A lot of good legislation has been won in the past with strong partisan campaigns against the enemies of labor rights, civil rights, women's rights and those who wish to destroy our democratic rights and values. And how is partisan defined? "Showing strong support for one person, group, idea, party or cause." So what the hell is wrong with partisanship?
The Republicans are determined to see this President fail with the help of Republicans and some conservative Democrats in Congress.
They are pinning their hopes on the belief that the current inadquate stimulus package along with the timid actions of the Treasury Secretary will increase the possibility of a full scale economic depression and that not much more will be done to jolt the economy and save the banking system.
The Republicans believe they only need to accomplish a few more things to almost guarantee a real depression on Obama's watch. They think that all they have to do is vote against any new money for stimulus, additional funds to shore up the financial system and massive economic relief for millions that will prevent foreclosures.
They think they can accomplish this by engaging in a filibuster against all new economic measures. And they will challenge the Democrats to try and break any filibuster.
Based on past experience, they expect the Democratic majority in Congress to once again cave-in to Republican filibuster threats.
Well, the Democrats in Congress and President Obama will have to call the Republicans out on their filibuster threats.
They will have to mobilize the public in support of new legislation and not play the Republican "bi-partisanship" game the next time around.
If the Republicans actually organize a real on the Senate floor filibuster the Democrats have the following options.
1. Surrender to the filibuster and withdraw the legislation.
2. Agree to Republican demands and weaken legislation to the point of being ineffective.
3. Let the Republicans filibuster until the public tires of Republican obstructionism and 60 Senators finally agree to end debate and a majority vote for new economic legislation.
4. Use the so-called "nuclear option" in which the Senate will simply change the rules and require 51 votes to pass legislation to bypass any Republican filibuster.
So what really is the "nuclear option" which scared the crap out of Democratic Senators in 2005? Much good has been accomplished with partisanship.
-----------------------------
In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005
The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
