How come they never made the GOP do that?

[Gore1FL]

When a Democrat* threatens to filibuster, they actually make him do the dance.

Don't get me wrong. I am glad Sanders got to speak out in a public and newsworthy way on the subject. But WTF? Why are the Republicans not a bunch of hoarse bastards right now from two years of this?

Seriously--did the Senate rules change, or is the Senate leadership *just* *that* *horrific*? A little of column A and a little of column b, perhaps?

It's like the the Democratic Party collapsed in 2000 (much like my Cardinals did in the 7th game of the 1985 World series.) Am I wrong? Am I crazy? Am I missing something? Are the preceding mutually exclusive?

If anyone has answers for any of this or are equally mystified, I welcome your responses.




* In this case an Independent** who caucuses with the Democrats.

** In this case a Socialist.

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. He wasn't filibustering.

There was no motion on the floor he was delaying.

There was no cloture vote pending.

He was indulging in the right every Senator has, in the absence of pending business, to engage in making remarks.

As for why Republicans aren't 'made to do that', on pending legislation, that's been asked and answered here, and in other places, time without number.

[Gore1FL]

2. Thank You.

I appreciate the quick answer!

[Gore1FL]

3. This was an accidentla double post. but as long as it is here:

I read the article and it misses a critical point which sort of invalidates the premise. It makes news. That's the difference. If every night the news was "The Republicans are stalling," or similar, more people would be pissed at them for causing the gridlock.

I don't doubt that 40 senators could block all business for six years. I also have no doubt that those who did would serve six years, because a lot of voters would not put up with absolutely nothing getting done because of that sort of antics.

[Davis_X_Machina]

6. A lot of voters -- and they crawl over broken glass to vote --

-- and there are enough of them to elect a government -- don't think the government has any legitimate function beyond cutting taxes -- itself a form of inaction -- blowing up brown people who worship the wrong God, and hassling faggots.

The only action they want to see is inaction.

Actually doing things has a constituency, but it's not large enough, or organized enough, or turning out at the polls reliably enough, to do the job automatically.

[Gore1FL]

8. Publicity of such tactics would make more people want to crawl through glass though.

That's the point.

There are a tremendous amount of unmotivated people who largely want the right things to happen. There are also independents. When you motivate the first and sway the second, we end up with 2008 election outcomes. That is exactly what would happen if the GOP pulled such antics.


The Republicans are not going to get elected only through the tax-cut hungry, brown-people-who-worship-the-wrong-god blowing-uppers, and faggot hassling Caucus.

What was there to lose?

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. Did you see the newspapers Nov. 4?

The tax-cut hungry, brown-people-who-worship-the-wrong-god blowing-uppers, and faggot hassling caucus captured the House, and now controls more state houses than at any time since the 1950's.

The Republicans got elected by the tax-cut hungry, brown-people-who-worship-the-wrong-god blowing-uppers, and faggot hassling Caucus in numbers sufficient to create the current legislative crisis.

There is no great untapped progressive silent majority that would lead to an unbroken repeats of the '08 or '06 elections if they were simply motivated to go to the polls. The politics of non-voters and voters are virtually identical, and the two most common reason given in surveys to the question 'Why didn't you vote' is 'Illness' or 'too busy' and has been for decades. (Warning, XLS spreadsheet).

[Gore1FL]

12. I did see.

But I didn't see the GOP having the filibuster. As I stated earlier, the Democrats need to motivate the unmotivated and to sway the independents. That becomes possible when the other party is making newsworthy asses of themselves to hold up legislation that a majority of Americans what to have happen.

People were pissed when the GOP wasted the 105th congress. It was high profile.

This congress was brought to a halt on many things largely because of GOP obstruction...but the obstruction wasn't what the story was about.

That's why you make them actually do it.

[dkf]

4. So why was he doing this?

Was it just to make his points?

[Gore1FL]

5. I guess so.

I read "filibuster" on numerous threads, so assumed it was to delay action on the "compromise."

If there was nothing pending to block, then It isn;t a filibuster per this definition:

filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. Yep. And more power to him.

It was a rare instance when the almost unlimited ability of a Senator to speak was used for good, and not ill.

In the House, you've got one-minute speeches in the morning, and other, very circumscribed opportunities when the House is nearly empty. That's about it.

[Tesha]

10. The San Francisco Chronicle says differently.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=78827

Bernie Sanders yields after nearly 8.5-hour one-man
Senate filibuster against Obama-GOP tax deal

At 3:59 p.m. Friday, Sen. Bernie Sanders finally yielded the
Senate floor, ending a real-life "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"
episode. Sanders, the Vermont independent who hangs with
Democrats, had been on the floor since 7:25 a.m. Friday morning
slamming the tax deal President Obama cut with Republicans.

Even though he stopped, dude looked like he could have riffed
until Christmas. This was the best thing to hit CSPAN-2 since...
well, ever, really.

<more>

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. They're using 'filibuster' in an extended sense.

Sanders's speech, while laudable, held up no legislation, not so much as a procedural motion, for zero seconds.