Community Messageboard: Any argument made by Dowd is suspect from the start;) by random thoughts

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Any argument made by Dowd is suspect from the start

random thoughts Send a noteboard - 18/01/2010 10:39:28 PM

First, should the senate have rules that allow a large minority group to block major legislation? I think it should have some mechanism in place to do that.

I guess the main argument against that is the one that one of the NYT columnists, either Dowd or Collins I think, made in a column the other day: through the Senate and its considerable power, the small states already have a serious advantage. Any rule or system that requires even more votes in the Senate - i.e., even more support from smaller states - to pass, makes that advantage even greater.

That is a designed in feature of our government. The senate is set up to give power to the smaller states and to keep them from being pushed around by larger ones. The senate’s power may have increased slightly but so has the executive and judicial. Large states have much more impact with those so by and large it balances out. If anything I would say the power has shifted to larger states over the years. We push comes to shove liberals are not upset that Montana has to much political power, they are upset that it has any.

The second argument is should it be so easy and there I agree with you. The minority party should not be allowed to play the role pure obstructionist and simply block every thing that comes down the pipe. I would have no problem if they made them actually get up there and talk not stop for days on end.

Yeah. The crux of the matter is that that one small rule change that the Senate passed, without the House or Supreme Court or president or anyone else having a say in it, results in a de facto requirement of 60 votes for almost any remotely controversial legislation.

They don't need the approval of either of those bodies. The constitution gives the senate the power to set up their own rules and no one is given oversight of those rules. If the senate were to decide they could remove the filibuster option or modify it to make it weaker. They only need 50 votes to that so all they really lack is the political will.

I think the real solution though is both sides to learn to be less partisan. Republicans are getting away with it this cycle but if all they call point out is things they have stopped they will have a toughs time come 2012 and if all the dems can do is complain that the republicans stopped them it could be tough on incumbents all around. If unemployment is still over 8% come 2012 finger pointing and excuses won’t get you much.

I agree, it really doesn't seem to be going the right way. At the time of the Sotomayor confirmation, a few Republicans were taking steps in the right direction, but with all this health care fuss, partisanship seems to be running as high as ever. But as you say, if this is how it's gonna be from now on, both parties are just going to take turns in winning and then losing elections, with American voters growing more and more discontent with both parties. Republicans - like Brown now in Massachusetts - are getting votes not because people think they'd do better, but because people want the Democrats out of power. It's turning very ugly, and very much not what the US needs to take on the challenges of the 21st century (not that this is strictly an American problem, many countries seem to have some variation of it).

I don't know I think if dems had focused on issues were there was common ground they could accomplish a lot. The problem is they have been focused on pushing through an agenda that never had any chance of gaining republican support. They are having trouble even getting support from the more moderate portions of their own party. I don’t believe the republicans are fighting them simply to be partisan so much as the dems have picked partisan issues to fight about.

There is a laundry list of things like immigration and banking that they could have focused their energy on and gotten real bipartisan support. They failed.

Bush was able to get bipartisan support for his programs even when they didn’t pass. Obama should at least be able to be less polarizing then Bush.

The bottom line is independents control this country right now and they want compromise. A lot of Obama’s appeal was that he was going to heal these problems not aggravate them. Now the independents are set to send a message. I honestly hope Obama and company get the message and change because unlike Rush I would like to see Obama succeed, I just don’t have much faith that he will.

Reply to message

Could the Dems really lose in Mass - Kennedy's seat?

trzaska2000 - 18/01/2010 03:19:29 PM 584 Views

to quote yogi berra: it ain't over till it's over moondog - 18/01/2010 04:10:26 PM 169 Views

Oh, if Brown wins, I'm sure he will be out next election..... trzaska2000 - 18/01/2010 04:28:05 PM 168 Views

it works both ways you know moondog - 18/01/2010 04:37:40 PM 179 Views

I disagree... Dominic - 20/01/2010 04:11:15 AM 199 Views

Even if he loses and it is close I think it will scare a lot of democrats random thoughts - 18/01/2010 04:15:03 PM 178 Views

You may be right on that last bit, unfortunately... *NM* Legolas - 18/01/2010 04:18:37 PM 81 Views

Agreed - blunder of epic proportions! *NM* trzaska2000 - 18/01/2010 04:30:18 PM 79 Views

If we don't get a handle on healthcare it will destroy the economy. Joel - 18/01/2010 06:01:18 PM 169 Views

It makes people question their priorities random thoughts - 18/01/2010 08:17:16 PM 239 Views

Maybe they should. Joel - 18/01/2010 09:47:11 PM 196 Views

You act like America is a collective random thoughts - 18/01/2010 10:16:39 PM 254 Views

Is it? What are the Republicans offering for the non-insured? Legolas - 18/01/2010 10:20:42 PM 157 Views

Tort reform Floffe - 18/01/2010 10:33:01 PM 155 Views

Ah yes. Which they're quite right about, of course - but one item does not a policy make. *NM* Legolas - 18/01/2010 10:35:55 PM 80 Views

purchase insurance across state lines random thoughts - 18/01/2010 10:44:54 PM 156 Views

the dems don't see insurance companies as the enemy either moondog - 18/01/2010 11:09:24 PM 155 Views

Exactly. Joel - 19/01/2010 02:09:49 AM 261 Views

that simply proves they are inept random thoughts - 19/01/2010 01:45:33 PM 153 Views

Or in the lobbies' pockets, or both; now you understand why the left is as mad as the right. Joel - 19/01/2010 11:55:14 PM 180 Views

Of course they did nothing for the 6 years they controlled Congress. everynametaken - 19/01/2010 12:39:44 AM 162 Views

That isn't true, my mother-in-law can now afford to buy her medicine random thoughts - 19/01/2010 01:57:28 PM 235 Views

Curious about the last part. Joel - 20/01/2010 12:05:40 AM 246 Views

There are some basic flaws in your argument random thoughts - 20/01/2010 03:18:58 PM 154 Views

The state laws are the result of the gentlemens agreement and the feds not minding the store. Joel - 20/01/2010 06:18:50 PM 215 Views

The insurance exchanges in the Senate bill will already do that. Joel - 19/01/2010 02:25:32 AM 186 Views

America, like all groups of people, IS a collective, however diverse. Joel - 19/01/2010 02:02:24 AM 287 Views

but it doesn't think like a collective random thoughts - 20/01/2010 03:25:29 PM 147 Views

Yes, I realize human beings are selfish; that's something to overcome, not embrace. Joel - 20/01/2010 06:21:33 PM 140 Views

Human nature can not be overcome it can only be redirected random thoughts - 20/01/2010 07:03:46 PM 154 Views

That's a bigger debate than politics.

Joel - 20/01/2010 10:42:02 PM 263 Views

I know who I'm voting for!

LiterateDog - 18/01/2010 04:26:29 PM 199 Views

I'm starting to think..... trzaska2000 - 18/01/2010 04:33:23 PM 180 Views

Certainly, he wouldn't stand a chance without protest votes. *NM* Legolas - 18/01/2010 04:45:37 PM 86 Views

That whole "filibuster-proof" concept was a lot more valid... Legolas - 18/01/2010 04:44:51 PM 194 Views

I have seen this argument elsewhere and I am not sure it makes sense random thoughts - 18/01/2010 05:28:57 PM 235 Views

It does not make sense if it's used in a partisan way, that's true. Legolas - 18/01/2010 05:43:10 PM 263 Views

I think the fillibuster is with in the spirit and the law on the constitution random thoughts - 18/01/2010 06:03:55 PM 237 Views

Fair enough. Legolas - 18/01/2010 10:00:16 PM 163 Views

Any argument made by Dowd is suspect from the start

random thoughts - 18/01/2010 10:39:28 PM 195 Views

They should keep making them actually filibuster, yes. Joel - 18/01/2010 10:09:01 PM 329 Views

Fight the good fight, my man...er...dog! Tom - 18/01/2010 05:48:08 PM 160 Views

I hope so. If people like me support Brown, then you know the Democrats are fucked. The Shrike - 18/01/2010 05:13:27 PM 187 Views

It's amazing, but even GWB and the R's didn't alienate the public so quickly..... trzaska2000 - 18/01/2010 10:02:27 PM 170 Views

Of course, they weren't in a crisis this bad. *NM* Legolas - 18/01/2010 10:22:46 PM 78 Views

I read Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com and he's refusing to call it... Tom - 18/01/2010 11:03:03 PM 166 Views

Thanks. I was racking my brains for the name of that site. *NM* Ghavrel - 19/01/2010 01:03:29 AM 78 Views

Wuss (that's directed facetiously at Silver, btw, not you seriously. ) Joel - 19/01/2010 02:31:58 AM 279 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="71843">
<quote id="71818"><quote id="71698">First, should the senate have rules that allow a large minority group to block major legislation?  I think it should have some mechanism in place to do that.  </quote></quote>
<quote id="71818">I guess the main argument against that is the one that one of the NYT columnists, either Dowd or Collins I think, made in a column the other day: through the Senate and its considerable power, the small states already have a serious advantage. Any rule or system that requires even more votes in the Senate - i.e., even more support from smaller states - to pass, makes that advantage even greater. </quote>

That is a designed in feature of our government.  The senate is set up to give power to the smaller states and to keep them from being pushed around by larger ones.  The senate’s power may have increased slightly but so has the executive and judicial.  Large states have much more impact with those so by and large it balances out.  If anything I would say the power has shifted to larger states over the years. We push comes to shove liberals are not upset that Montana has to much political power, they are upset that it has any.

<quote id="71818"><quote id="71698">The second argument is should it be so easy and there I agree with you.  The minority party should not be allowed to play the role pure obstructionist and simply block every thing that comes down the pipe.  I would have no problem if they made them actually get up there and talk not stop for days on end.  </quote></quote>
<quote id="71818">Yeah. The crux of the matter is that that one small rule change that the Senate passed, without the House or Supreme Court or president or anyone else having a say in it, results in a de facto requirement of 60 votes for almost any remotely controversial legislation. </quote>

They don't need the approval of either of those bodies.  The constitution gives the senate the power to set up their own rules and no one is given oversight of those rules.  If the senate were to decide they could remove the filibuster option or modify it to make it weaker.  They only need 50 votes to that so all they really lack is the political will.

<quote id="71818"><quote id="71698"> I think the real solution though is both sides to learn to be less partisan.  Republicans are getting away with it this cycle but if all they call point out is things they have stopped they will have a toughs time come 2012 and if all the dems can do is complain that the republicans stopped them it could be tough on incumbents all around.  If unemployment is still over 8% come 2012 finger pointing and excuses won’t get you much. </quote></quote>
<quote id="71818">I agree, it really doesn't seem to be going the right way. At the time of the Sotomayor confirmation, a few Republicans were taking steps in the right direction, but with all this health care fuss, partisanship seems to be running as high as ever. But as you say, if this is how it's gonna be from now on, both parties are just going to take turns in winning and then losing elections, with American voters growing more and more discontent with both parties. Republicans - like Brown now in Massachusetts - are getting votes not because people think they'd do better, but because people want the Democrats out of power. It's turning very ugly, and very much not what the US needs to take on the challenges of the 21st century (not that this is strictly an American problem, many countries seem to have some variation of it). </quote>

There is a laundry list of things like immigration and banking that they could have focused their energy on and gotten real bipartisan support.  They failed.

Bush was able to get bipartisan support for his programs even when they didn’t pass.  Obama should at least be able to be less polarizing then Bush.

The bottom line is independents control this country right now and they want compromise.  A lot of Obama’s appeal was that he was going to heal these problems not aggravate them. Now the independents are set to send a message.  I honestly hope Obama and company get the message and change because unlike Rush I would like to see Obama succeed, I just don’t have much faith that he will.

</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password