Lack of Nuclear Option will Hurt Republicans
by Big Dog on Sep 12, 2007 at 08:35 Uncategorized
When the Republicans were in the majority they complained quite a bit that the Democrats were obstructionists. This is usually true whether they are in the minority or not when there is a Republican president as evidenced by their opposition to judicial nominees whereas Republicans give an up or down recommendation to Democratic presidents. Clinton had no trouble getting his nominees approved. In any event, the requirement in the Senate for 60 votes hurt republicans because they did not have that many. When the Democrats put up barriers for everything imaginable, the Republicans threatened to exercise what was known as the nuclear option. This would have required only a simple majority to get anything passed. Their failure to act will hurt them because they lacked the courage to go through with it thus allowing the Democrats the opportunity to do it and take credit for ending gridlock in DC.
The Democrats were vehemently opposed to this because they knew they would not be able to obstruct and they had not thoughts they would ever be in the majority again because of their self destructive nature and ideals that are out of touch with many Americans. Eventually a compromise was reached when the so-called gang of 14 (seven from each side) agreed on procedures to keep the Republicans from exercising the nuclear option. The Democrats immediately broke their promise and the republicans did not exercise the option, for some unknown reason.
Now that the Democrats are in charge and have excluded Republicans form anything that deals with legislation the republicans have become the obstructionists. I think the difference is, the Democrats in the Senate will push for a nuclear option so that a simple majority will get things done. Nancy Pelosi mentioned the problem of needing 60 votes in the Senate as a barrier to enacting their cut and run strategy. She is not in the Senate but she certainly understands that the Senate is where things get really bogged down.
“The American people long ago rejected the President’s plan to stay in Iraq, which is why they voted for a New Direction in 2006. Yet, with his veto pen and the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, the President is preventing the redeployment of our troops, the rebuilding of our military, and the refocusing of our nation’s efforts on fighting terrorism.” Yahoo News
I believe that this was the first shot fired in a battle that will see Democrats push for their nuclear option and they will not entertain a gang of any size and they will not work for compromise. They are wrongly convinced that their win in 2006 was a mandate for them to lose the war. The American want something successful done in the war, not cut and run. The troops and a majority of Americans do not want to leave in defeat and this is something the Democrats do not understand. They are so convinced that they are right that they have been battering a General Officer who has a lot of experience, more than any of them, in battle and in leading. They are telling him he is wrong and that they are right because they, I guess, can see everything from their Capitol offices.
The Democrats will work to get the 60 vote requirement done away with so they need only 51 votes to accomplish anything. I bet they wish they had let the Republicans exercise the nuclear option so that it would be in place and they could rub their noses in the fact that their tool was used against them. Perhaps not, they will probably enjoy saying they ended gridlock much more than the nose rubbing. Since that did not happen they will now work to rid themselves of the very thing they fought hard to keep. I warned the Republicans before to never, ever, trust a Democrat but they never listen.
Well, at least we have a president who seems to have found his veto pen.
Tags: Political Commentary
Hi BD,
Regarding your falsehoods about Clinton being able to get his nominations thru with pliant Republican cooperation, see your argument get dismantled here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004
Regarding the Democrats being ‘obstructionist’, why would they need to be obstructionist if they had majorities in both houses? It doesn’t make logical sense.
The Republicans have the man they formerly referred to as ‘Joe Loserman’ in their corner so, unfortunately, that impedes some legislative progress in the Senate.
I have no idea where you get evidence to back up your asserton that the ‘majority of Americans do not want to leave in defeat’. If you have evidence, by all means, present it. I think a growing number don’t give a rip and view the war as a failed, insanely expensive enterprise that has accomplished the opposite of what it was intended to.
Web Reconnaissance for 09/12/2007…
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….
Once again you fail to comprehend. Number one, the media Matters is partisan left. Secondly, they talk about a case from 1968 and I addresses Clinton who was busy dodging the draft at that time. It discusses one case from 1968! I made no claims covered in the other items.
All references I made to obstruction were when they were in the minority. They cannot obstruct now but they can change the rule they fought hard to preserve so that they can get their way (until a veto).
You said that you think (key word think) that a growing number…
I think that Americans do not want to lose. I have also seen a few polls that say Americans do not want to come home in defeat.
billy joe how bout you write your own blog and give all the facts you want…u r a richard cranium
BD,
Read a little further down. You may think Media Matters is ‘partisan left’ but facts are neither conservative nor liberal. They’re simply facts. hdrk05 is going to have to deal with it, too. Or he can join in, if he’s got better facts.
A few paragraphs below the example of actual Republican filibusters, you can also read about the obstructionist legislative maneuvers that were employed by Republicans to torpedo Clinton nominees:
“The Republican-controlled Senate blocked approximately 60 Clinton nominees through other means. This included strict enforcement under Clinton of the “blue slip” policy, which at the time allowed a senator from a nominee’s home state to block a nominee simply by failing to turn in the blue-colored approval papers required for the nomination process. While Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) strictly adhered to the “blue slip” policy to allow Republicans to block Clinton nominees, he relaxed the policy nearly to the point of elimination in his efforts to push through Bush’s nominees.
For example, Hatch held committee votes on the nominations of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Carolyn B. Kuhl over the objections of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), as well as four 6th Circuit nominees over their home state senators’ objections.”