bureaucracy that you are a proud member of.
Cycloptichorn
