Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Listening to the Generals - Harry Reid style (update)
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, July 17, 2007

I'm still not clear about what part of "September" Harry Reid and the gang don't understand:
The interruption precedes what is expected to be an all-nighter in the Senate on Tuesday, ordered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as a way to protest GOP blocking tactics on moves to compel U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Reid said Iraq is the most important issue facing the United States and attempts to block legislation calling for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq will be met with a hardball response.

"We're going to work on this amendment until we get an up or down vote on it," he said.

Senate Republican leaders, alerted to Reid's plans on Monday, said they have the votes to keep the president's surge policy in place, at least for now, and called Reid's up-all-night gambit a stunt that wouldn't change any minds.
And, of course, that's all it is: a stunt. Oh, and this:
Senior Democratic leadership aides acknowledged that Reid's all-nighter — complete with roll-away beds — is meant to draw public attention to GOP demands that any changes to Iraq policy carry a 60-vote majority.
That isn't a "GOP demand". Those are the rules of the Senate. The same rules under which the Democrats blocked legislation in the 109th Congress while they were in the minority. To pretend otherwise is simply disingenunous.

Just another in a long line of lies and half-truths put out there by the incompetent Senate Majority Leader - Harry Reid.

UPDATE: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell points out that our enemies aren't impressed by publicity stunts:
“While Republicans are focused on the dangers posed by al Qaeda in Iraq, and the warnings that the United Nations and Baker-Hamilton Commission have given in recent days about the consequences of withdrawal, Democrats plan to spend the next 24 hours in what they have described as a 'publicity stunt.' This issue is far too serious to waste the next day on 'publicity stunts.' This is a serious issue, and deserves serious consideration.

“Our enemies aren't threatened by talk-a-thons, and our troops deserve better than publicity stunts.”
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Using the rules of Senate to foward leftist agendas are righteous - using the same rules of Senate to stop leftist agendas is the work of the devil.

Truth is supplanted by the narrative, and the narrative is that leftist dictatorship is to be welcomed.

Not the same boss McQ.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Hmmmm, "this isn’t a GOP demand it’s the rules of the Senate." NO. It is a GOP demand. The rules of the Senate simply specify voting rules and debate rules. You can pass things with a majority, and very often that happens. In some cases the minority party (either Democratic or Republican) will demand that debate continue unless there are sixty votes, thereby not allowing a majority vote. That’s a demand, McQ. To pretend otherwise is simply disingenunous. It’s also says something about you that you feel compelled to launch personal attacks against politicians and virtually anyone who sees the issue different than you. In McQ world all the Democratic leaders are incompetent and liars, simply because they have a different take on the issue. That’s silly. You let your emotions cloud your reason, you need to recognize that people on both sides of the issue are intelligent, have good intentions, and want the best for the country. You’re no better than the Bush bashers when you hurl such vindictive against Ried (especially when you try to say a demand isn’t a demand).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
What Erb said. McQ, you are either being disingenuous or you don’t understand Senate rules. There is no 60 vote requirement. Many things pass with less than 60 votes and go on to become law. The minority can choose to filibuster, thereby requiring 60 votes, but that is a choice, not a requirement. And if the Republicans are going to keep making that choice with respect to every single bill up for consideration, it is perfectly legitimate to call attention to that choice and try to make the GOP pay a political price for obstructionism.

Whenever the Democrats filibustered anything, the GOP accused them of obstructionism and tried to make them pay a political price for it. That’s all Reid is doing here.

Moreover, this GOP minority has been using the filibuster like it’s going out of style (far more often than the Democrats did). And they’ve been getting away with it because the press seems to have dropped the word "filibuster" from their vocabulary. When the Democrats were in the minority, the headlines were always "Democrats Filibuster X" or "Democrats Block X". Now the headlines are "X Falls Short in Senate" or "Congress Fails to Pass X." That’s why Harry Reid is doing this. He wants the press to report why things are not passing, i.e., because the GOP is blocking everything with filibusters.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
"In McQ world..."
Pot. Kettle.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
"...if the Republicans are going to keep making that choice with respect to every single bill [my emphasis] up for consideration...
As usual with liberals, the first casualty in a discussion is the truth.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged U.S. policy-makers yesterday to exercise "great caution" in considering any rapid withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq.

"It is not my place to inject myself into this discussion taking place between the American people, government and Congress," said Mr. Ban, who was expected to repeat the message during meetings on Capitol Hill today.

"But I’d like to tell you that a great caution should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people," he said at a U.N. press conference. "Any abrupt withdrawal or decision may lead to a further deterioration."
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070717/FOREIGN/107170055/1001
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
As usual with liberals, the first casualty in a discussion is the truth.
Thank you, Robert Fulton, beacon of truth. Maybe I should limit my comments to The Truth, as exemplified by comments like "pot kettle."

Look, obviously I didn’t literally mean that the GOP had filibustered every bill this session. But they have used that tool quite often. Here’s a list of ten bills that had majority support but were defeated by way of the filibuster.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Ban Ki-moon makes a valid point; I hope that you continue to take the Secretary General of the United Nations seriously when he has policy suggestions for the US.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
So, Democrats, when are you guys going to introduce your version of the "Nuclear Option"? Until then, them’s the rules. You don’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot? That’s what you get when you have "got the hammer"!

And as far as those 10 bills fillibustered - 8 of them were deserving of fillibuster:
3 were bullsh*t "We don’t like Bush and Iraq" bills that had it been on the other foot during the Clinton years, the same would have happened - in reverse.
2 were fillibustered for "and other purposes" which the author of the piece didn’t bother to lay out, but if you wee to read the fine print would spell out the problem.
One was a bullsh*t no-confidence vote for Gonzales (this ain’t the UK)
One was the "Employee Free Choice Act" which was anything but free choice. It would have eliminated secret ballots in the workplace - i.e. the Democrats playing up to the Union label
One was for the "Medicare Presciption Drug Price Negotiation Act" which would have mandated price fixing within the system and effectively destroying the process

Looks to me like there are some fine examples of using the Fillibuster to good use. You disagree? Change the system.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
PS - Nice picture of an "incompetent Senate Majority Leader".
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Here’s a list of ten bills that had majority support but were defeated by way of the filibuster.
And Harry Reid voted AGAINST 4 of them, including his own amendment:

January 17, Reid Amendment to Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007
February 5, A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq: disapproving of the troop escalation in Iraq.
April 18, Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007
June 21, Baucus Amendment to CLEAN Energy Act of 2007
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I quote the entire comment by Boris Erb because it shows the "hurt Erb," "the angry Erb," and the "exceptionally stupid Erb" at a glance:
Hmmmm, "this isn’t a GOP demand it’s the rules of the Senate." NO. It is a GOP demand. The rules of the Senate simply specify voting rules and debate rules. You can pass things with a majority, and very often that happens. In some cases the minority party (either Democratic or Republican) will demand that debate continue unless there are sixty votes, thereby not allowing a majority vote. That’s a demand, McQ. To pretend otherwise is simply disingenunous. It’s also says something about you that you feel compelled to launch personal attacks against politicians and virtually anyone who sees the issue different than you. In McQ world all the Democratic leaders are incompetent and liars, simply because they have a different take on the issue. That’s silly. You let your emotions cloud your reason, you need to recognize that people on both sides of the issue are intelligent, have good intentions, and want the best for the country. You’re no better than the Bush bashers when you hurl such vindictive against Ried (especially when you try to say a demand isn’t a demand).
It is an axiom of American politics that you need 60 votes to pass legislation in the U.S. Senate. If you want to end debate and go to a floor vote that’s what you need. The concept of making a "demand" doesn’t belong anywhere near this question. The rules require 60 votes. Nobody’s demanding anything by applying the rules.

"You can pass things with a majority," Boris? Indeed, all legislation that gets passed is passed with a majority, after debate has been ended with 60 votes.

And, Boris, I don’t see how the word "disingenuous" can even be typed into your keyboard. That’s like Bozo calling someone a clown.

And McQ is correct in his characterization of Harry Reid, and that characterization is not the equivalent of "Bush bashing." Reid, for starters, is himself a Bush basher, and one of the most ill-motivated at that. He has also declared a war "lost" while our troops are in the middle of executing a new strategy in an effort to turn the tide. The Democrats, many of whom voted for the Iraq war, have so politicized the war debate that we have reached a low point in American history, as evidenced by a low point in the approval of the American people for Congress — just seven months now after the Democrats took the majority in both houses. Not a coincidence.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
So, Democrats, when are you guys going to introduce your version of the "Nuclear Option"? Until then, them’s the rules. You don’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot? That’s what you get when you have "got the hammer"!
My own view is that filibusters should be used rarely. I think in the case of the Iraq war, the GOP arguably has sufficient cause to filibuster — it’s a big issue, and the President will certainly veto any withdraw plan. But the Democrats have cause to show the country that the Senate wants to pass something and the Democratic majority is trying, held up by a Republican filibuster. I have a feeling that despite a few partisans calling Ried incompetent, this is smart politics on his part.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris Erb writes:
I have a feeling that despite a few partisans calling Ried incompetent, this is smart politics on his part.
After you learn how to spell Reid’s name, Boris, you should take a look at his and the Congress’s approval ratings. There ain’t nothing that damn fool is doing that is "smart politics." He is an embarrassment to Democrats, in a party rich with embarrassments, and an embarrassment to the United States.

Aside from having a personality that runs from listless to dead, the nonsense that comes out of that man’s mouth could only be aimed at the least common denominator of the Party’s nutjob base, if it aims that high. And it isn’t just "partisans" or Republicans who know that Reid is incompetent, even if incompetence is the least of his problems.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
It is an axiom of American politics that you need 60 votes to pass legislation in the U.S. Senate. If you want to end debate and go to a floor vote that’s what you need. The concept of making a "demand" doesn’t belong anywhere near this question. The rules require 60 votes. Nobody’s demanding anything by applying the rules.
Actually, no. The rules do indeed require 60 votes to stop debate. But there’s no requirement that debate carry on indefinitely for every bill until someone moves for cloture. Cloture votes are only necessary when one side has announced an intention to filibuster, i.e., to debate endlessly and thereby prevent a vote. In other words, the reason these bills need 60 votes is because the Republicans are filibustering them, something they don’t have to do.

I’m not suggesting that the Democrats should "go nuclear" and eliminate the filibuster. If they do that, they’ll come to regret it next time they are in the minority. What I am suggesting is that Republicans should be forced to pay the political price for invoking the filibuster to block popular legislation. That’s totally fair. And the only way that will happen is if Reid and others bring attention to the fact that Republicans in the Senate are blocking a lot of legislation that a majority of the Senate supports.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
That’s still a good picture of him. He looks like a frenzied ferret!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Regarding Reid: "I would follow that man only out of a sense of morbid curiosity."
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I can’t even be bothered to find what Q wrote about the nuclear option during the Alito nomination. But I struggle to find logical connection between Harry Reid’s actions here and "competence".

I’d rather focus on the hypocrisy and duplicity, the fundamental lack of integrity, of Congressional Republicans, who have filibustered - blocked cloture votes - on eight bills in five months - while Congressional Democrats only even attempted to filibuster one, lousy, vote in the entire previous Congressional session.

Thank G*d for Harry Reid showing a little bit of spine.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Do ferrets have a spine?
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
The rules do indeed require 60 votes to stop debate.
So, as I mentioned, you were wrong. I assume I’ll be getting an apology from you soon on this:
McQ, you are either being disingenuous or you don’t understand Senate rules.
Oh, and this:
In other words, the reason these bills need 60 votes is because the Republicans are filibustering them, something they don’t have to do.
Wrong again. The rules state that to end debate in the Senate and move the bill to a vote, a vote of 60 Senators in the affirmative is necessary to end debate. Nothing, let me repeat that, nothing goes to a final vote until debate is ended. Even if everybody on both sides of the isle support the final bill, without 60 votes to end debate, it doesn’t go forward. So it isn’t about "something they don’t have to do" it is, as stated, a rule of the Senate.

BTW, I come by this information through a conversation with the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell soon after he took that position. To quote him specifically, "Nothing gets through the Senate without 60 votes". Harry Reid, when he was in McConnell’s position was very aware of that fact as that’s the way it was in the previous Congress, and the one before that and the one before that, etc.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
But I struggle to find logical connection between Harry Reid’s actions here and "competence".
Struggle? Good grief.

What’s his job and how well has he performed it to this point? You might want to consult his approval ratings for a hint.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Gee, McQ buy into poll driven ratings of how well someone is doing their job. I guess if he believes in polls so much, he has to admit the surge has failed. Oh wait, that poll showed people are ignorant. But if people are ignorant, then how can they be competent to judge how well a Majority leader is doing his job....

Or, perhaps, McQ wants to tear down Ried so much that he doesn’t really care about reality. The reality is that the Senate majority leader is limited by Presidential veto and threats of GOP filibusters. Within that context its really too early to know how well he’ll perform, he’s only had this position a short time. Of course, both he and Pelosi have been under constant attack with personal ridicule by McQ and those like him from the start. I am starting to think he’s even convinced himself that all these democrats are incompetent and heartless, while only those who think like him are intelligent and insightful. Alas, it’s not just McQ or the right, the left has done the same thing to Bush. I guess McQ’s got RDS/PDS. ;-)

The Republicans are refusing to end debate, they are demanding that 60 votes be obtained before they’ll allow debate to end. Many things pass when those who will lose or think they will lose allow debate to end and then vote negative anyway. The filibuster isn’t used on every thing. Not every issue requires 60 votes in favor in order to pass the Senate. Ending debate is not the same as passing legislation. No, McQ, noone owes you an apology.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
while Congressional Democrats only even attempted to filibuster one, lousy, vote in the entire previous Congressional session
What? I went and counted at least 13 cloture rejections by Democrats for the 109th Senate.

Are you ignorant or a liar?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Many things pass when those who will lose or think they will lose allow debate to end and then vote negative anyway. The filibuster isn’t used on every thing. Not every issue requires 60 votes in favor in order to pass the Senate.
Do you even understand what you write?

You just stated that FIRST they must allow debate to end. That takes at least 60 votes. THEN they can vote on the passage of the bill.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
For all the "geniuses" out there (e.g. Erb & Glasnost), here is the Senate Legislation & Records Home that clearly demonstrates that BEFORE a bill is passed there is a vote on cloture that requires a 3/5 majority. This occurs EVEN WHEN there is overwhelming bipartisan support for a particular bill.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
McQ,

Your won’t get any apology because you are still wrong.
Wrong again. The rules state that to end debate in the Senate and move the bill to a vote, a vote of 60 Senators in the affirmative is necessary to end debate. Nothing, let me repeat that, nothing goes to a final vote until debate is ended. Even if everybody on both sides of the isle support the final bill, without 60 votes to end debate, it doesn’t go forward. So it isn’t about "something they don’t have to do" it is, as stated, a rule of the Senate.
No. No. No. You seem to be laboring under the weird assumption that the only way debate ever ends is through a cloture vote. That’s just not true. Most of the time, debate ends because Senators stop debating. Cloture only needs to be invoked when some Senators threaten to keep debating endlessly (i.e. to filibuster).

Moreover, Senators have the option of voting ’yes’ on cloture and ’no’ on the bill itself. This also is quite common. If you vote ’no’ on cloture, you are supporting a filibuster. Remember when some Democrats tried to filibuster the Alito nomination? They forced a cloture vote. A number of Democrats voted ’yes’ on cloture and ’no’ on Alito. Alito was confirmed by a vote of 58-42 (notice how 58 is less than 60).

Here’s a long treatise on the use of the filibuster and cloture rules from Senator Lugar’s website. I suggest you read it before commenting further.

It’s great that you have conversations with Mitch McConnell, but you clearly misinterpreted him. I assume that McConnell was making the (totally uncontroversial) point that 41 senators have the power to block just about anything in the Senate, if they are determined to do it. That doesn’t mean they have to do that, though. The Democrats rarely used the filibuster to block legislation when they were the minority. And when they did use that tactic to block judicial nominees, the Republicans cried about it endlessly and always demanded up-or-down votes (i.e., votes where you don’t need 60 Senators to win). And they ended up getting those votes in all but a few cases.

You clearly don’t understand how Senate rules work.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
I won’t get an apology for other reasons other than I’m wrong. And those reflect on you, not me.
No. No. No. You seem to be laboring under the weird assumption that the only way debate ever ends is through a cloture vote. That’s just not true. Most of the time, debate ends because Senators stop debating. Cloture only needs to be invoked when some Senators threaten to keep debating endlessly (i.e. to filibuster).
Uh, no. Most debate of that sort ends with "unanimous consent", which, in case you don’t understand, is more than 60 votes.
It’s great that you have conversations with Mitch McConnell, but you clearly misinterpreted him.
Hard to misinterpret "nothing gets through the Senate without 60 votes", unless you’re a weasel.
You clearly don’t understand how Senate rules work.
LOL! Time to invoke the "first law of holes" for yourself, AL.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Boris Erb writes:
Or, perhaps, McQ wants to tear down Ried so much that he doesn’t really care about reality.
I note the appearance of Boris’s passive aggression in his continued misspelling of Reid’s name. But that’s a minor affair compared to Boris’s accusation that someone not himself "doesn’t really care about reality."

Have to love that one.
The reality is that the Senate majority leader is limited by Presidential veto and threats of GOP filibusters. Within that context its really too early to know how well he’ll perform, he’s only had this position a short time.
Oh, come now, Boris. Reid has fallen on his face. He’s a classic sad sack. As Dennis Miller said, when he sees Reid in the Senate he always thinks that someone from the CSI unit is going to show up and put a chalk outline around him. There are, ubelievably, Democratic senators who would be worse in that job. Schumer comes to mind. Byrd. Kennedy. But Reid, well, as Yogi would say, for him it got late early.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Why do you never address any actual points people make, McQ?

All sorts of bills have passed the Senate with less than sixty votes. I gave you an example in my previous comment. If I had the time I’d go through and pull out countless other examples. 60 votes is only necessary when the minority refuses to end debate (and then votes ’no’ on cloture). This is just a fact.

You act as if everything is always filibustered and all Senators always vote ’no’ on cloture when they oppose a bill. That’s just not at all true.
Hard to misinterpret "nothing gets through the Senate without 60 votes"
Then pat yourself on the back, McQ, because you accomplished this difficult feat. McConnell was clearly not being literal. All sorts of things pass the Senate with less than 60 votes. He just meant that if you have less than sixty votes, a determined minority can block you. They don’t have to block you, though. The filibuster is not a routine thing used for all bills (at least it wasn’t until now).

Is it really your position that ALL bills are filibustered always, thereby requiring 60 votes? Really?
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Why do you never address any actual points people make, McQ?

All sorts of bills have passed the Senate with less than sixty votes. All sorts of bills have passed the Senate with less than sixty votes.
No, they don’t and I told you why. It’s is not my fault you missed that.
You act as if everything is always filibustered...
No I didn’t ... again careful reading would have prevented you from embarrassing yourself again.
McConnell was clearly not being literal.
McConnell was being completely literal. He was asked three times about the vote and three times, the last, a bit testier than the first, he said "Look, nothing gets through the Senate without 60 votes, ok?"

I took the "look" and "OK" out for brevity, but sounds pretty literal to me. And, of course, had you bothered to read my reply closely, you’d of understood that McConnell is right.
Is it really your position that ALL bills are filibustered always, thereby requiring 60 votes? Really?
No, apprently that’s your strawman, not mine.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
My gosh, people are trying to claim a bill needs to get 3/5 of the vote before it can be passed. That is so absurd that I have to shake my head in wonderment. Many bills pass with less than 60 votes. Clearly McQ didn’t read the website on filibusters. Clearly a few others are very confused. Ending debate is not the same as voting for a bill. Most of the time people opposed to a bill agree to end debate. Most of the time the opposition doesn’t demand a bill get 60 votes before it can be passed. Clearly, some people need to learn some poli-sci!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Is it really your position that ALL bills are filibustered always, thereby requiring 60 votes? Really?
You really don’t understand the rules of the Senate.

Cloture is not necessary when debate is limited by unanimous consent.

Since "unanimous" requires more than 60 senators to agree, no bill can get a full vote WITHOUT at least 60 senators agreeing to allow the vote.

In other words, there are two ways to get a bill voted on by the Senate:
1) Unanimous Consent to limit debate
2) 60 votes for cloture

McQ is right.

Erb, Glasnost, and AL are wrong.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Boris Erb, putting on the pink dress, writes:
My gosh, people are trying to claim a bill needs to get 3/5 of the vote before it can be passed.
You mean people like the minority leader of the Senate, Boris?

Switching into the blue dress, Boris writes:
Many bills pass with less than 60 votes.
All that it takes to pass a bill, Boris, is 51 votes. It takes 60 votes to end debate and get the bill to a floor vote. If no senator wants to continue to debate then the bill can be moved to the floor with unanimous consent, which as McQ points out is more than 60 votes.

Switching back into the pink dress, Boris writes:
Clearly, some people need to learn some poli-sci!
Well, Boris, I know that’s one subject area where you’ve never been up to speed.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Ending debate is not the same as voting for a bill.
Yes, but you can’t vote on a bill until the debate is ended. That requires either 60 votes or unanimous consent.

A bill can NEVER receive a vote without at least 60 senators allowing it to happen.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Good grief, McQ. Talk about digging a hole. Please do me a favor and go read up on Senate rules. I gave you a good link ealier (from a Republican Senator’s website). McConnell is just trying to justify blocking everything. To the extent he was being literally, he was lying.

When you vote ’no’ on cloture, your are attempting to block a vote on the bill. Typically Senators only do that when they consider something very important. It’s not a routine thing (at least until now).

If you look through the Senate records, you’ll see that bills routinely pass with less than 60 votes. Indeed, both Al Gore and Dick Cheney have cast deciding votes on bills (which passed with 51 votes). This is such a basic point that I can’t even believe I’m having to debate it.

Please stop digging.

 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
And when they did use that tactic to block judicial nominees, the Republicans cried about it endlessly
Because it wasn’t common to use that tactic to block appointments. It was rare to use the filibuster for anything other than legislation.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"Nothing gets through the Senate without 60 votes"
This is 100% true.
To the extent he was being literally, he was lying.
You’re an idiot.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
If no senator wants to continue to debate then the bill can be moved to the floor with unanimous consent, which as McQ points out is more than 60 votes.
Sigh. Look, when a bill proceeds by unanimous consent to a vote, that doesn’t mean that 60 senators support the bill. It just means that no one is forcing a cloture vote, i.e., no one has threatened to filibuster. This is the normal way things proceed. When some Senator objects (thereby blocking unanimous consent and forcing an actual cloture vote), then 60 votes are required to proceed to a vote on the bill. This is what a modern day filibuster is. That’s what the term "filibuster" means now. If you have any doubt about this, please look it up or read any news story pre-2006 describing an attempted Democratic filibuster.

Moreover, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, there is absolutely nothing preventing a Senator from voting ’yes’ on cloture and ’no’ on the bill. When you vote ’no’ on cloture you are not opposing a bill, you are opposing allowing that bill to proceed to a vote. Hence you are attempting to filibuster it. That’s what that word means in the post-cloture era.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
An anonymous liberal writes:
If you look through the Senate records, you’ll see that bills routinely pass with less than 60 votes. Indeed, both Al Gore and Dick Cheney have cast deciding votes on bills (which passed with 51 votes). This is such a basic point that I can’t even believe I’m having to debate it.
And what don’t you understand about the difference between a vote to end debate (cloture) and a vote on final passage? The former requires 60 votes or the unanimous consent of the Senate; the latter requires 51 votes.

In other words, nothing gets through the Senate without 60 votes. This is an oft-stated axiom of how the Senate works. If just one senator decides that he wishes debate to continue, then a cloture petition must be filed and voted on two days later. If it fails to get 60 votes, debate continues. If no senators wish to continue debate, then the bill can be moved to a floor vote with unanimous consent.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
when a bill proceeds by unanimous consent to a vote, that doesn’t mean that 60 senators support the bill
No one said it does. It simply means that no bill can be passed without the permission of at least 60 senators.

A simple YES or NO question:
"Is it possible for a bill to become a law without (among other requirements) at least 60 senators allowing it to happen?"

The only answer is NO.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
It’s simple JWG: Sometimes the opposition demands a bill gets 60 votes and filibuster to try to make their demand stick. Most times they agree to allow the majority vote to decide. In this case they are demanding the bill get 60 votes to pass. That is what Ried said, and what McQ incorrectly ridiculed him about. It is a demand that 60 vote for the bill, something that usually doesn’t happen. Capice?

All you’re saying is that if over 40 Senators oppose something vehemently they can choose to filibuster.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
An anonymous liberal writes:
Sigh. Look, when a bill proceeds by unanimous consent to a vote, that doesn’t mean that 60 senators support the bill.
No one made the claim that unanimous consent to proceed means 60 senators support a bill. Unanimous consent to proceed to the vote means that no senator wants debate to continue. If one does, then it’s not unanimous, and ending debater requires 60 votes.
It just means that no one is forcing a cloture vote, i.e., no one has threatened to filibuster. This is the normal way things proceed.
What’s normal is you either get unanimous consent or 60 votes. Unanimous consent is effectively 100 votes to proceed. On any piece of legislation one senator wishing to continue debate will result in a cloture vote, and that means you need 60 votes.

In other words, only bills that are thoroughly worked through to the satisfaction of 60 senators or bills that are thoroughly non-controversial will get the votes. If you have 41 senators who do not want a bill to pass, it will not pass.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Boris Erb writes:
Sometimes the opposition demands a bill gets 60 votes and filibuster to try to make their demand stick. Most times they agree to allow the majority vote to decide. In this case they are demanding the bill get 60 votes to pass. That is what Ried said, and what McQ incorrectly ridiculed him about. It is a demand that 60 vote for the bill, something that usually doesn’t happen. Capice?
Using the Senate rules is not a "demand," Boris.

A contested bill will not go to a vote on final passage without 60 votes. It’s not a "demand," it’s a requirement of the Senate. And it "usually doesn’t happen" when a bill has been thoroughly worked out between the majority and the minority such that there are clearly 60 votes to end debate. When there is no such agreement, it usually does happen. And there ain’t no "demandin’" about it.

And I note your fourth misspelling of Reid’s name in a row, Boris. Passive aggression really got a hold on ya today, huh?
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Sigh. Look, when a bill proceeds by unanimous consent to a vote, that doesn’t mean that 60 senators support the bill.
Good lord!

No, it means they’ve voted to allow it to proceed to a final vote. That’s what the cloture vote does. It ends debate without rejecting the bill. That means, "nothing gets through the Senate without 60 votes."

Unanimous consent is a 100 votes for heaven sake!

It has nothing to do with supporting the bill, it has to do with letting it continue in the process. Bill doesn’t have 60 or more votes, then it doesn’t continue in the process. Or said another way, the bill is rejected. Ergo, "nothing gets through the Senate without 60 votes"!

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Bill doesn’t have 60 or more votes, then it doesn’t continue in the process.
No, no, no, McQ! The bill does not need to "have 60 or more votes." The bill does not need to get 60 votes to be made into law. You just need 60 people willing to allow a vote. Many bills get through the Senate without having 60 votes for the bill. It is rather rare that the opposition demands 60 votes in favor of the bill before it can become law. You are simply wrong, why not admit it (oh yeah, admitting error is something you don’t do...I forgot).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
You need 60 votes to take a bill out of debate and to the vote.
Then you need a simple majority of 51 to pass the bill.

Bottom Line? Looks like you need 60 to allow 51 to say yes for the bill to pass.

What’s the hub-bub, bub?
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
It is rather rare that the opposition demands 60 votes in favor of the bill before it can become law.
You don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about. It is very common.

I’ve posted the link before, but I realize that facts are never important to you. Just look at the number of bills with cloture motions throughout the years. Cripes.

Furthermore, a "vote" applies to more than just the passage or rejection of a bill. The senators "vote" on the debate procedures for each legislative action as well.

Unanimous Consent
A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings...

[Unanimous consent requests] affecting the floor schedule, the conditions of considering a bill or other business, or the rights of other Senators, are normally not offered
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
To a significant extent, we’re all talking past each other here. Everyone agrees that a minority of 41 Senators can effectively block legislation if they choose to, and everyone agrees that once an up-or-down vote occurs, a bare majority is all that is necessary.

The confusion comes from McQ’s implication, both in his post and subsequent comments, that you need to have 60 Senators who support a bill in order to get it passed. That’s simply not the case. Even when Senators do not support a bill, they usually do not object to holding an up-or-down vote. Therefore, many bills pass with less than 60 votes. It is only in rare cases, at least historically, that the minority side insists on blocking an up-or-down vote by opposing cloture. The Republicans this session have been doing this routinely. This tactic is what’s known as a filibuster.

McQ and others denying that this is a filibuster and insist that it is somehow commonplace for Senators who oppose a bill to oppose cloture. That’s just not true.

And one more thing:
Unanimous consent is a 100 votes for heaven sake!
Um. No. Unanimous consent is not a roll call vote. It’s an "unless anyone objects" motion. There’s a big difference. The fundamental deceit in this post (and subsequent comments) is the suggestion that it is somehow routine to have every Senator who opposes a bill also vote to keep it from reaching the floor. That’s not routine. It’s called a filibuster and it has traditionally been used sparingly.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Boy, have the liberals made total *sses of themselves on this thread! Clearly they believe that if they just keep on supporting each other their point of view will triumph.

Of course, as so clearly stated by AL, they don’t feel that that have to literally be right, as in having their point actually reflect actual facts. It is enough if they are in effect true as the issue is commonly understood by liberals and shared amongst themselves via the LN.

When confronted by other than a sheeple, they just cannot understand all this emphasis on facts and actual truth. Confronted with the actual rule and a practical interpretation of the rule by a noted expert, they continues to believe that they can make their LN version stand. And so it will, unfortunately, with the sheeple.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
The confusion comes from McQ’s implication, both in his post and subsequent comments, that you need to have 60 Senators who support a bill in order to get it passed.
That was never implied. That was your strawman.
insist that it is somehow commonplace for Senators who oppose a bill to oppose cloture
Another strawman.

What is common is the requirement for cloture.
Unanimous consent is not a roll call vote.
Yet another strawman. Big surprise. Three strikes and you’re out.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
The confusion comes from McQ’s implication, both in his post and subsequent comments, that you need to have 60 Senators who support a bill in order to get it passed.

Exactly. In the original post he wrote:
Senior Democratic leadership aides acknowledged that Reid’s all-nighter - complete with roll-away beds - is meant to draw public attention to GOP demands that any changes to Iraq policy carry a 60-vote majority.
That isn’t a "GOP demand". Those are the rules of the Senate.
This implies that the rules of the Senate require that any changes to Iraq policy carry a 60 vote majority. They do not. They only require that 41 or more Senators who oppose the bill not choose to filibuster. The GOP could do as is usually the case, allow a vote even if they know the Democrats will pass it with the majority, or they filibuster. They choose the latter.

McQ repeated his error in a recent comment:

Bill doesn’t have 60 or more votes, then it doesn’t continue in the process.
Again, the bill isn’t being voted on, the bill doesn’t need 60 or more votes, all you need is 60 or more who agree to end debate and actually have a vote.

Normally this would be easy to remedy, McQ could say, "Yes, you’re right, I meant that in cases of issues of high importance Senate rules allow Senators to demand a 60 vote majority if 41 or more feel strongly about it. I was a bit loose in my wording." He can’t do that, though, because that claim was the basis of his attempts to call Ried disingenuous and a liar. That also essentially eliminated discussion and recognition of the allegation which has is worthy of debate: Is this a meaningless stunt, is it something that the Senate should not do?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The confusion comes from McQ’s implication, both in his post and subsequent comments, that you need to have 60 Senators who support a bill in order to get it passed.
The only one confused here is you, and your pathetic attempts to blame others for your confusion is noted.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
What’s amazing is that Democrats actually want to oppose the use of the filibuster.

I guess this time it’s just different.

And of course, the Democrats version of "compromise" is, how far do you want us to bend you over?

They aren’t really interested in debate, unless it’s going to result in what they want, and nothing but what they want.
The standing rules of the Senate promote deliberation by permitting Senators
to debate at length and by precluding a simple majority from ending debate when
they are prepared to vote to approve a bill or other matter. This right of extended
debate permits filibusters that can be brought to an end if the Senate invokes cloture,
usually by a vote of three-fifths of all Senators. Even then, debate can continue under
cloture for an additional thirty hours. The possibility of filibusters encourages the
Senate to seek consensus whenever possible and to conduct business under the terms
of unanimous consent agreements that limit the time available for debate and
amending.
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.
cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
And let’s see, logically, if 41 Senators can effectively block a certain bill from ever passing, then for that certain bill you need 60 Senators to pass it.

Rhetorical games don’t change the facts that this is how it’s been for some time, and the Democraps played that game (OFTEN) when they were in the minority.

And it doesn’t change the fact that the talk-a-thon is a stunt. If they want to compromise, they would sit down, and shut up until the September report. At which time they would have more authority if things don’t improve.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Senate rules allow Senators to demand a 60 vote majority
Nope. You’ve still got it wrong. (I’m getting tired of repeating these links.)

It is the normal rule that requires a cloture motion to end debate:
Without [a unanimous consent] agreement, the bill could be debated for as long as Senators wish — as could each amendment, whether germane or not — unless the Senate votes to table it. These are the essential conditions under which the Senate considers a bill if it adheres to its standing rules.
The use of unanimous consent is a way to bypass the rules and speed up the process.

In other words, it’s NOT that Senators must demand a 60 vote majority because that is already the rule. Senators try to bypass the rule using the unanimous consent process.

If you bother to look at the actual Senate legislative results (which I’ve linked several times) you’ll see that the bills that bypass cloture through unanimous consent end up passing with huge (near unanimous) majorities. Occasionally, the minority will also allow a close vote after a unanimous consent in order to score political points.

McQ continues to have it right. Erb, the more you comment the more you prove yourself and your university to be a joke.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
And, again for the slow ones, the GOP was highly critical of the Dems rejecting cloture over and over for JUDICIAL nominees. That was new. It was normal to reject cloture for legislative action.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
McQ is objectively wrong. He said that it is the rules of the Senate that you need a sixty vote majority to change policy in Iraq. It is not. It is a choice by the GOP to filibuster, to not allow the bill to pass without having 60 supporters (unless the Democrats can break the demand by convincing people who oppose the bill that it is proper to nonetheless allow a vote). McQ twice worded things in ways that are simply wrong. Having worked in the Senate I can tell you that filibusters are serious things, and the culture is to allow votes even if you know you could use a filibuster and prevent things you don’t want passed from being passed. They traditionally do not do that because they know that creates gridlock, there will be political consequences, and it can be turned on them. Some of this is ’turnabout is fair play’ since I think the Democrats misused filibusters at times. But Ried’s efforts are, essentially the traditional way of trying to make the opposition pay for using a filibuster. McQ’s criticism was simply wrong.

What really is telling about McQ’s inability to admit error is that even when it’s directly pointed out what wording is wrong, he posts this to AL:
The only one confused here is you, and your pathetic attempts to blame others for your confusion is noted.

McQ can’t admit his error, and then attacks those who patiently point out, with links and explanation, why he’s wrong. But hey, I’m just a political scientist who used to work in the Senate, what would I know about this.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"I was a bit loose in my wording...
And there you have it, my friends. The liberal ...j’n’cest qua (excuse my bad French). Professor Erb has just tumbled to the fact that both he and AL are totally wrong on the point in question. Rather than simply admit their error, which, of course, they cannot do, desoute having advised so many others to do so, they start laying the groundwork for ....

Let’s just see where they attempt to go from here.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Notherbob, you have proven yourself totally dishonest. You took what was clearly what I thought McQ should say, and pretend I said it about myself. How pathetic! It’s easy to look up the discussion and see the context. Yeew, you’re like old gum on the bottom of a shoe. You have hit a new low notherbob, I was clearly saying McQ should say "I was a bit loose in my wording." And you have to know that. And you posted as if I were saying it about myself. Such flagrant dishonesty!

That speaks volumes about you.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The confusion comes from McQ’s implication, both in his post and subsequent comments, that you need to have 60 Senators who support a bill in order to get it passed.
The only one confused here is you, and your pathetic attempts to blame others for your confusion is noted.
McQ, man up and admit that your original post absolutely implied this. Scott Erb just quoted the relevant part, but since you seem to have missed it, here it is again:
Senior Democratic leadership aides acknowledged that Reid’s all-nighter - complete with roll-away beds - is meant to draw public attention to GOP demands that any changes to Iraq policy carry a 60-vote majority.
That isn’t a "GOP demand". Those are the rules of the Senate.
What we were objecting to is your suggestion that "rules of the Senate" require that "any changes to Iraq policy carry a 60-vote majority." That’s just not true, and you admit as much in the comments. The rules only require a 60 vote majority to shut off debate. And that is only necessary if someone objects to proceeding to a vote. Either way, though, you don’t need a 60 vote majority in favor of the policy itself. You just need 60 people who don’t believe the bill should be filibustered.

The reason 60 votes are required now is because the Republicans are threatening to filibuster these bills, meaning they are not only opposing the bill, but opposing a vote on the bill. That’s their right, but it’s not something that happens with every bill. In fact, it’s the exception the rule. Most bills are not filibustered.

Harry Reid isn’t trying to do away with the filibuster. He’s just trying to highlight what is actually happening here, i.e., the GOP minority is blocking bills which have majority support and not allowing them to have up-or-down votes. He’s not saying Republicans don’t have the right to do this; he just wants the American people to know why the bills aren’t getting through the Senate. You implied that Reid was lying about the rules, when that’s clearly not the case. Your post was factually incorrect and you won’t admit it.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
"Having worked in the Senate I can tell you...
"I’m just a political scientist who used to work in the Senate, what would I know about this."
Apparently not sh*t. Mr. McQuain’s authority actually WORKS IN THE SENATE!
At best you clerked in an office of someone who worked in the Senate. You lose.

Just IMHO.

Oh, and also IMHO, you have chosen a poor hill to die on.
"McQ can’t admit his error, and then attacks those who patiently point out, with links and explanation, why he’s wrong...
Mr. McQuain readily admits error. Fact number one wrong. Yes, he does, on occasion, attack those who point out that he is wrong. One fact that you have right. Probably an accident.






 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
McQ, man up and admit that your original post absolutely implied this.
AL, quit embarrassing yourself like this for heaven sake. You blew it. You’re now reduced to pathetic attempts at blaming it on "implications" which no one here sees except you.

In a word, quit being an Erb, if you hope to retain any credibility here whatsoever.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
As I sit here in Colorado watching the sun set on this "purple mountain majesty," I’m struck by two thoughts.

One, Both Erb and AL are arguing (Erb from Maine) that what I’m seeing isn’t really purple but fuscia, and while that impression may not be invalid, it totally misses the larger point...

and Two, can I get unanimous consent to end this ’debate’?
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
And, again for the slow ones, the GOP was highly critical of the Dems rejecting cloture over and over for JUDICIAL nominees. That was new. It was normal to reject cloture for legislative action.
For the record, this tired claim is totally misleading. Yes, the Democrats’ use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees was relatively new (though not totally unprecedented). But Democrats only resorted to the filibuster after Republicans did away with the old rule that allowed home state senators to issue a "blue slip" to block judicial nominees. During the Clinton administration, Republicans used blue slips to block over 60 judicial nominees. But under Bush, the Republicans changed the rule to do away with this practice. All the Democrats had left at that point was the filibuster. The fact is that the Democrats have blocked fewer of Bush’s judicial nominees than the Republicans blocked of Clinton’s.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
"Notherbob, you have proven yourself totally dishonest. You took what was clearly what I thought McQ should say, and pretend I said it about myself. How pathetic! It’s easy to look up the discussion and see the context. Yeew, you’re like old gum on the bottom of a shoe. You have hit a new low notherbob, I was clearly saying McQ should say "I was a bit loose in my wording." And you have to know that. And you posted as if I were saying it about myself. Such flagrant dishonesty!

That speaks volumes about you.
I see that both of you are going for the old "this has become so confusing that no one can make sense of it" dodge.

I am content to leave it to the readers.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
It is a choice by the GOP to filibuster, to not allow the bill to pass without having 60 supporters
The filibuster is to choose to vote against cloture. The process of cloture is NOT the filibuster. The process is the STANDARD RULE of the Senate.
worded things in ways that are simply wrong
You are so freaking stupid I am trying to convince myself that this is a joke.

I linked you to the actual explanation of the rules from the Senate website.
But Ried’s efforts
Seriously, what’s the deal with your constant misspelling of the man’s name? It’s been pointed out to you several times.
I’m just a political scientist who used to work in the Senate, what would I know about this.
That’s what is so amazing about this. I linked and quoted the Senate’s own posting about their rules.

Cloture is the DEFAULT rule. Unanimous consent is their way to bypass the rule to speed things up. Legislation forwarded through unanimous consent almost always results in near-unanimous passage of the bill. When it doesn’t (and especially when it is below a 60 vote majority) it is because the minority wants to use the majority vote as a political tool.

Relying on the cloture process is NOT rare. It is common. Look at the Senate’s legislative website that I have linked to several times.

The fact that you repeatedly mention Senate experience is all the more embarrassing for you considering the actual data from the Senate’s webpages.

And now AL writes AGAIN:
it’s the exception the rule. Most bills are not filibustered.
Most bills that are NOT bipartisan before they reach the full Senate ARE filibustered. It’s NOT an exception. It is the rule. How in the world would a potential bill that is able to get unanimous consent end up being filibustered? The Senate spends most of its time trying to get deals done beforehand in order to avoid the time consuming requirement of cloture. The use of cloture is NOT a demand — it is the DEFAULT rule and Senate leadership tries to bypass it.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
AL, quit embarrassing yourself like this for heaven sake. You blew it. You’re now reduced to pathetic attempts at blaming it on "implications" which no one here sees except you.

In a word, quit being an Erb, if you hope to retain any credibility here whatsoever.
And up is down and black is white, etc. Is this like one of those torture tactics where they force you to admit that there are 3 lights when there are only two?

McQ, the entire premise of your post is based on a false characterization of how the Senate works. It’s an "implication" but it’s a crystal clear one. Indeed, if you weren’t implying that a bill needs to have the support of 60 senators to get through the Senate, then your words make no sense at all.

Now you’re reduced to name-calling.

Apparently to have "credibility" here I have to pretend that you didn’t say what you said. No thanks.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Most bills that are NOT bipartisan before they reach the full Senate ARE filibustered. It’s NOT an exception. It is the rule. How in the world would a potential bill that is able to get unanimous consent end up being filibustered? The Senate spends most of its time trying to get deals done beforehand in order to avoid the time consuming requirement of cloture. The use of cloture is NOT a demand — it is the DEFAULT rule and Senate leadership tries to bypass it.
No one is arguing with the basic layout of the rules. What’s being contested is the suggestion that Senators who do not support legislation routinely vote against cloture, thereby requiring every bill to have at least 60 supporters to even proceed to a vote. That’s just not true. Filibusters are generally used sparingly. Is it really your contention that all (or even most) bills that are opposed by 41 or more Senators are filibustered? If so, where is your evidence for that assertion?
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
McQ can’t admit his error, and then attacks those who patiently point out, with links and explanation, why he’s wrong. — Erb
McQ and the others who’ve been typing themselves blue in the face trying to explain a simple fact to you err only if they suppose you’ll eventually cop to understanding the obvious.
But hey, I’m just a political scientist who used to work in the Senate, what would I know about this.
Despite being point blank told repeatedly, you know not even so much as how to spell the name of the dour simpleton you’ve elected to defend. You do, however, know how to make him appear a bit less of a florid imbecile than at least one of his supporters.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
You know, McQ, no one would think lesser of you if you admitted you made a mistake and apologized. It actually is a sign of high self-esteem and integrity if one can admit an error, especially in an emotional debate. Think about it.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
if you weren’t implying that a bill needs to have the support of 60 senators to get through the Senate, then your words make no sense at all.
Of course his words made sense. A bill needs to have the permission of 60 Senators, not support, to get through the Senate. It’s your fault if you infer meaning ("support") that was not written. If 60 Senators (or more) can’t agree to allow a bill to continue its process, then the bill has zero chance of ever becoming a law. It’s not complicated.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
can I get unanimous consent to end this ’debate’?
Guess not. I move for Cloture!
I am content to leave it to the readers.
Most readers have already reached the conclusion that both AL and Erb have resigned themselves to quibbling minor points so they try to claim victory in the larger debate, a debate which they have, not surprisingly, already abandonded.

Someone upthread mentioned how poorly this debate reflects upon Professor Erb’s institution. It actually is much more revealing of Erb’s intellectual integrity as a professor. Let us just hope Anonymous Liberal isn’t also charged with educating tomorrow’s adults.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
no one would think lesser of you
Seriously Erb, I have never had a lower opinion of your intelligence than today. Before I just understood you to manipulate your own words to mean something different when you got caught contradicting yourself. Now you have proven yourself to have very little understanding of how the Senate actually works, even after being presented with their own rules. I weep for your students.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I move for Cloture!
I’ll agree to vote for cloture.

AL has pinpointed his error (inferring "support" where none existed), and Erb has proven himself to be more ignorant than I believed possible.

The facts are linked.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG: Your bluster is an obvious effort to deny the truth, which I think you know but don’t want to admit. Neither you nor McQ have countered what AL and I have pointed out, you just snidely dismiss reality and use greasy language to try to deny the reality that filibusters are not required by Senate rules, and are used rarely. McQ was objectively wrong. As a political scientist who used to work in the Senate, I know what I’m talking about.

But it’s fun to see how McQ was caught in an obvious mistake, and how he and a few of you bend over backwards to avoid admitting it. That’s rather pathetic. But I’ll go for cloture — you can throw some more insults in the pot and pretend that’s enough to somehow "win." But you know you’re wrong, and I know you know it, and your games aren’t fooling anyone. Here again is the stake in the heart of the McQ’s argument — read it and weep (then try to hide behind insults and bluster):

Exactly. In the original post he wrote:

Senior Democratic leadership aides acknowledged that Reid’s all-nighter - complete with roll-away beds - is meant to draw public attention to GOP demands that any changes to Iraq policy carry a 60-vote majority.
That isn’t a "GOP demand". Those are the rules of the Senate.
This implies that the rules of the Senate require that any changes to Iraq policy carry a 60 vote majority. They do not. They only require that 41 or more Senators who oppose the bill not choose to filibuster. The GOP could do as is usually the case, allow a vote even if they know the Democrats will pass it with the majority, or they filibuster. They choose the latter.

McQ repeated his error in a recent comment:


Bill doesn’t have 60 or more votes, then it doesn’t continue in the process.
Again, the bill isn’t being voted on, the bill doesn’t need 60 or more votes, all you need is 60 or more who agree to end debate and actually have a vote.
Satisfied smile.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Some are certainly going to Greenwaldian heights to prove something...

What that point actually is, beats me.

Fact remains that the talk-a-thon is a political stunt meant to satisfy the basest of base seeking retreat and defeat.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
McQ, the entire premise of your post is based on a false characterization of how the Senate works.
You keep telling yourself that, AL. In fact any implication you took from the post was based in your ignorance of how the Senate actually worked and thus you drew the wrong conclusions, not me. I can’t help you with that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
use greasy language to try to deny the reality that filibusters are not required by Senate rules
Now you’re back to your typical Erb Logic.

NO ONE is arguing that filibusters are required by Senate rules. No one but you, that is

Cloture to end debate is required in the Senate. The only way to bypass that rule is to agree to limit debate beforehand through unanimous consent.

There is no other way to end debate. NONE. And it MUST be officially ended.

You are confusing (either on purpose with your typical Erb Logic or out of stupidity) the use of rejecting cloture by the minority party — i.e. the filibuster — with the RULE that cloture (or unanimous consent beforehand) is required to end time for debate and to move legislation to a floor vote.

Use the link to the Senate rules from the Senate’s own website and quote me any other way to end debate.

You can’t.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
107th Senate - 1st Session (2001)
Control went from Dem to Rep until Jeffords switched his caucus choice in June which returned it to Dems

From the Senate’s legislative site which I have linked several times:

23 bills passed without using cloture
17 of them were unanimous or had at least 90 yes votes
4 more had greater than 60 yes votes (but fewer than 90) — and actually only 1 of them had fewer than 75 yes votes
The remaining 2 passed with 59 yes votes — Campaign Finance Reform and Patient’s Bill of Rights
Campaign Finance Reform passed under Rep control and opposed by majority of Republicans
Patient’s Bill of Rights began under Rep control but passed under Dem control and opposed by majority of Republicans

Additionally, there were 20 motions for cloture for 11 other bills
9 motions for cloture were rejected
11 motions were accepted

The same pattern is evident year after year.

It is factually wrong to state that the use of cloture is uncommon, rare, or exceptional.

In fact, the opposite is true: It is rare to bypass cloture UNLESS there is very strong bipartisan support to pass a bill. And how often does anyone think that proposed bills actually gather strong bipartisan support before they make it to the full Senate?
As a political scientist who used to work in the Senate, I know what I’m talking about.
This is such a ridiculous statement that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. You have proven yourself to be a buffoon once again.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
You know, McQ, no one would think lesser of you if you admitted you made a mistake and apologized. It actually is a sign of high self-esteem and integrity if one can admit an error, especially in an emotional debate. Think about it.
D@mn it Scott! Now that made me laugh out loud!
It actually is a sign of high self-esteem and integrity if one can admit an error
Bwahahahahhahahahahahahahaha - physician, heal thyself!
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
"Satisfied smile."
Am I the only one who immediately pictured Alfred E. Neuman?
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Keith, yes it was a political stunt. It probably plays the the Democratic base which is upset with the lack of action on the war, and in that sense was probably useful to the Democratic party. On the filibuster issue, if the Senate starts having both parties use filibusters on every bill, rather than just on the most important ones, that’s very troubling and contrary to the traditional meaning of the filibuster. One thing is clear though: Senate rules do not necessitate using the filibuster on every issue, and in fact when the filibuster rules were changed the goal was to weaken the filibuster. If the result is to create an incentive to abuse it through overuse (not that the GOP did this time — arguably this bill is of the kind where a filibuster would be expected in any era) that is an example of unintended consequences. But in no way to Senate rules demand that any bill have the support of 60 Senators to become law. Senators have traditionally — and hopefully still will — recognized that blocking votes just because they’ll lose is not good for the country or the Senate. And Senate rules certainly do not require them to pass only things that have support of 60 Senators!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Senate rules do not necessitate using the filibuster on every issue
And NO ONE is arguing otherwise.
But in no way to Senate rules demand that any bill have the support of 60 Senators to become law. [emphasis mine]
Again — NO ONE is arguing otherwise — and this has been explained repeatedly.

You have now added one more example of why so many of us find your method of "debate" to be such a joke and worthy of constant ridicule.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"One thing is clear though: Senate rules do not necessitate using the filibuster on every issue...in no way to (sic) Senate rules demand that any bill have the support of 60 Senators to become law...And Senate rules certainly do not require them to pass only things that have support of 60 Senators!"
"ByGolly, I’ll keep reframing and repeating this thing until I am right! You must listen! I used to work in the Senate! I am a Political Science person! Listen to me!"*


*Not an actual quote.


Jeez...
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
That isn’t a "GOP demand". Those are the rules of the Senate. The same rules under which the Democrats blocked legislation in the 109th Congress while they were in the minority. To pretend otherwise is simply disingenunous.
It’s not one or the other. The rules of the Senate allow the GOP to filibuster legislation constantly unless there are 60 votes for passage. The rules certainly don’t obligate the GOP to obstruct legislation unless there are 60 votes for passage, so it certainly is also a "GOP Demand". If the GOP, meaning Mitch McConnell, wasn’t demanding the 60 votes to create cloture, it would also be possible to pass legislation changing the Iraq policy with only 50 votes. Which happened all the time in previous Congresses.

Republicans think they can universally filibuster the Senate, refuse to allow any votes to come to cloture at all, and then blame Democrats for being a "do-nothing" congress. If they’re right, it’s only an example of how throughly corrupted and right-wing our media system has become. But I doubt that they’re right.

Your brand-new access to Senator McConnell, no doubt thanks to Jon Henke’s hookups, hasn’t done much for your logical clarity or argumentative honesty. Hey, I’m just a liberal, so my opinion doesn’t count.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
If the GOP, meaning Mitch McConnell, wasn’t demanding the 60 votes to create cloture, it would also be possible to pass legislation changing the Iraq policy with only 50 votes. Which happened all the time in previous Congresses.
How do you end debate in the Senate, Glasnost? There’s only one way to do it and not reject the bill. And that’s true for every bill offered. What is that? What is the requirement in votes?

What then happens to the bill? And what is the vote requirement then for its passage?
Your brand-new access to Senator McConnell, no doubt thanks to Jon Henke’s hookups, hasn’t done much for your logical clarity or argumentative honesty.
As with AL, you’re supposed "logical clarity" and one assumes "argumentative honesty (which seems, given your latest comments on various threads to be mostly fantasy) is a result of obvious ignorance, but I do enjoy your desire to display it so conspicuously.

Where my "brand-new" access to Senator McConnell comes from is irrelevant. The quote is accurate and has been shown to be accurate from every angle it has been examined, except among the ’argumentively honest’ like you.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I’m just a liberal, so my opinion doesn’t count.
No, your opinion counts for as much as the rest of us.

However, your facts must be accurate.
Republicans think they can universally filibuster the Senate, refuse to allow any votes to come to cloture at all, and then blame Democrats for being a "do-nothing" congress.
The actual evidence is here.

This has got to be the 4th or 5th time I’ve linked to the Senate’s legislative page. When will Glasnost, Erb, or AL bother to look at the facts before spouting off some more BS? I mean, seriously...take a look...it’s very straight forward...there’s nothing tricky or sneaky about it.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
When will Glasnost, Erb, or AL bother to look at the facts before spouting off some more BS? I mean, seriously...take a look...it’s very straight forward...there’s nothing tricky or sneaky about it.
It’s called spin, JWG. If they admitted to the point you and I and countless others have made, then they’d have to agree with the point of the post. And they’d rather further erode their credibility (and in Erb’s case, completely destroy it) than admit the point.

It’s called being purposefully obtuse. It is ideologically driven condition. Internalize the mantra and repeat it, despite convincing evidence to the contrary.

But that won’t keep them from lecturing others on ’argumentative honesty’. Heh ... they’re to the point they can’t even grasp enough straws to build a decent strawman. However, don’t expect them to actually read your links.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, you’re describing yourself. You know very well the rules of the Senate don’t require 60 votes in favor of a bill to pass it. You were wrong in your statement and you just don’t have the honor to admit it publicly. I even posted two obvious false statements from you. That even when faced with public evidence of your error you can’t admit making a mistake, and instead fall back into more insults, well, that says a lot about you. I really don’t understand you at all, you seem to take these debates so personally and emotionally. Again:

Senior Democratic leadership aides acknowledged that Reid’s all-nighter - complete with roll-away beds - is meant to draw public attention to GOP demands that any changes to Iraq policy carry a 60-vote majority.
MCQ: That isn’t a "GOP demand". Those are the rules of the Senate.

Scott: This implies that the rules of the Senate require that any changes to Iraq policy carry a 60 vote majority. They do not. They only require that 41 or more Senators who oppose the bill not choose to filibuster. The GOP could do as is usually the case, allow a vote even if they know the Democrats will pass it with the majority, or they filibuster. They choose the latter.

McQ repeated his error in a recent comment:

MCQ: Bill doesn’t have 60 or more votes, then it doesn’t continue in the process.

Again, the bill isn’t being voted on, the bill doesn’t need 60 or more votes, all you need is 60 or more who agree to end debate and actually have a vote.
The person losing credibility is you, McQ, even though obviously you have a ’home field advantage’ and readers who will defend you and insult those who point out your mistakes. But you are too smart not to know you made a mistake. If you had changed it to say "Senate rules give the Republicans the option of demanding 60 votes by the right to filibuster" early on, there wouldn’t have been any debate about this. But you just seem constitutionally incapable of admitting you are wrong about anything.

It really doesn’t hurt, McQ. In a debate on Iraq I said that the Iraq war is less popular than the Vietnam war ever was, and that the Vietnam war had majority support throughout. People corrected me and gave me links to information that, low and behold, after 1968 the war was below 50% popularity, and dipped quite low by the end. I’ve also many times admitted to miswording something (like you did in your post) and apologized. It really doesn’t hurt, no one expects you to be perfect.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Look, the whole hair-splitting debate is pointless. If the GOP wanted to allow this bill to come to a vote, they could. They don’t. They’re filibustering. What part of the above do you disagree with? Any? I honestly don’t even know. It seems to me like you’re playing games to avoid acknowledging this simple point. And you think I’m playing games, so probably we’re not communicating well. Let’s try this again.
It’s called spin, JWG. If they admitted to the point you and I and countless others have made, then they’d have to agree with the point of the post. And they’d rather further erode their credibility (and in Erb’s case, completely destroy it) than admit the point.

It’s called being purposefully obtuse. It is ideologically driven condition. Internalize the mantra and repeat it, despite convincing evidence to the contrary.

But that won’t keep them from lecturing others on ’argumentative honesty’. Heh ... they’re to the point they can’t even grasp enough straws to build a decent strawman. However, don’t expect them to actually read your links.
I accuse you of exactly what you’re accusing me of, so here, allow me to go first:

What point? That 60 votes have always been required to end debate on a bill? I haven’t been ignoring that point. I’ve been overlooking it as meaningless. And it is meaningless. While it may always take sixty votes to end debate on a bill, that 60 votes is usually given automatically, as a formality. It’s so unusual to refuse to allow a bill to come to the floor, that they gave this procedure a special name. 60 votes may always be required, but but when those votes - to end debate on a bill - are not granted, that’s called... a a filibuster.

Meanwhile, you think I’m just making this stuff up about the level of quality of your work? Here’s your own post on the "nuclear option" from two years ago. Two years ago, you were at least willing to raise contrary arguments before stating your disagreement. That was a nuanced discussion about the constitutionality of the filibuster, and you decided that the filibuster was unconstitutional.

Two years later, and - what a surprise! - here you are slinging, as far as I can tell, contentless mud at Harry Reid, accusing him of "lying" - about what? Do you still know what you claimed Harry Reid was lying about? Those are your words. Do you think you’ve established that the filibuster here is not a "GOP demand?" Don’t you think it’s a little extreme to call the phrase a "GOP demand" a lie when it is the GOP that is refusing to vote for cloture?? The GOP is demanding that the debate continue - indefinitely - rather than allow an up or down vote on a withdrawal bill. Is that or is it not a GOP demand? Is Harry Reid lying? You didn’t even quote him! You quoted a newspaper summary.

Meanwhile, Two years ago you decided that the filibuster was unconstitutional, and now you’re cheering it on.

Until you can explain that, I’ll stay where I stood: this has been a great exercise in mudslinging on all sides, but I struggle to find your coherent position, except "withdrawal from Iraq is bad, and who cares how we prevent that". I don’t think you give a dam* about the constitutionality of this one way or the other. But you pretended to when it suited your purposes.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Look, the whole hair-splitting debate is pointless.
Actually the only one’s here engaged in hair-splitting are you, Erb and AL.
Two years ago you decided that the filibuster was unconstitutional, and now you’re cheering it on.
Two points: that was a judicial filibuster and it was unprecedented and, as I said, unconstitutional. Advise and consent doesn’t translate into block and filibuster among those who dwell in the English speaking world.

And two, I’m not cheering anything on, I’m pointing out that the rules of the Senate require a 60 vote majority to end debate before a bill can move on.

That’s been in the Senate in one form or another, for almost a century as an accepted part of its rules. Since I know you people don’t read links, I’ll quote the relevant paragraph:
Beginning after the Civil War and continuing until at least 1925, proposals were offered to permit a majority to terminate debate at once by ordering the previous question. Most such plans failed to reach the floor, and the Senate failed to adopt those that did. Instead, when the Senate finally adopted a cloture rule in 1917, it provided not that a simple majority could immediately terminate consideration, but only that a super-majority of two-thirds could limit each Senator to one hour of debate. It also provided that once cloture was invoked, only germane amendments would be in order. Although since amended, this basic mechanism remains in effect today.
And that amended mechanism has been explained, ad nauseum, you and the others. Now you’d think Skippy, who claims to have worked in the Senate, and, one assumes, he did so before 1917, would know that, wouldn’t you?

You may not like the fact it’s a rule because it is inconvenient for your predictable "obstructionist" talking point, but them’s the facts.

Now, armed with that new knowledge, answer the questions I posed in the last response to you.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I mean, seriously...take a look...it’s very straight forward...there’s nothing tricky or sneaky about it.

This is the first time I noticed your link to the Senate records, JWG. I haven’t been paying attention to you at all. I’ve been arguing with McQ.

It looks like there were more votes against cloture in the 109’th Republican Congress than I recognized. Okay.

There were thirteen, to be exact. Of those, only five had fifty votes or more for cloture, meaning only five of them had enough majority- Republican - support to pass anyway. Those five are the only ones that could be said to be a filibuster - the others didn’t have enough majority support to end debate.

Meanwhile, we’ve had twenty-five rejected cloture votes in the Senate this year, of which ten had fifty cloture votes.

So, in six months of this year, we’ve had double the number of genuine filibusters and almost double the number of rejected cloture votes as we had all last year in the Republican Senate - and this is after two solid years of Republican whining about filibusters. That’s twice as many filibusters in half the time. You can do that math, right? That’s four times as many filibusters per session at current rates.

I think it’s safe to say that the Republicans are filibustering at a much increased rate over the Democrats, a rather hypocritical act of obstructionism that they bitc*ed about constantly when they were in power. Making them pay for their filibusters is exactly what Reid needs to do in order to be a competent majority leader.

Me, I respect the filibuster. You want to filibuster? Fine. But you’ll get yours the next time. McConnell should think about what he wants his majority experience to be like, if he ever gets back to the majority. He’ll be lucky to pass a laundry list.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
And for those who were paying attention - Reid voted against cloture! The very person who called this slumber party together voted with the Republicans to keep up the debate and not proceed to the vote. Now someone take a moment to ’splain that one to me.

Meanwhile:
Just another in a long line of lies and half-truths put out there by the incompetent Senate Majority Leader - Harry Reid.
Seems like it has been stated before but just for the record - BINGO!

 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Now, armed with that new knowledge, answer the questions I posed in the last response to you.


Am I not reading your links? You’re not even reading my statements. To repeat myself:
What point? That 60 votes have always been required to end debate on a bill? I haven’t been ignoring that point. I’ve been overlooking it as meaningless. And it is meaningless.
60 votes have been required to invoke cloture since 1917. (67, apparently, at that time). Sure. Fine. Hoo-ray.

As far as I can see, that’s what you want me to "admit", as if it renders your broader point accurate. It doesn’t. By refusing to vote for cloture - an historically exceptional event - the Republicans are filibustering. As my last post to JWG mentioned, they’re filibustering a lot. **That** is the GOP demand. Since there hasn’t been a 60-seat majority party in Congress since 1977, it’s clear that the minority party could completely shut down the Senate any time they want to. But they don’t, because it’s irresponsible, and because it would likely lead to the breakdown of the system.

Well, those points apply here. The Republicans demanded that debate continue on this bill, ignoring the clear will of the public, by refusing to vote for cloture. It’s a GOP demand, it’s an unreasonable demand, and Harry Reid is both right in his decision and accurate in his terminology.

Now, my question: do you consider it honest to call Harry Reid a liar when he characterizes the GOP’s refusal to allow an up-or-down vote on the bill, and their demand that debate continue, a "demand?". Do you always consider someone a liar when they characterize a vote as a demand?

Can I expect that standard to be followed in the future? Are you never going to equate Democratic bills as "demands"? You mind if I call you on that?

You called Harry Reid a liar over nothing at all. I’ve answered your question. Please, answer mine. Or else I’ll be looking for your consistent standard of "calling a vote a demand is a lie".

Oh, final question:
Advise and consent doesn’t translate into block and filibuster among those who dwell in the English speaking world.
What a joke. "Consent" obviously implies the option of "not consenting", of which a filibuster is clearly a method of non-consent. But if you really want to go there, here’s a quote you bolded in your *last* argument:
A filibuster rule designed to encourage necessary debate is certainly within the scope of this constitutional provision, but a filibuster designed not to encourage debate but to thwart the will of the majority long after the debate has run its course runs afoul of other constitutional norms, such as the requirement for majority rule in the absence of a specific constitutional provision to the contrary.
So, where’s the specific constiutional provision to the contrary for these Republican filibusters, eh? You used these constitutional arguments as the basis for your decision that the judicial filibuster was unconstitutional, but the legislative filibuster is constitutional under these arguments how? By ignoring them?




 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
As far as I can see, that’s what you want me to "admit", as if it renders your broader point accurate. It doesn’t.
Nice attempt to move the goal posts, Glasnost.
That isn’t a "GOP demand". Those are the rules of the Senate. The same rules under which the Democrats blocked legislation in the 109th Congress while they were in the minority. To pretend otherwise is simply disingenunous.
That was my point. And, as even you admit now (although you apparently don’t realize it), it is entirely accurate.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
we’ve had twenty-five rejected cloture votes in the Senate this year...I think it’s safe to say that the Republicans are filibustering at a much increased rate over the Democrats
Actually, there were 20 rejected cloture motions and 17 accepted cloture motions for the 110th Senate

How many rejections involved Iraq? 7
How many rejections involved immigration? 4

So more than half (55%) were for Iraq and immigration.

5 more ended up being for bills that passed the Senate.

That leaves 4 filibusters for something other than Iraq or immigration:
— 2 went against (and an additional cloture motion was accepted) Intelligence Agencies FY2007 Authorization bill (returned to the calendar)
— 1 went against Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 (from the House — the Senate has another version currently in committee)
— 1 went against Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007 (currently dead)
As my last post to JWG mentioned, they’re filibustering a lot
It’s not as dramatic as you make it out to be.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
McQ, are you saying that a demand can’t be made while following Senate rules? The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Just because Senate rules allow the GOP to make such a demand doesn’t mean it’s not a demand! So where did Ried lie?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
So where did Ried lie?
You know those people who think Professym Larry Chomstein is for real and write him letters? I’m starting to feel the way they must feel on discovering he’s just a great big ongoing joke. Except they get the enjoyment of seeing that the person behind the joke is in on the joke and actually quite funny. As in funny ha ha, not funny in the head.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
McQ, are you saying that a demand can’t be made while following Senate rules?
Not to worry Linda ... if he wasn’t real we’d have to make him up.

BTW, what you see above is capitulation in Erbanistan. His problem is he just can’t shut up. He’s arguing about the word "demand" now. It just can’t get any more pathetic than that (or so a normal person would think).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
One more for Glasnost, who just doesn’t seem to be able to make the jump here:
You used these constitutional arguments as the basis for your decision that the judicial filibuster was unconstitutional, but the legislative filibuster is constitutional under these arguments how? By ignoring them?
Yeah, you see Glasnost, the Constitution gives the Senate the power of "Advice and Consent" (Art. II, Sec II) as it pertains to the appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court. Now, where I come from those words have specific meanings and they aren’t "block and filibuster".

However, as for it’s own internal workings, the Constitution gives the Senate the leeway to make it’s own rules, which, as I’ve noted and linked above, include the cloture rule.

Now are you able to get your head around that difference?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, the basis for pointing out your error is YOU said it was a lie to say the GOP demanded something. You seem to think that this is because that demand was allowed by the rules, it shouldn’t be called a demand. That is illogical. No matter how much you hide behind insults, you aren’t dealing honestly with the issue.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
you aren’t dealing honestly with the issue
F*cking idiot. Seriously. Your students should point and laugh everytime you speak.

Now feel free to lecture me on insults and emotion so I can taunt you again. Idiot.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG: From Rush, Neurotica off the CD "Roll the Bones:" The world is a cage for your impotent rage, but don’t let it get to you.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
": From Rush, Neurotica off the CD "Roll the Bones:" The world is a cage for your impotent rage, but don’t let it get to you."

For pete’s sake, try to come up with something new, original, or at least moderately amusing. You sound like a child saying "sticks and stones..." or "I’m rubber, you’re glue..." over and over.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Erb has that Rush line set as a quickkey so he can hit it anytime someone makes him cry.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I think that this story about liberal journalists illustrates the problem that occurred in this thread:
"The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong." This is reminiscent of the "fake but accurate" defense of CBS’s Bush National Guard hoax. If Thomas were giving a plainer account of what happened, he would have said something like this: Our reporting was guided by our prejudices, and even though the story turned out to be false, we stand behind our prejudices.
The liberals represented here could say: Our comments were guided by our prejudices, and even though the facts don’t support them, we stand behind our prejudices.

 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Yeah, you see Glasnost, the Constitution gives the Senate the power of "Advice and Consent" (Art. II, Sec II) as it pertains to the appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court. Now, where I come from those words have specific meanings and they aren’t "block and filibuster".

However, as for it’s own internal workings, the Constitution gives the Senate the leeway to make it’s own rules, which, as I’ve noted and linked above, include the cloture rule.

Now are you able to get your head around that difference?
I guess it’s nice that you tried to make a logical and consistent explanation for your views on who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy in the two situations.

But you still called Harry Reid a "liar" for calling a GOP filibuster a "demand" - actually, it wasn’t even his words. And it was a ridiculous thing to do, the sort of thing you wouldn’t think twice about roasting a leftist for doing.

I’m not sure if I really believe that you’re going to consider judicial filibusters bad, even if Republicans are doing them, and legislative filibusters are just fine, even if Democrats are doing them, but I suppose there will be time to find out. You support the filibuster interpretation that leaves the legislature the weakest - no power to oppose judicial nominations, but plenty of power to fail to pass legislation. I support filibusters in both situations - it’s judicial activism to say exactly what "consent" means here - but obviously, the filibuster can’t be used universally, or the system falls apart. No majority party, including the Republicans, deserves to be totally unable to call votes on their own legislation.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Nice attempt to move the goal posts, Glasnost.
They’re not my goalposts. No one who’s been arguing here has been trying to disagree with your history of the rules of the Senate. You’ve been arguing about whether it has or hasn’t always taken 60 votes to get cloture, and we’ve been arguging - from the beginning - that this is a sideshow argument, and the real point is, those 60 votes are usually available, unless the minority party is acting like a bunch of irresponsible jerks.

To the extent that anyone got caught up arguing about cloture rules, chalk it up to the way that it’s hard to completely ignore you. The point is, I mean, blame it on disingenuousness if you feel like it, but you and your detractors have been talking past each other.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
But you still called Harry Reid a "liar" for calling a GOP filibuster a "demand" - actually, it wasn’t even his words. And it was a ridiculous thing to do, the sort of thing you wouldn’t think twice about roasting a leftist for doing.
Oh BS. Isaid the claim was disingenuous. YOU are the person who is morphing into calling the man a liar, because you have absolutely nothing else to go on. That’s your problem, not mine.
No one who’s been arguing here has been trying to disagree with your history of the rules of the Senate.
More BS. That is precisely what has been argued here and it would be nice if you’d avail yourself of the information in the comment thread before shooting off your uninformed comments.
To the extent that anyone got caught up arguing about cloture rules, chalk it up to the way that it’s hard to completely ignore you. The point is, I mean, blame it on disingenuousness if you feel like it, but you and your detractors have been talking past each other.
You’re full of it today, aren’t you? I’ve addressed every one of my "detractors" points and they’ve all been found to be wanting ... including yours. What has been revealing though is the absurd lengths you and they will go to try and find something, anything, to hang your silly arguments on. And they, and you, have displayed a depth of ignorance and and unwillingness to admit it which has been breathtaking.

You, given your replies, have obviously not carefully read the post or the comments. Erb is reduced to arguing about the word "demand". And AL finally figured out that following the advice of the ’first law of holes’ is probably a good idea. You might consider it as well.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I think this is the line in your post which makes us think you are calling him a liar:
Just another in a long line of lies and half-truths put out there by the incompetent Senate Majority Leader - Harry Reid.
Where has anybody been arguing against you on the rules of the Senate? Consider: in 1991 the US Senate approved military action against Iraq by a vote of 52 to 47. Clearly 47 Senators opposed what would become Operation Desert Storm. Clearly they knew they had more than forty votes, and if they wanted to, they could have refused to authorize the war. Yet they did not filibuster or prevent the vote — that would have been seen as obstructionist.

That’s the point Reid is making on this. You don’t need 60 votes in favor of something to get it out of the Senate. You didn’t in 1991, you don’t now.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
You don’t need 60 votes in favor of something to get it out of the Senate.
Classic Erb Logic. This argument has been shot down many times as your own distortion, yet you continue to post it. Pathetic but not surprising.

BTW, here is the 102nd Senate info on the Iraq resolutions.

You’ll notice that no cloture motion was necessary. That means that 100% of the senators agreed to limit debate beforehand. NO ONE (other than you and AL) ever argued that "support" or "favor" was required of 60 senators to get something through the Senate.
Yet they did not filibuster or prevent the vote
Hey Mr. Poli-Sci — the entire 102nd Congress was controlled by the Democrats. You are quite the genius.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG - it’s irrelevant that the Congress was controlled by the Democrats. Why would that matter? You don’t deny the point that the anti-war group could have filibusters but chose not to because that would have been seen as obstructionist. Which is the point Reid was making about the current vote.

Face it, you’ve been proven wrong. If you have any honor, you’ll admit that. If you have no honor, you’ll just hurl more insults.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
You don’t deny the point that the anti-war group could have filibusters but chose not to because that would have been seen as obstructionist.
1) The argument from McQ and others is that at least 60 senators or 100 senators must agree to allow any legislation to move forward. Always. It’s in the rules. It’s not a GOP thing.
2) In your example, 100 senators allowed the resolution to move forward. They followed the rules.

Could the anti-war group have hypothetically blocked the resolution? Of course. But I showed why it was not a good comparison:
1) In your example the anti-war group was the majority party and the resolution was pro war — in today’s case the anti-war group is the majority party and the resolution is anti-war so the minority party has no other power to control the outcome (not the case in your example)
2) Since the Democrats didn’t filibuster and in fact agreed unanimously to limit debate, you don’t know the actual motives for each of the anti-war votes — many could have voted nay knowing the measure was going to pass so as to give them anti-war credibility — many could have given consent to avoid looking obstructionist against their OWN party in a time of war — many could have given consent to avoid looking obstructionist in a time of war just because Bush 41 was going to invade anyway.
Face it, you’ve been proven wrong.
All you’ve proven is that 100 senators agreed to allow the 1991 pro-war resolution to proceed through the senate which has been McQ’s point all along. The only "demand" that 60 senators (or 100 senators) must allow any legislation to continue is the RULE of the senate itself.

Use your Erb Logic to twist this Truth any way you want, but the facts are plainly presented for everyone to see. I’m pleased that you provided another example of your Erb Logic for everyone to witness.

Good work, Dr. Poli-Sci
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
From Reid’s own press release about cloture at his own website (emphasis mine):
As Majority Leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules, and for the minority rights that the rules protect.
[...]
The Senate rules are part of the genius of the American political system. By requiring super-majorities to overcome opposition to major bills, the rules naturally lead to policies that bring Senators together across party lines, and that appeal to a broader majority of the American people. The rules promote unity, moderation and bipartisanship.
[...]
The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority. I’m sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of the Majority Leader next year. But I recognize this requirement as a tool that serves the long-term interests of the Senate and of the American people.
Erb, tell me again how the rules of the Senate are now a "GOP demand".

Dr. "Poli-Sci" my a$$.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider