GOP filibustering everything

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

*Shrug* Appeal to the dictionary, is more like it.

You'd think the fact that you have your own personal definition of words would give you pause. Filibuster, socialism ... we really need a Cali-to-English translation when talking to you.

Exactly.

Er, wait- there already is an English book that describes what you are after. It's called Websters.

I didn't use the word "force."

Right. "Not let" doesn't suggest any force whatsoever.

In other news, Congress today passed a law saying the government won't let anyone speed. People who do actually speed can expect they will need to compromise with the officer who catches them or just continue doing what they are doing until they feel shamed into stopping.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Right. "Not let" doesn't suggest any force whatsoever.

LOL.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So when you said "force," you actually meant "force" ... Your use of the word "force" ...

Nice try, weasel.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

LOL.



Nice try, weasel.

Now you're just being rude.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Now you're just being rude.

You reap what you sow.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You reap what you sow.

I'm not going to let you get away with that. By which I mean, I won't actually do anything about it. Just trying to speak your language.

[Tex]

Getting back to the subject of hypocrisy, via Megan McArdle, here's a NY Times editorial from back during the Bush-Social Security reform days (june 23, 2005):

Congressional Republicans have begun talking with top White House aides about an exit strategy -- not from Iraq, but from the winless quagmire of President Bush's campaign to privatize Social Security. Mr. Bush has responded to this new political reality by, first, insisting that the American people do not yet understand the virtues of privatization, and second, blaming the failure of his deservedly unpopular plan on Congressional Democrats.
That's absurd.

After listening to Mr. Bush talk of little else during his second term, the American people understand quite well what he is proposing for Social Security, and by wide margins reject it. In fact, the polls show that the more they learn about privatization, the less they like it. And with good reason. The very real risks of privatization -- in terms of retirement security and the enormous budgetary cost to the country -- far outweigh the potential rewards.

So when Congressional Republican leaders tell the president that Social Security private accounts are a nonstarter, they are conveying the informed views of their constituents.

Mr. Bush has reacted by railing against Democrats for obstruction -- as if Democrats are duty-bound to breathe life into his agenda and, even sillier, as if opposing a plan that the people do not want is an illegitimate tactic for an opposition party.

Rather than accept defeat and consider alternatives, Mr. Bush is becoming even more feckless as public and political opposition mounts. On Tuesday, in a lame ploy to draw the Democrats to the table, he gave tepid approval to a proposal by Robert Bennett, the stalwart conservative senator from Utah, to restore the system's solvency in a way that would not include private accounts -- all the while saying that he was not prepared to give up private accounts.

Sounds pretty supportive of obstructionist tactics and calls Bush to recognize polls reflecting its unpopularity, no? So naturally, we'd expect them to be consistent for health care too.

It would be a terrible mistake for Democrats to abandon comprehensive health care reform just because voters in the Massachusetts Senate race last week decided that they liked the Republican, Scott Brown, more than the Democrat, Martha Coakley.

There is no question that without a filibuster-proof majority* it will be a lot harder to pass a bill. But it should not be impossible if Congressional Democrats and the White House show courage and creativity. Health care reform is too important to throw away, and it is not too late to persuade voters that it is in their interest.

Many panicky Democrats see Mr. Brown's win as proof that angry voters will punish them in November if they press ahead with reform. We believe that is a misreading of what happened and what's possible.

...

Recent polls show that the public is divided, with more opposing the bills than favoring them. The negatives have been driven up by critics' distortions about a supposed government takeover of medicine and the tawdry deal-making necessary to win 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

... And the politics on Capitol Hill -- where the Republicans are determined to oppose pretty much anything President Obama endorses -- are unlikely to get easier.

The most promising path forward would be for House Democrats to pass the Senate bill as is and send it to the president for his signature. That would allow the administration and Congress to pivot immediately to job creation and other economic issues. The Senate bill is not perfect, but it would expand coverage to 94 percent of all citizens and legal residents by 2019, reduce the deficit for decades to come, and create pilot programs to move the medical system toward better care at lower costs.

Funny contrast.

*Filibuster-proof. As in, 60 votes.