The Ultra-Radical Republicans

[laststeamtrain]

consortiumnews.com

The Ultra-Radical Republicans

By Robert Parry
February 13, 2009

Sixteen years ago, when another new Democratic President was trying to enact an economic package, the Republicans were entrenched in opposition, too. But there was a striking difference between those Republicans and today’s: the 1993 Republicans still showed some respect for democracy.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Bob Dole whipped 100 percent of his troops into line opposing President Bill Clinton’s “deficit reduction plan.” With the help of six Democrats, Dole managed to deny Clinton a majority on the bill and forced Vice President Al Gore to break the 50-50 tie.

Yet what’s remarkable about that 1993 case – at least in contrast to today – is that Dole and his Republicans did not filibuster Clinton’s economic package. If they had, they almost surely would have killed it, since Clinton would have had little chance of mustering a 60-vote super-majority.

In those “old days” – covering all of U.S. history except for the present – the filibuster was reserved for disputes over core principles (i.e. Southern senators fighting to protect segregation in the 1950s and 1960s) or for issues that were particularly sensitive to one of the parties (i.e. in 1991, Dole blocked a full investigation into President George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iran).

Otherwise, most legislation passed the Senate and the House by majority votes. It wasn’t always easy but that’s how democracy worked. The voters sent their representatives to Congress and simple majorities enacted the vast bulk of the people’s business.

<more>

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/021309.html

[Gman]

1. On the other hand

having 60 votes gives the issue more weight than a simple majority. It's a "be careful what you ask for" thing that the GOP is never careful about.

Regarding the current stimulus plan vote, scheming daemons has it correct in this OP.