GOP = The Grand Obstructionists Party

[Dinner]

Evidently some saintly democrats voted for it.

The Democrats agreed to let the Republicans load it up with pork filled earmarks for Republican districts to help convince Republican senators/congressmen to vote for it. The Republican leadership, per their normal SOP, are simply trying to obstruct the bill and are pushing for a partial government shut down.

They really don't have any ideas or alternatives and simply want to obstruct. They have no intention of actually solving any problems.

[Patroklos]

What do you mean they have no alternative ideas? They very obviously have the alternative of the same damn bill minus the earmarks.

[rah]

The GOP is just doing what the minority party has done over the ages.
It's amazing that the Dems have forgotten that they did the exact same thing not that long ago.
Anyone that thinks this is something new is just silly.

[Dinner]

Dems filibustered less then 5% of Bush's judicial nominees where as the GOP says they're going to filibuster EVERY judicial nominee. I'd say you are making a false equivalence, Rah.

[Ramo]

Note that this graph was made in early October, so it'd be even higher if the entire session were included. Rah, can you remind us what happened in the elections for the 110th Congress?

[rah]

Dems filibustered less then 5% of Bush's judicial nominees where as the GOP says they're going to filibuster EVERY judicial nominee. I'd say you are making a false equivalence, Rah.

I remember the Dems threatening to do the same back then. We'll wait to see if the repugs actually do what they threaten. Washington is all about bluster and hot air to try to get something in return.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They have the power to filibuster which is what they're currently promising to do to EVERY SINGLE ONE of Obama's judicial nominees.

Get your ****ing facts right. Like Arlen Specter would ever agree to this.

QFT

When all you need are 2 of Specter, Snowe, and Collins - the threat of a filibuster is ridiculous.

And what about that Obama campaign pledge about earmarks anyway?

[-Jrabbit]

Yeah, even if this is considered to be leftover legislation from the Bush admin, seems like the Dems would want to make a statement.

[Ben Kenobi]

They have the power to filibuster which is what they're currently promising to do to EVERY SINGLE ONE of Obama's judicial nominees. What happened to their claims that every nominee deserves a fair up or down vote?

Judicial emergencies:

01 CCA Selya, Bruce M. Senior 12/31/06 796 748
02 CCA Straub, Chester J. Senior 7/16/08 233 1011
03 CCA Alito, Samuel A., Jr. Elevated 1/31/06 1130 573
03 CCA Van Antwerpen, Frank Senior 10/23/06 865 573
04 CCA Murnaghan, Francis Deceased 8/31/00 3109 557
04 CCA Phillips, J. Dickson, Jr. Senior 7/31/94 5332 557
04 CCA Wilkins, William W. Senior 7/1/07 614 557
04 NC-E Howard, Malcolm J. Senior 12/31/05 1161 511
04 VA-E Payne, Robert E. Senior 5/7/07 669 472
05 LA-E Duval, Jr., Stanwood R. Senior 12/15/08 81 950
05 LA-M Polozola, Frank J. Senior 1/15/07 781 431
05 MS-S Barbour, William H. Senior 2/4/06 1126 557
05 TX-W Furgeson, Jr., William R. Senior 11/30/08 96 655
05 TX-W Briones, David Senior 2/26/09 8 655
06 TN-M Echols, Robert L. Senior 3/1/07 736 470
09 CA-C Manella, Nora M. Resigned 5/22/06 1019 569
09 CA-E Damrell, Frank C., Jr. Senior 1/1/09 64 866
09 CA-N Jenkins, Martin J. Resigned 4/3/08 337 615
09 CA-N Whyte, Ronald M. Senior 3/2/09 4 615
09 CCA Trott, Stephen S. Senior 12/31/04 1526 925
09 CCA PL 110-177 New Position 1/21/09 44 925
11 CCA Anderson III, R. Lanier Senior 1/31/09 34 1036

5 seats in the 4th, all of them blocked for at least 2 years?

The republican party is obstructionist? Ridiculous.

Why didn't the democrat act to fill all 22 vacancies while Bush was president? That means the Republicans would be justified in blocking any nomination for a seat that the democrats failed to appoint anyone in the years that Bush was president.

That Murnagan seat in the 4th is absolutely ridiculous. It came up in August of 2000, just before Bush was elected, and the Democrats refused to fill it for 8! years.

[-Jrabbit]

Both parties are obstructionist. It's called politics.

[Zkribbler]

QFT

And what about that Obama campaign pledge about earmarks anyway?

That was a horse**** campaign promise. Presidents can sign bills or veto bills, but they can't veto parts of bills. We need to amend the Constitution to give the President a line-item veto.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They don't have to be able to veto parts of the bills in order to have a budget that has little to no earmarks. If Obama gave public support for the McCain Amendment, I'm sure it could have passed.

[DinoDoc]

They don't have to be able to veto parts of the bills in order to have a budget that has little to no earmarks. If Obama gave public support for the McCain Amendment, I'm sure it could have passed.

You assume he actually cares about earmarks or wasteful spending in general.

[Zkribbler]

The problem with the McCain Amendment is that it presumes earmarks = wasteful spending.

Although it's true that earmarks slipped in at the 11th hour with no debate are almost always wasteful, many earmarks are money well spent. For example, Congressional direction to build the Hoover Dam would have been an earmark. It's the non-debated, pork-barrel earmarks which are the problem.

I'd rather have Congress directing how our tax money is spent than bureaucrats.

[The Mad Monk]

I don't think he assumes that at all.