Congrats to John Bolton, new U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.!

[chequita guevara]

Delaying something permanently is the same thing as killing it. It has been stopped. The Senate has not failed to do their job. It's advise and consent. The Senate has refused to consent.

Bush was completely within his authority to make a recess appointment, but he shows his contempt for both the Senate and the American people by doing so, since it is clear Bolton doesn't have enough support to make it. This wasn't a case of the Senate not being able to get through the process and time ran out. The Senate Prez refused to bring the issue to a vote because he knew Bolton would lose.

[Patroklos]

Bush was completely within his authority to make a recess appointment, but he shows his contempt for both the Senate and the American people by doing so

As did Senate Democrats by not allowing it to be settled democratically, instead DMVing it.

[chequita guevara]

Don't blame the Democrats for Frist's failure to call a vote. He knew Bolton would be defeated, and didn't want to give the Dem's a vcitory.

[Patroklos]

The Dems are the ones calling this an abuse of power when they are using a different procedural loopholes.

I don't think either are right.

[Bereta_Eder]

why si that such a big deal? who's that guy. all i know is he has a mustache

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I don't think either are right.

I can agree with that.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Bereta_Eder
why si that such a big deal? who's that guy. all i know is he has a mustache

Read the thread and find out.

[Bereta_Eder]

right

[Mr. Harley]

Sikander - you I will have a disagreement with, simply because you are not stirring up the pot. It was not solely an ad hominem attack, I quoted Ogie as stating

I simply find it easy pickins to stir up the vast left wing conspirators of 'poly by tweakin them on their typical anti-bush rants

I was also very irritated at him when he deliberately distorted my views by quoting out of context and posting one-liners. He was borrowing the techniques of conservative talk-show hosts, and I do find that paticularly grating. Especially as it shows that here, unlike you or Ned, Ogie had no intent to do anything but attack the other's persons point rather than have reasoned discourse. That kind of activity has brought down other boards, that is why I am putting him on my ignore list once I take the time to check on how it's done - he'll be my first.

I added in the Nedaverse simply because I was making an analogy versus an ad hominem attack - I then defined exactly what Ogie was doing "personal interpretations trumping historical facts, precedents set, and how things work in the actual world. He even admits he doing this to be obnoxious." I knew that using the Nedaverse example would drive home a point that all here follow - you did too (BTW - I was actually being unfair to Ned, and if he reads it then I apologize. I did not find Ned so bad, but I was determined to make my point and let my frustration get the better part of me). I was very irritated that, unlike Ned or you, he was playing obstructionist, ignoring points, and refusing to have a general discussion. If you look at my discussions with Ned, I have actually had some GOOD discussions with him (though some of the threads he posted on I avoided, because, well, I like Ned and he had gotten going and it would not have been a discussion). Ogie declared to me he is "having fun" and is not engaged in discourse. Thus my contempt. And his "protesteth too much" over not being a Republican. You will note I called him a conservative. He conveniatly ignored that post, so he could claim the mantle of being reasonable.

The argument is over definitions. Ogie's point, when boiled down, is that the dictionary definition of filibuster is a delaying tactic. You evidently agree. Imran's and my point is that we are discussing the Filibuster as practiced in the US Senate. In that specific case, under Senatorial rules, it is a de facto veto. Functionally. If you argued they should rename it to the minority veto - you might have a point.

But traditions are a funny thing. Should we instead call Reagan's armed interference in Central American governments filibustering - which is much closer to the historical definitions. The English language is a wonderfully, and irritatingly (and at times maddingly) flexible language. The label does not make the thing.

Note though, that any time the Republicans choose, they can put an item to a vote for cloture. Since they control the chamber, they can put it on record. I also do not find it anywhere in the constitution, as so many posters have indicated, that they are required to simply vote. Do you defend the House parliamentary rules, made even worse in a payback series of changes under Gingrich, that prevent the minority from even offering up an amendment? Again, no vote is taken.

The Republicans have pioneered an even worse abuse than Ogie's crocodile tears over the filibuster.

Historically, the Senate was the place of slow deliberation, yet it has begun to function more like the House. Since 2001 much Senate business has been conducted through a process known as "Reconciliation." Under "reconciliation," bills are governed by special rules that strictly limit debate and forbid amendment.

Reconciliation was not used for several years after it was created in 1974, and was only used every few years in the 1980s and 1990s – usually for extremely contentious budgets. Currently it is being used for most important legislation. Using reconciliation, the Senate can push through a sweeping piece of legislation that may only casually be germane to the budget.

I dislike many of the parliamentary rules in both houses. Nobody is going to change them. Why? Ogie does not repsond, but his rant about the Democrats does not deal with the issue of power dynamics. Both parties are too busy playing dominance games, and the only way to make these changes to the rules and create a more reasonable, productive atmosphere is to do so when is is to your disadvantage.

Why? Because that is when you get buy-in from all involved. The old statesmenship concept. Now that I think is something we can all agree on, that is sadly lacking in the current world of US politics. I firmly believe, as I have stated before, that in the 1960's the liberals started a nasty cycle, and even though they started drifting away from it in the 70's, and largely had by the 80's (nitpicker note - I am comparing that to the atmosphere during the 1960's and the 2000's). By that point the Republicans had started their ascendency, and were reaping the benefits of billions of dollars of Think Tank and public relations spending. Some of which was spent very wisely, IMHO, on changing/distorting the emotive associations with many terms commonly used. Thus you now have the "Death Tax" instead of the "Inheritance Tax."

Instead of being gracious about it - which Reagan was IMHO, so was Clinton for that matter though not to the same degree - the conservatives, having watched their cause villified and marginalized for a couple of decades came back with a vengeance. Literally. So now we have vicious payback time, two decades plus delayed (look at Ogie's claiming 1975 as justification for what is being done today reference changing Senate Rules). Good God, who beside Byrd and Kennedy were around then! (I am quite sure someone will post exactly how many Democratic Senators helped perpetrate that abuse of power).

I've also stated that the US right now has one of the most poisonous political atmospheres since the 1850's. IMHO, and in many other people's opinions also (and I felt this from the beginning before it was popular), Karl Rove is one of the primary architects of this. Just like with Rumsfeld's defense policies (which you know why I personally detest them) I do not let Bush off the hook. Bush could fire him any time he wants. Rove is a very dangerous man, not only because he sees discourse and compromise as indicating nothing but weakness in the opposition, but he capitalilzes on that to his advantage. Look at his campaigns impugning the patriotism and service of McCain and Max Cleland - now those were truly repulsive and hippocritical. That is why I have found the Democratic attempts at "compromise" and "bipartisanship" since the 2002 elections both foolish and stupid. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Don't blame the Democrats for Frist's failure to call a vote.

Someone explain the procedure to me. If an issue is being filibustered, can it be called up for a vote as che suggests?

[Imran Siddiqui]

DD, the problem is that the Dems weren't actually filibustering the vote. They were threatening to filibuster, IIRC, IF Frist brought Bolton to the floor of the Senate. After all, there must be a potential vote for a filibuster to destroy.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
DD, the problem is that the Dems weren't actually filibustering the vote.

The cloture vote failed. It sounds like it was being filibustered.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmmm... I guess there was a filibuster going on. I wonder about what che was saying about Frist bringing down the vote now as well.

[Odin]

@ Ogie

So refusing to be a rubber stamp for Shrub's policies and nominees means the Senate is Neglecting it's duties to you? Maybe I should send you to a country that is a presidential dictatorship so you can see the end product of your logic. As I understand it, the recess appointment was ment by the framers as a way to replace someone who died or resigned when Congress wan't in session, so yes, Bolton's appointment was an abuse of power, I think the presidency is becoming far too strong.

On the fillibuster, I see nothing wrong with it because out our winner-take-all electoral system, it prevents a party from nominating extremeists unless they have the string majority to justify it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hmmm... I guess there was a filibuster going on. I wonder about what che was saying about Frist bringing down the vote now as well.

Just repeating what I read in the paper, dude.