McConnell filibusters his own bill:

This just reinforces that the Republicans don't have any policy of their own, they're just against whatever the Democrats currently support.
 
hgc said:
Seriously. Isn't it curious? Democrats would love to permanently disarm the debt ceiling time bomb. Did McConnell really think that Democrats would vote against this because they're afraid of what Republicans would say about them? He's kind of stuck in 2010/11. Needs to come up to date.
Click to expand...
I think the GOP genuinely have bought into their own BS. Some like McConnel honestly think there is some is reason to stand up to the Dems when they have zero basis for that.
 
Denver said:
If this guy's sole reason for putting forth this bill was to create some future political talking point, and otherwise not representing his constituents or acting as an ethical legislator, I really think it should be considered a serious offense, and something should be done about it: censure, or expulsion, or something significant.
Click to expand...

This sort of thing is rather commonplace in Congress. AFAIK it is not against the rules, although the person doing it may end up looking very silly, as in this case.
 
Last edited:
Denver said:
If this guy's sole reason for putting forth this bill was to create some future political talking point, and otherwise not representing his constituents or acting as an ethical legislator, I really think it should be considered a serious offense, and something should be done about it: censure, or expulsion, or something significant.
Click to expand...

If I were in charge, such antics would be punishable by execution. It's a betrayal of the people who elected him to screw around playing politics, trying to score points off the other party, instead of doing the actual job in good faith. I would count it as actual treason. But luckily for politicians, I am not in charge. The executions would not be swift.
 
Puppycow said:
This sort of thing is rather commonplace in Congress. AFAIK it is not against the rules, although the person doing it may end up looking very silly, as in this case.
Click to expand...

The political theater of putting something to vote just for the purpose of getting your opponents on record as opposing it is something both sides have done. They do this with an eye for using that voting record in electioneering.

But I'm not so sure this business of proposing "our" version of "your" proposal and putting it to a vote so that you can claim "they" voted against "their own" proposal--and then having it backfire so that you end up having to filibuster your own proposal--is something that's at all commonplace.

IIRC, the GOP did this successfully a couple of years ago--took a very generic Obama proposal and wrote it up as proposed legislation. Democrats had to vote against it because it was pretty much a blank slate.

The difference between this tactic and the one I first mentioned is that this is being used as a part of the negotiation process rather than merely as a voting record for future electioneering.

ETA: But I agree: trying and failing at such a thing doesn't make you subject to censure. It only makes you subject to ridicule.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
IIRC, the GOP did this successfully a couple of years ago--took a very generic Obama proposal and wrote it up as proposed legislation. Democrats had to vote against it because it was pretty much a blank slate.
Click to expand...

They're still making hay out of it, too...just earlier this month, this article and this article crowed about how Obama's budget was defeated unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, 99-0.

Neither article, of course, mentions that what was actually defeated was a 56-page summary of Obama's budget, introduced for vote by a Republican Senator (from Alabama...sigh), for the sole purpose of getting Democrats to vote against it so the right could do what they're doing now - falsely claiming that Obama can't even get his own party to support his budget.
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
They're still making hay out of it, too...just earlier this month, this article and this article crowed about how Obama's budget was defeated unanimously by both Demtheoryocrats and Republicans in the Senate, 99-0.

Neither article, of course, mentions that what was actually defeated was a 56-page summary of Obama's budget, introduced for vote by a Republican Senator (from Alabama...sigh).
Click to expand...

Yes--that's what I was thinking of.

Of course Obama didn't learn his lesson. When he makes a speech proposing something, he really ought have the draft of the actual legislation ready. Either that or specify that what he's proposing is that Congress crafts legislation to do thus and such.

I was impressed with his jobs speech--the one where he repeated again and again, "You should pass this bill immediately"--until I learned that there wasn't actually a bill yet. (It did come very shortly thereafter, but it belied the fact that he expected them to pass it immediately.)

In this case though, it was obvious that his first proposal was meant to be the first step in negotiations.

However, in this case legislation that even hit the summary was enough: if it extended tax cuts on all but the higher incomes, gave ball park targets for spending cuts (remember the "automatic sequestration" legislation isn't very specific either) and raises or eliminates the debt ceiling, Democrats would be foolish to oppose it. You could pass legislation like that, and then start an entirely different round of negotiations hammering out the details within those limits.
 
Does someone more familiar with Senate rules know if the following is possible?

Could Democrats employ what I would call the tactical-nuclear option? Change the filibuster rule (something that could be done by simple majority) not to eliminate it entirely, but to say you can't filibuster anything you yourself proposed?

I guess the workaround is easy enough, though: someone else from the party, whose name is not on the bill, could block voting.
 
ANTPogo said:
They're still making hay out of it, too...just earlier this month, this article and this article crowed about how Obama's budget was defeated unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, 99-0.

Neither article, of course, mentions that what was actually defeated was a 56-page summary of Obama's budget, introduced for vote by a Republican Senator (from Alabama...sigh), for the sole purpose of getting Democrats to vote against it so the right could do what they're doing now - falsely claiming that Obama can't even get his own party to support his budget.
Click to expand...
Unbelievable. I can't stand that crap on either side of the aisle. It is the height of douchebaggery.
 
At this rate The Onion is going to be obsolete by the next mid-term election.

TragicMonkey said:
If I were in charge, such antics would be punishable by execution. It's a betrayal of the people who elected him to screw around playing politics, trying to score points off the other party, instead of doing the actual job in good faith. I would count it as actual treason. But luckily for politicians, I am not in charge. The executions would not be swift.
Click to expand...

My proposal of having the entire Senate stand during their entire session next to guys with bayonets is still on the table. And I'm talking Arisaka type stuff, where the whole setup is longer than the wielder is tall. A couple skewerings followed by blood-curdling screams on the floor would straighten things out right-quick.
 
Polaris said:
My proposal of having the entire Senate stand during their entire session next to guys with bayonets is still on the table. And I'm talking Arisaka type stuff, where the whole setup is longer than the wielder is tall. A couple skewerings followed by blood-curdling screams on the floor would straighten things out right-quick.
Click to expand...

Nah. I see no need to discourage Republicans from making fools of themselves.

I'm rather enjoying this story (especially in light of their "successful" use of this ploy in the past).

Also, as you point out, it really raises the bar for satirists.
 
Denver said:
If this guy's sole reason for putting forth this bill was to create some future political talking point, and otherwise not representing his constituents or acting as an ethical legislator, I really think it should be considered a serious offense, and something should be done about it: censure, or expulsion, or something significant.
Click to expand...

Legal troubles for bill sponsors fibustering or voting against bills they themselves sponsored is something neither party is interested in.
 
Beerina said:
Legal troubles for bill sponsors fibustering or voting against bills they themselves sponsored is something neither party is interested in.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Besides, it's so much fun when it happens like this.

More seriously, I'd generalize the right of Senators to make fools of themselves to reason why freedom of speech--especially for speech acts most of us find deplorable--is very important.
 
He's up for reelection in two years. His opponent will have a ready-made attack ad.

[Ominous voice]"Mitch McConnell. Wasting time in congress. Wasting your tax dollars."[/ominous voice]

Steve S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom