Party of "No"

[IntruderLS1]

For 5 years, the Democrats were in lock step opposed to anything the Bush administration tried to put forward.

Then they beat him mercilessly for not being able to get anything done.

Now they're calling the Republican party the "Party of NO" like it's the devil's way of doing business.

What'd I miss?

 

[Accountable]

:humm:Ummmmmm ....... the presidential election?

 

[Anie]

Learn yes... follow after me, yes, ohhhhh yes.... YES! oh god yes!!!

 

[Azazel]

 

[kelvin070]

I am no 'yes' man.

 

[Tim]

For 5 years, the Democrats were in lock step opposed to anything the Bush administration tried to put forward.

Then they beat him mercilessly for not being able to get anything done.

Now they're calling the Republican party the "Party of NO" like it's the devil's way of doing business.

What'd I miss?

Really? Why don't you go look at how many times the democrats threatened a filibuster or invoked a cloture motion to stop a bill while they were in the minority and compare that to the republicans. Then come back and make the same statements.

 

[Accountable]

Aside: when did they change the rules of fillibuster to include breaks and pausing to get sleep and stuff like that? Doesn't that kinda defeat the whole purpose?

 

[Alien Allen]

Really? Why don't you go look at how many times the democrats threatened a filibuster or invoked a cloture motion to stop a bill while they were in the minority and compare that to the republicans. Then come back and make the same statements.

got any data to compare?

I am not having luck finding any.

And I would throw out threatened actions. Unless it actually occurred I would not count it.

 

[Tim]

110th congress is where the republicans are a minority in both the house and the senate.

 

[Tim]

 

[Alien Allen]

what are the sources??

Frankly I think you also need to factor in how many bills and amendments are introduced also. I seriously doubt 30 years ago there were as many bills. And certainly not omnibus ones. You get these huge bills and it is gonna have tons of gimmicks in it. Cloture is not always bad.

 

[Tim]

Here you go. U.S. Senate: Reference Home >

And as far as the cloture motion not being used as much in the past... If you read the history of the cloture motion on the senate website you will see that it was enacted to ensure that a vote could not take place before all the members could physically get there to vote. I guess they would rush in and vote on something before all the opposition party could get there. It was never intened to stop debate on a bill when all were present.

And this thread is about the party of NO. This is what I am addressing with my posts. Scott clearly doesn't know the numbers when it comes to stopping debate. For if he did, he would realize that his question is without merit.

 

[Alien Allen]

Here you go. U.S. Senate: Reference Home >

And as far as the cloture motion not being used as much in the past... If you read the history of the cloture motion on the senate website you will see that it was enacted to ensure that a vote could not take place before all the members could physically get there to vote. I guess they would rush in and vote on something before all the opposition party could get there. It was never intened to stop debate on a bill when all were present.

And this thread is about the party of NO. This is what I am addressing with my posts. Scott clearly doesn't know the numbers when it comes to stopping debate. For if he did, he would realize that his question is without merit.

There are a number or ways to say no beyond cloture though. I think the original point is valid. The democrats are no different than the republicans. Both parties do the same thing.

 

[nova]

My cynical side says that the rise in filibuster/cloture is because when the Rs were in power, they were spending money like drunken sailors, which the Ds were more than happy to go along with for the most part.

The only thing they're united in is fucking us....

 

[Peter Parka]

You could always say Yes! That would fuck 'em! :dunno

 

[Kyle B]

I seriously don't see any problem with the Republicans using filibusters to their advantage. The Republicans are the opposition in Congress and are thus going to do anything in their power to prevent bills supported by the Democrats from passing. This can include anything ranging from voting 'nay', to gathering their supporters, to starting filibusters, or any other tricks of the trade.

The Democrats may or may not have used filibusters as often, but they still vehemently opposed anything Bush proposed. The Dems are just getting whiny now because the tables are turned (somewhat). What are they going to do next, claim the Republican congressmen are unfit to be in Congress because they don't blindly accept everything that the White House and Pelosi try to feed everyone?

 

[Accountable]

I agree that they are opposing bills only because the democrats are proposing them (Lord knows they haven't actually read the bills!), but shouldn't the interests of the nation and the Constitution at least be on their radar screen?? I keep hearing them say they can't support the "healthcare" bill because of this provision or that one. I don't hear anyone saying they can't support it because it's not constitutional. I don't hear anyone saying they can't support it because the USA is not a socialist nation. I don't hear anyone saying they can't support it because medical decisions of an individual is none of the federal government's fucking business!