portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

human & civil rights | imperialism & war | political theory

Lame Duck and the SillyBuster

Repubs failing or is the President turning to a lame duck?..New hope is at hand. Delay is embarrased, the president appontee delayed, a nulear option that is hollow
1. Let's make a big deal out of a brain dead smiling vegetable. Leader of the pack lead myopically the republicans to a dead end. Interestingly Jesse Jackson the great black hope fell into this black hole as with a very stupid congressmen from SW Washington. Tom Delay certainly has some weird followers. But things are seemingly starting to unravel for the right.

2. Iraq is a steaming and smelly pile of death and shit. This summer will make it more so for whitey. Our lucky war president that can wear that badge. Weird enough there is a few idiotic democrats that can support a bad war, now that your in it. Patriotism does not require thinking.

3. Social security sell out turned to a smellout. Most Americans still want to eat in thier old age. People still remember the stock market is not a reliable source of income. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all of the time. And bush is finding that out.

4. UN appointee not quit getting appointed. He may, but the Republican solid support is becoming a bit fluid. The president is being challenged with delay(pun) most certainly. This is a hopeful sign, but a cornered dog is dangerous and this dog is not alone.

4. So the filibuster is going to be a silly buster. If the rule goes to no filibuster on stupid judges, what is to stop the filibuster on all stupid senate busisness. This is the solution that will ultimately cause the nuclear option to fail. Yep it will be remembered as the big dick that could not.

5. More war is not an option. Expanding the war is not a rational option. It was not rational to go to war and now we are in competion with our own military for fuel, material and money. This is the real brake to further military expansion. Granted this is a rational conclusion, Shrubs handlers are not rational, but many Americans are, especially when it come to thier wallets.
What Lame Duck...? 22.Apr.2005 23:10

Dude

What Lame Duck....?Yea the shrub is leaving and blue skys are coming soon!
What Lame Duck....Me?
What Lame Duck....Me?

The battle over ass-hole judges AIN'T OVER TIL IT'S OVER 23.Apr.2005 00:52

Progressive Democrat

I wish it would be over, but it ain't. It was looking pretty good for a day or two, but now it looks like it's going to be tough going to get the one or two more votes that are absolutely essential. "Close" won't count!

Why I say it AIN'T OVER --

"Filibuster battle as seen on NBC" --

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/316064.shtml
_____________

Otherwise, I follow what you're saying. I even made somewhat the same analysis in my article --

"The best laid plans of mice and men . . ." --

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/315460.shtml

HOWEVER, I don't know what you mean by your # 4 --

"So the filibuster is going to be a silly buster. If the rule goes to no filibuster on stupid judges, what is to stop the filibuster on all stupid senate busisness. This is the solution that will ultimately cause the nuclear option to fail. Yep it will be remembered as the big dick that could not."

You're right that if the cloture rule is eliminated for judges, it will soon be eliminated altogether. That's inevitable. We don't yet know, however, if the cloture rule will be eliminated for judges -- and those judges will include, VERY SOON, a new Chief Justice on the Supreme Court!

So, it isn't clear to me what you have in mind about the "solution that will ultimately cause the nuclear option to fail." True, the Republicans' nuclear option will fail in the sense that the Democrats may be able to slow Senate business to a crawl -- but that may be exactly what the Republicans want going into 2006! Or, do you mean that if the Democrats go "nuclear" in their effort to resist the neo-con consolidation of fascism, that "nuclear option" of the Democrats is going to be "the big dick that could not"?
____________________

ALSO, about the Republican/corporate/hypochristian "Justice Sunday"

(COMING SOON to a FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH near you THIS SUNDAY!)

"Republicans open attack on filibuster over judges" --

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/315634.shtml
_____________

Dutch word meaning "pirate" 23.Apr.2005 08:26

The Dudes thinking here

As I see it the government will collapse before it ends its filibuster. There is lots of blame to go around, but ultimately its a sign of the lame ducks buddies running out of room. Unfortunately what the collapse of the government means is unclear. Will Dems refuse to follow rules to limit debate?
Will Dems fight to defend minority rights in th senate? Will the Dems go along to get along? Will the dems be as responsible as the repubs in not defending the right of a senators ability to speak freely in the Senate?



 http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm



Filibuster and Cloture



Using the filibuster to delay debate or block legislation has a long history. In the United States, the term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could use the filibuster technique. As the House grew in numbers, however, it was necessary to revise House rules to limit debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued since senators believed any member should have the right to speak as long as necessary.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Henry Clay, Clay threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Thomas Hart Benton angrily rebuked his colleague, accusing Clay of trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate. Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917. At that time, at the suggestion of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote -- a tactic known as "cloture."

The new Senate rule was put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Despite the new cloture rule, however, filibusters continued to be an effective means to block legislation, due in part to the fact that a two-thirds majority vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next several decades, the Senate tried numerous times to evoke cloture, but failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to southern senators blocking civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate.

Many Americans are familiar with the hours-long filibuster of Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

The Dude clarifies ? 23.Apr.2005 12:13

Progressive Democrat

What I said is : "I don't know what you mean by your # 4 -- and here is the # 4 --

"So the filibuster is going to be a silly buster. If the rule goes to no filibuster on stupid judges, what is to stop the filibuster on all stupid senate busisness. This is the solution that will ultimately cause the nuclear option to fail. Yep it will be remembered as the big dick that could not."

Now the Dude explains: "The government will collapse before it ends its filibuster. Unfortunately what the collapse of the government means is unclear."

Unclear is what it is, unclear as mud. Sounds clever, but means nothing -- unless maybe it means that the whole thing is to be observed passively like reality teevee. That, of course, is exactly how the powers-that-be want the American public to think about poliitics.

Maybe the Dude is prophetic, but I suspect the Dude is just being unjustifiably optimistic.

I beleive that public input at this time is an opportunity that we cannot afford to overlook. Cynicism in thought is inevitable for thinking people, but cynicism resulting in failure to act is a recipe for disaster.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

I would change that to "good people do nothing" -- because if it's all left up to the males of the species, experience has shown that the result will likely be disaster.

DON'T LET A BLINDSPOT GET IN THE WAY OF EXPRESSING YOUR VIEWS TO THE CONGRESS AND ELSEWHERE.

WTF 23.Apr.2005 22:49

das dude

I have given this issue a little more thought. Not much more but some. The filibuster is a silly buster because it will divide the repubs up. The filibuster has no consequence but is an illusion.

Will it really matter? Did the filibuster stop the civil war? How about ww1, or help in its Aftermath? Did the filibuster help the indians from the trail of tears to the gambing casinos of today? Did the filibuster stop the financing of US corporate the German's military complex prior to WW2 or stop WW2? What the fuck good does it matter if the repubs stick the filibuster up there ass?

Did the filibuster help the military supress the showing of the dead returning from a fucked up war? Did the filibuster stop the formation of the oligopolies that control our information and are supplies?
Did the filibuster stop the Vietnam war or the Korean war or this god damn war we our in now?

Did the god damn senate ever give a flying fuck about you or me? So this filibuster is a ruse it is much to do about nothing.

I get it, Dude 24.Apr.2005 20:09

Progressive Democrat

You're just putting the filibuster into the big picture.

It's like when Ruppert dropped the 911 investigation in favor of looking at Peak Oil because nothing was ever going to come of the 911 thing, while the big picture with Peak Oil was about to change all the small shit anyway.

So, you can say that the "filibuster has no consequence but is an illusion."

AND, I APPRECIATE how you have finally stated your view of the fillibuster --

"What the fuck good does it matter if the repubs stick the filibuster up there ass?"

THAT I could understand.

It's like this --

In the long run, we'll all be dead.

Meanwhile, we have all this discussion and protest at PIMC.

Will it really matter? Did discussion and protest stop the civil war?

NO! More likely it helped to start it.

Did discussion and protest stop World War I, or the Vietnam war, or the Korean war, or this god damn war we are in now?

NO! But there sure has been a helluva lot of discussion and protest.

I stated my view of the big picture in "Promised peace -- we get war" --

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/315152.shtml

Here's the skinny of it (not that the Dude gives a shit) --

"Cynics may rationally argue that restraining the Bush administration's reach for ever greater consolidation of power is impossible, considering that the corrupting influence of the imperative for campaign $money$ works in both major parties. Since the Supreme Court, some 20 years ago, struck down any real campaign finance reform as an "unconstitutional" limitation of freedom of speech -- ruling that $money$ equals speech -- there has been no way to stop the rule of $money$ in U.S. politics.

"I would argue, however, that for just those reasons, it is more important than ever for the people to make their voices heard whenever a major battle arises in the political war between the forces in favor of, and those opposed to, the further expansion of presidential powers."

I guess it comes down to this: when you might say, "It can't get any worse than it is," I'd say, "Yes, it can."

Then the question is, so what?