If the Filibuster can be something where the Representatives and Senators can sit around and do nothing, then why can't we have a rule that voting on bills and proposals be based solely on the percentage of yays or nays of those actively participating and present within the chambers? Forget the super majority and the need for 51 votes. Base it on those Senators who actually are present to vote one these issues.
The point you are arguing is essentially moot - The rules for this Congress have already been established. I'm pretty sure that Congress (both houses) votes on rules changes at the beginning of each 2-year session, and those rules have traditionally remained in place until the next Congress conveves. Is this a requirement? I certainly don't know, but it is how it's always been done. Probably not a good reason to continue with it, but how often do we get representatives who can think outside the box?
The blame, therefore, falls squarely on the shoulders of those who actually BELIEVED in "The Legend of the Democrat Supermajority".
@John Farbstein: Because I already know that its the system, not the candidate, I was prepared for Obama being unable to change much, especially the basics. However, I didn't think at this point I would consider him just another war criminal.
Tom's point about an hour ago about messaging is simply getting lost. I am mad as hell about the state of this country, and mad as hell at Obama for running a terrific campaign and having an absolutely terrible first year. If Obama will simply commit at least one statffer to listen to Thom H. everyday, and watch Rachel Maddow for one hour in the evening, and report directly to Obama the contents of the shows, then perhaps there's hope for the country.
"United Progressives is a union. Although informal and unincorporated, we believe that a union best describes our purpose, which is to provide an equal voice for people who believe in the common values and causes described by our platform. No changes are made to our platform without asking for a vote from our membership. Our members decide."
Voting for a Republican to work in the government is like sending an undertaker to work in the hospital. The undertaker has a vested interest in making sure the best efforts of the hospital doesn’t save that many sick people.
Going back to our weekly brunch,
Voting for a Republican to work in the government is like sending an undertaker to work in the hospital. The undertaker has a vested interest in making sure the best efforts of the hospital doesn't save that many sick people.
It's hard to take in. Most of us want the common person in this country to do well, and for the country as a whole to thrive.
How about change that the South Americans can believe in?
Why Washington Cares About Countries Like Haiti and Honduras
US interference in the politics of Haiti and Honduras is only the latest example of its long-term manipulations in Latin America
by Mark Weisbrot http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/03
@rewinn - I did not say the GOP is blameless. I implied we should expect nothing different from them. The mavericky Dems have given them strength they should not have. A vote of 60 Dems would have overturned the efforts of Jim DeMint to hold up the TSA nominee.
My comments are in reference to nominees not policy. The argument has been posed that one GOP Senator held up the confirmation process. I argue that one Dem Senator prevented an up or down vote.
I just sent this to Jenny Beth Martin on Facebook who is one of the organizers of the Tea Party Patriots.
I joined the Patriots because I agree that we need to return to the Constitution and I think that in the current class war the 99% of us need to unite against the top 1%.
What I don't understand is the insistence of "free" trade and limited government when the rubble of that failure is all around us. "Free" trade is free for the big corporations while We the People (from the Constitution) pay the bills for their welfare entitlements.
The big corporations have taken over the "representative" government and run it for their own profit, at our expense. So the big corporations and government are the same thing.
And maybe you forget how quickly the Dems folded on stolen elections. Or how about impeachment being off the table, in spite cleair violations of International Law. Or single payer activists being arrested for trying to get a seat at the table.
Change Iraqis can believe in?
Iraq Policy: D
by Bonnie Bricker and Adil E. Shamoo
Recent suicide bombings in the heart of Baghdad have sent a message to Washington: Maintaining the Iraq policy of the past administration does not inspire hope.
Iraqi insurgents linked to al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the bombing, which hit hotels frequented by Western journalists. The attacks followed the government’s banning of 511 parliamentary candidates for the upcoming election this March. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government banned a large number of independents, nationalists, secularists and current opponents of the government, including Sunni and Baathist politicians.
Obama campaigned for the presidency as if he understood the damage done to Iraq by the U.S. invasion. Both the progressives who supported Obama, as well as the Iraqis who embraced the promise of a free and fair Iraq, sought a foreign policy grounded in moral values of fairness and respect for other nations. To Iraqis, current American policy is a mere variant of Bush’s policies. Bush was planning to pull all U.S. troops from Iraq as long as a compliant government in Baghdad met our needs (not Iraq’s). Under the Obama administration, current Iraqi Vice President Abdul Mehdi was compelled to come to Washington recently to urge the president and policymakers to give Iraq more respect as a sovereign nation. Whether our current policy is perceived as Bush or merely Bush-Lite, Iraqis cannot yet see fair governance in their future.
more: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/05-7
Why, tell me why?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Is-America-In-So-Many-by-Sherwood-R...
So Chuckle8, we could have the cloture vote let each senator have as many votes as there are representatives from his or her state. I kind of like it.
@mstaggerlee - Tradition is like a fiddler on the roof.
If the Filibuster can be something where the Representatives and Senators can sit around and do nothing, then why can't we have a rule that voting on bills and proposals be based solely on the percentage of yays or nays of those actively participating and present within the chambers? Forget the super majority and the need for 51 votes. Base it on those Senators who actually are present to vote one these issues.
@Charles & rewinn -
The point you are arguing is essentially moot - The rules for this Congress have already been established. I'm pretty sure that Congress (both houses) votes on rules changes at the beginning of each 2-year session, and those rules have traditionally remained in place until the next Congress conveves. Is this a requirement? I certainly don't know, but it is how it's always been done. Probably not a good reason to continue with it, but how often do we get representatives who can think outside the box?
The blame, therefore, falls squarely on the shoulders of those who actually BELIEVED in "The Legend of the Democrat Supermajority".
@John Farbstein: Because I already know that its the system, not the candidate, I was prepared for Obama being unable to change much, especially the basics. However, I didn't think at this point I would consider him just another war criminal.
chuckle8,
Maybe next week, then. One more non-change:
Deepening Debt Crisis: The Bernanke Reappointment: Be Afraid, Very Afraid
by Prof Michael Hudson
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17346
Happy weekend!
Tom's point about an hour ago about messaging is simply getting lost. I am mad as hell about the state of this country, and mad as hell at Obama for running a terrific campaign and having an absolutely terrible first year. If Obama will simply commit at least one statffer to listen to Thom H. everyday, and watch Rachel Maddow for one hour in the evening, and report directly to Obama the contents of the shows, then perhaps there's hope for the country.
@DDay: Wow! You got Hmong in Norway? I bet there's a story behind that!
For the callers who talked about a platform for Progressives:
http://www.unitedprogressives.org/
"United Progressives is a union. Although informal and unincorporated, we believe that a union best describes our purpose, which is to provide an equal voice for people who believe in the common values and causes described by our platform. No changes are made to our platform without asking for a vote from our membership. Our members decide."
@ Harry
It's how Norwegians spell Hmong.
@dustynator - well said
Voting for a Republican to work in the government is like sending an undertaker to work in the hospital. The undertaker has a vested interest in making sure the best efforts of the hospital doesn’t save that many sick people.
Can I make this my Facebook status?
Going back to our weekly brunch,
Voting for a Republican to work in the government is like sending an undertaker to work in the hospital. The undertaker has a vested interest in making sure the best efforts of the hospital doesn't save that many sick people.
It's hard to take in. Most of us want the common person in this country to do well, and for the country as a whole to thrive.
@DDay: "mong?" What's that?
@Chuckle8: It's been so ever since the "Monroe Doctrine", which said that the whole hemisphere belongs to us.
"Caveat empty" - our consumer protection motto ever since Ronald Reagan
@ Harry
Duh....got it. We use Mong around these parts. Love that satay. :-)
chuckle8,
How about change that the South Americans can believe in?
Why Washington Cares About Countries Like Haiti and Honduras
US interference in the politics of Haiti and Honduras is only the latest example of its long-term manipulations in Latin America
by Mark Weisbrot
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/03
I'm all ears, now.
@DDay: It's just that persons of color are often found in the kitchens of white people, cooking and cleaning-up.
@rewinn - I did not say the GOP is blameless. I implied we should expect nothing different from them. The mavericky Dems have given them strength they should not have. A vote of 60 Dems would have overturned the efforts of Jim DeMint to hold up the TSA nominee.
My comments are in reference to nominees not policy. The argument has been posed that one GOP Senator held up the confirmation process. I argue that one Dem Senator prevented an up or down vote.
Oh Harry, Harry, Harry...I;m not clear about the kitchen comment. Must be slow on the up-take again.
Deja vu' all over again. -yogi berra
I just sent this to Jenny Beth Martin on Facebook who is one of the organizers of the Tea Party Patriots.
I joined the Patriots because I agree that we need to return to the Constitution and I think that in the current class war the 99% of us need to unite against the top 1%.
What I don't understand is the insistence of "free" trade and limited government when the rubble of that failure is all around us. "Free" trade is free for the big corporations while We the People (from the Constitution) pay the bills for their welfare entitlements.
The big corporations have taken over the "representative" government and run it for their own profit, at our expense. So the big corporations and government are the same thing.
@DDay: Check the kitchen.
"When you come to a fork in the road...take it!" -yogi berra
@Charles - you go ahead and tell us the GOP is blameless. Who cares?
Sure, the Dems have faults, starting with Joe Liebermann who, you will notice, is NOT A DEMOCRAT ANYMORE!
I am watching a Tea Party press conference. I don't see a single person of color or any other ethnicity but that of Northern European heredity.
chuckle8,
And maybe you forget how quickly the Dems folded on stolen elections. Or how about impeachment being off the table, in spite cleair violations of International Law. Or single payer activists being arrested for trying to get a seat at the table.
Change Iraqis can believe in?
Iraq Policy: D
by Bonnie Bricker and Adil E. Shamoo
Recent suicide bombings in the heart of Baghdad have sent a message to Washington: Maintaining the Iraq policy of the past administration does not inspire hope.
Iraqi insurgents linked to al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the bombing, which hit hotels frequented by Western journalists. The attacks followed the government’s banning of 511 parliamentary candidates for the upcoming election this March. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government banned a large number of independents, nationalists, secularists and current opponents of the government, including Sunni and Baathist politicians.
Obama campaigned for the presidency as if he understood the damage done to Iraq by the U.S. invasion. Both the progressives who supported Obama, as well as the Iraqis who embraced the promise of a free and fair Iraq, sought a foreign policy grounded in moral values of fairness and respect for other nations. To Iraqis, current American policy is a mere variant of Bush’s policies. Bush was planning to pull all U.S. troops from Iraq as long as a compliant government in Baghdad met our needs (not Iraq’s). Under the Obama administration, current Iraqi Vice President Abdul Mehdi was compelled to come to Washington recently to urge the president and policymakers to give Iraq more respect as a sovereign nation. Whether our current policy is perceived as Bush or merely Bush-Lite, Iraqis cannot yet see fair governance in their future.
more: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/05-7