Free Markets, Free People

Quote Of The Day

The QOTD for today actually comes to us from a NY Times editorial in 2005 which clearly states their understanding of the job of an opposition party:

Mr. Bush has reacted by railing against Democrats for obstruction — as if Democrats are duty-bound to breathe life into his agenda and, even sillier, as if opposing a plan that the people do not want is an illegitimate tactic for an opposition party.

Why I believe that is exactly the point the right is now arguing.  As witnessed by the editorial, the Democrats, lefty blogs and much of the media thought it was fair play in 2005.  Take heed, Republicans and don’t end up breathing life into a corpse.  The Democrats didn’t apologize for killing Social Security reform.  And it obviously didn’t hurt them electorally.

Question: did killing SS reform in 2005 make America “ungovernable?”

More importantly, did that mean the NY Times wanted the Bush agenda to “fail”?

Heh … Archives are a bitch, aren’t they?

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

12 Responses to Quote Of The Day

  • I’ll take Bush’s SS reform over Obama’s health care reform any day.

  • So, should Obama take a page from Bush’s playbook and more aggressively use reconciliation as a tactic?!   That would be a true ‘what comes around goes around.’
    Frankly, I think both the Democrats and the Republicans have been abusing the filibuster.  They should go back to the old way, when Strom Thurmond steam bathed so he could avoid having to leave the chamber for the toilet, and when a filibuster was really more than a procedural vote.   Bring back the traditions!  The founders did not intend the upper house to be a hyper-partisan body where sixty votes is necessary to pass anything.  And yes, Democrats are as guilty as Republicans in filibuster-abuse.

    • If the redux is complete, I guess will will get to see the Republicans all stand and cheer when Obama says health care reform has gone now where.

    • For those who think Reconciliation was only a Bush tactic, take a look at the following list of the number of times the tactic has been used in recent history:

      Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980
      Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
      Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
      Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
      Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983
      Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
      Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
      Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
      Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
      Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
      Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
      Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (vetoed)
      Personal Responsibility and Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996
      Balanced Budget Act of 1997
      Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
      Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (vetoed)
      Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000 (vetoed)
      Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
      Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
      The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
      Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005

      So, from the above we can see that Clinton (twice vetoed) and Reagan topped the Administrations when most attempts were made, using Reconciliation 7 times each.  Bush II used it 4 times.  But show me where anyone has used the tactic in order to rearrange what has been said to be 1/6th of the US economy.

      So “what comes around goes around” is your take on the moral equivilence oe Reconciliation?  Spare me – that sh*t won’t even pass the laugh test for a Democrat!

    • You should be careful about demanding the return of traditions, Scott. Your students might learn about tar and feathering or riding someone out of town on a rail.

    • …Strom Thurmond steam bathed so he could avoid having to leave the chamber for the toilet…

      In all fairness, Scott is right about this. If the Senate is not going to vote to end debate then let the debate continue. That was the entire purpose for instating the super-majority rule in the first place. So, let’s see debate continue as long as necessary. Let’s bring back the all night sessions with readings from Ulysses and War And Peace from the podium until someone cracks.

      • The debate implicitly continues until cloture is voted. The Senate moves to other issues when cloture doesn’t happen. Filibuster doesn’t mean that explicit debate has to continue.

        But the Senate can have whatever rules it likes.

    • “The founders did not intend the upper house to be a hyper-partisan body where sixty votes is necessary to pass anything. “
      The founders didn’t intend for Congress to abuse the Constitution and meddle in our every affair either.

  • Obama would not need to “aggressively use reconciliation as a tactic” if his agenda items had enough support among his own party members when he had a super-majority.  Remember that, the filibuster-proof majority that should’ve made Republican desires academic?  For all the talk of Republican obstructionism, the primary issue was the the proposals did not have enough support among Democrats.  If you have to scrimp and scrape and bribe and threaten your own party in order to just get something passed, then maybe it didn’t deserve to be passed.