Tweet
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
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 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.
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..."
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 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.
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..."
Regarding the ad hominen, I apologize for holding you to a standard that I regularly violate myself and which heretofore I had never seen you stoop to. You felt provoked and you lashed back. Fair enough. Regardless you are still one of the best posters on this board.
Regarding the issue at hand (recess appt. etc.):
I agree with Ogie in that I find the "outrage" of the Dems at the recess appointment to be ridiculous when they are themselves guilty of sabotaging the same process with filibuster threats. Both sides disgust me in that so little real work is being done while so much effort is put into outraging their political base in order to raise funds. Many suffer so that few can benefit.
Regarding the broken political culture in the U.S.:
We are in broad agreement. In my formative years it was the Democrats who were prone to abuse power, largely because they had it. Now it's the Republican's turn. I broke with the Republicans over 20 years ago because of my disappointment in their willingness to so readily play the same games that the Dems had played for decades. IIUC Ogie gave up on them for the same reasons.
We've all grown up in a country where the relevance of the legislature has been largely eclipsed by the executive and constrained / hijacked to a sometimes ridiculous degree by the judicial branch. Rare is the occasion where I have felt any admiration for the legislative branch regardless of who was in power. I've seen numerous instances of political maturity and / or willingness to take political risks on the part of the other branches, but such displays seem to be rarer today for the legislators than ever, despite there being almost no chance of a rebuke from the electorate due to gerrymandering. What is going on here?
If we really didn't need the legislature it wouldn't be such a problem. But we do need them. They hold so many key balancing powers that they could never become completely irrelevent. But we need them to have the sort of public debate of the issues that is impossible for the executive to have and which only occur narrowly and after the fact in the courts. Instead we are "treated" to psuedo debates about psuedo issues where each member in turn plays to concerns of the interest groups that he feels will ensure his victory in the next election. The very few who do not completely subscribe to this behavior are hailed as statesmen for merely doing the minimum that the job requires.
These bogus issues are typically ones which are insoluble (flag burning, abortion, gun rights) without a constitutional amendment which will not in any case be forthcoming. Real issues such as the direction of U.S. domestic policy (ever increasing in importance despite the supposedly small government bent of the Republicans) or U.S. foreign policy are reduced to opportunities to score points on the opposing party. Neither party has much incentive to be more reasonable either, as they've managed over many decades to also make the chance of a third party rising from the disgust of the electorate almost nil.
What can we do about it? Probably the best thing for the legislative branch would be an end to Gerrymandering. More balanced districts (or no districts) would mean that more balanced politicians would stand a chance of being elected. It would no longer be enough to rhetorically destroy a straw man who vaguely represents the other party if a large portion of your constituency belonged to that party. Simply removing much of the incentive to waste time on partisanship would be a huge victory in itself.
The other thing that I can think of that would help is a stickier wicket. A large part of the problem with the legislature is that they do in some way represent the immaturity, ignorance and intellectual laziness of the American people. We need to raise the level of discourse generally in this country. Simply paying taxes and not getting caught breaking the law should no longer be enough to be considered good citizenship. More people need to pay attention to public policy on their own time, and they need to act when government action fails to materialize or is inappropriate. But most of what they need to do is simply educate themselves on issues and speak up about them. The media love to cover protests, but IMO letters, money / labor and voting have a lot more bang for the buck.
Comment