It's my understanding that the vast majority of modern filibusters are carried out only by the threat to filibuster, and no one actually has to get up and talks for hours on end. BUT that Democrats could force Republicans to truly filibuster through unlimited debate if they choose to.

My question is why the fuck not? Obviously most Republicans are ashamed of their party's stance on the issue, and forcing them to go on the senate floor and talk about it for hours would make it the top news story.

Your video, TDS: 9/11 First Responders React to the Senate Filibuster, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'interview, first responders, senate, fillibuster, Jon Stewart' to 'interview, first responders, senate, filibuster, Jon Stewart' - edited by xxovercastxx

Invocations (dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/TDS-9-11-First-Responders-React-to-the-Senate-Filibuster) cannot be called by 9547bis because 9547bis is not privileged - sorry.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/TDS-9-11-First-Responders-React-to-the-Senate-Filibuster

What are those rules for chamber discussion called...been trying to find out for awhile now. The whole, being recognized, asking for unanimous consent to revise and address the floor, ect. Those have a name, but for the life of me I can't remember. I want to see who is actually out of order here, not that it is entirely relevant because you can game that system with filibustering and what not, but it still is relevant to my interests.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Oh yeah, these idiots. Thanks for Filth Clinton, wimp!



Eisenhower -- loses a lot of points for authorizing Operation Ajax and other foreign policy blunders.
JFK -- loses major points for that bay of pigs fiasco and Vietnam.
Nixon -- the biggest psychopathic douchebag ever to get himself elected to the presidency.
Ford -- well, at least he appointed John Paul Stevens.
Carter -- At least he had sensible foreign policy, rolling back imperialism. Stagflation was triggered by high oil prices which were caused by OPEC.
Reagan -- ignorant bigot who tripled the debt.
Bill Clinton -- was the best president we've had since Truman. Genuinely cares about helping people as evidenced by what he's done after the presidency, unlike all the recent republican presidents.
George Bush -- Worst president since Andrew Johnson.
Obama -- Pretty lame so far. Keeps trying to play nice and compromise with republicans while they spit in his face and make increasingly extreme demands. Caved in on almost all his campaign promises without even putting up a fight. He should turn the tables -- threaten to veto funds going to the the state/district of any republican who threatens to filibuster good legislation.

The situation was never as simple as D=Confederates and R=Union. Plenty of blacks voted for FDR. The tipping point I guess was when dems supported, passed, and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and people like Strom Thurmond who filibustered it switched to the republican party. After 1964 all the wealthy white male bigots flocked to the Republican party, and their platform reflected that.

Nearly all the states that didn't ratify the Equal Rights Amendment are now Republican strongholds, because sexism is implicit part of the platform of the Republican party (and it mostly comes from bible-thumping).

>> ^NetRunner:


The other side says Obama and the Democrats sold us out, that they're co-conspirators with the corporate Republican party, and it's time for us to make our voices heard...by trashing Obama and Democrats as much as possible.
I'm mostly sympathetic with the first group (mockingly referred to as "Obots"), while I'm mostly disgusted with the second (mockingly referred to as "firebaggers").
That said, I do think that while most of our problems can be chalked up to filibuster rules and conservadems, I think progressives as a whole have to reexamine how they practice politics. Instead, they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to couch progressive ideas in conservative frames. For example, Democrats talk a lot about how health care is going to fix the long-term budget, but not so much about how it will help people who were being left for dead by the old system.

I believe that the way to practice politics is to be as objective as you can muster. Here's my stab:

You're spot on about the health care bill argument. The real conservative vs. progressive discussion would have focused on our privatized system vs. single-payer health care. Re: the political direction however I would say the following:

Quite a few people who think the Democrats sold the majority of American people out to the corporations don't fault the Obama administration or the Democrats specifically for anything. While there can be a some well-intentioned people in any given political system, the majority are spineless rubber stamps for corporate money. This majority is spread nearly identically on a per capita basis across all current representative parties. This effect impacts the entire spectrum, stifling the overall voice from the depths of poverty all the way to up the middle class.


Only without this influence can the people's voices be freed. To your final point, I think this is the only thing that would allow for the left to actually stand up for populist ideals.

... on top of that it would be nice to see any party represent legitimate, non-corporate welfare business ideals as well.

There is plenty of debate on the left about what exactly the next move is for left of center politics in America.

One side says Obama and Democrats are doing about as well as we should have expected them to do, and that most of our problems are being caused by Senate filibuster rules, and a coalition of conservative Democrats and the whole Republican party.

The other side says Obama and the Democrats sold us out, that they're co-conspirators with the corporate Republican party, and it's time for us to make our voices heard...by trashing Obama and Democrats as much as possible.

I'm mostly sympathetic with the first group (mockingly referred to as "Obots"), while I'm mostly disgusted with the second (mockingly referred to as "firebaggers").

That said, I do think that while most of our problems can be chalked up to filibuster rules and conservadems, I think progressives as a whole have to reexamine how they practice politics. Democrats by and large refuse to make a full throated argument in favor of liberalism as a philosophy. Instead, they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to couch progressive ideas in conservative frames. For example, Democrats talk a lot about how health care is going to fix the long-term budget, but not so much about how it will help people who were being left for dead by the old system.

Maybe a third party would solve those problems, but I doubt it. The left needs to start getting angry, and demanding that their voices get heard.

>> ^ghark:

I think everyone expected exactly this as soon as the citizens united case was decided, hell, even the president announced that it would happen (and I'm pretty sure he was smiling inside at the time). The problem really is that instead of making progress, and limiting inflow of cash to these politicians through laws and policy changes, it seems to be going in the opposite direction, it just boggles my already befuddled, barely bemused brain beyond belief (lots of b's).


There was a bill that came before the Senate not too long ago called DISCLOSE, which was an attempt to plug some of the major loopholes opened by Citizen's United.

The vote on it was 59 for, 41 against, and since we're in the era of permanent filibuster, that means it didn't pass.

Now, would it change your attitude to learn that the President's party provided all 59 votes for, and the other party provided all the No votes, plus the filibuster that raised the requirement to 60 to pass?

Would it surprise you to learn that so far, the spending enabled by Citizen's United has favored Republicans by a 7 to 1 ratio?

To me, it seems like the facts indicate that Democrats want to change the game so corporate money doesn't drive elections, both for ideological and self-serving reasons, while Republicans are pretty clearly a party whose main purpose is to represent corporate interests.

Bob, how do you call a filibuster a "simple majority"?

You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Not 51.

The GOP wouldn't let it go to an actual vote. The Dems don't have 60 senators, so the GOP obstructs once again, just as they have with every single piece of legislation that's happened in the last 18 months - OH! Except for funding a war. That's real nice.


>> ^bobknight33:

The Democrats failed on this. They just need a simple majority to pass and they could not do it.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
So, not saying I know much about our government because I don't completely understand our silly nonsensical law structure that changes weekly anyways, but Obama is able to do so much---yet Republicans can just say no on the issue of Gitmo and boom! Obama stopped. Not to mention the issue of the constitution being on his side...
I get the filibuster, or other motions that shelve actions forever... but I understand also there is a way to get things done in office regardless of any roadblocks and their, uhem, "size." If not, well then that is your failure as a politician. It is your job to get shit done…
I am not saying Obama has not succeeded on issues important to Americans. I am saying failure cannot be acceptable because your opponent was smarter or stronger than you...

I guess I would say that to start with you should read up a bit on what's been happening on this front:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/obama-plan-close-guantanamo-stuck-political-legal-limbo/story?id=10752684
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
http://washingtonindependent.com/85355/house-panel-deals-gitmo-closure-a-major-setback
http://washingtonindependent.com/75832/civil-libertarians-reject-obamas-guantanamo-closure-plan
The key element in there was a bill Congress passed with a veto-proof majority that prevents funding going to "transfer, release, or incarcerate" Guantanamo detainees in the United States. That expires this year, but congress is still making it very difficult to just start moving detainees to the US and give them trials in federal court.
To the rest of your comments I would say there's a huge moral difference between someone who tries to stop an immoral act and fails, and someone who wholeheartedly endorses the immoral act. I guess your presumption is that all failure is intentional, because all Presidents always get what they want, no matter what...I think even the briefest glances at history would disabuse you of that notion.
As for Congressional Democrats, they definitely deserve a share of the blame for acquiescing so easily to Republican political posturing over terrorism, but I think it's a big stretch to say there's some sort of moral equivalence between the two parties, especially on the topic of Guantanamo. One party created it and is loudly and openly opposed to closing it, the other is trying to close it, if more cautiously than I think is warranted.



No, not all failures are intentional---but thank you for not accusing and raging about it here (I take no offense to questioning.)

All failures have two members responsible--the ones who win and the ones who lose. All failures come with consequences to everyday mortals. It is important that the other side "tried" but it is also important that the loser never receive a trophy (In this case, being viewed in a manner that the effort was almost or equal to victory.) (Unimportant Exception in this particular matter; if the event specifically denotes they give trophies then the second and third runner up can get one (Olympics for ex.) In politics, they do not provide trophies to perceived losers (I.e. re-election.)

Remember, I am not blaming Obama for this insomuch as his effort of trying. Great for him and those who supported him. I am just not handing him anything but the moral high ground. And, sadly, for some of those in Gitmo, they could give a rat’s ass less about the moral high ground.

And no, I was not sarcastic. His and those supporting him are appreciated in this area.

All presidents will fail as you mentioned. And hell, a president isn't even the leader of the free world--nor the people or judges. It is really congress, but then even they are balanced a bit...

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

So, not saying I know much about our government because I don't completely understand our silly nonsensical law structure that changes weekly anyways, but Obama is able to do so much---yet Republicans can just say no on the issue of Gitmo and boom! Obama stopped. Not to mention the issue of the constitution being on his side...
I get the filibuster, or other motions that shelve actions forever... but I understand also there is a way to get things done in office regardless of any roadblocks and their, uhem, "size." If not, well then that is your failure as a politician. It is your job to get shit done…
I am not saying Obama has not succeeded on issues important to Americans. I am saying failure cannot be acceptable because your opponent was smarter or stronger than you...


I guess I would say that to start with you should read up a bit on what's been happening on this front:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/obama-plan-close-guantanamo-stuck-political-legal-limbo/story?id=10752684
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
http://washingtonindependent.com/85355/house-panel-deals-gitmo-closure-a-major-setback
http://washingtonindependent.com/75832/civil-libertarians-reject-obamas-guantanamo-closure-plan

The key element in there was a bill Congress passed with a veto-proof majority that prevents funding going to "transfer, release, or incarcerate" Guantanamo detainees in the United States. That expires this year, but congress is still making it very difficult to just start moving detainees to the US and give them trials in federal court.

To the rest of your comments I would say there's a huge moral difference between someone who tries to stop an immoral act and fails, and someone who wholeheartedly endorses the immoral act. I guess your presumption is that all failure is intentional, because all Presidents always get what they want, no matter what...I think even the briefest glances at history would disabuse you of that notion.

As for Congressional Democrats, they definitely deserve a share of the blame for acquiescing so easily to Republican political posturing over terrorism, but I think it's a big stretch to say there's some sort of moral equivalence between the two parties, especially on the topic of Guantanamo. One party created it and is loudly and openly opposed to closing it, the other is trying to close it, if more cautiously than I think is warranted.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.
New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.

He the war in Iraq is ending. He's been trying to give Guantanamo detainees trials, but Congress has thrown up numerous, massive roadblocks in his way, led by Republicans and turncoat Dems that the Democratic base hate (e.g. Joe Lieberman). The Bush Doctrine is completely and utterly gone, over the loud objections of the Republicans, who clearly intend to reinstate it if they get power again.
What the fuck are you smoking?


So, not saying I know much about our government because I don't completely understand our silly nonsensical law structure that changes weekly anyways, but Obama is able to do so much---yet Republicans can just say no on the issue of Gitmo and boom! Obama stopped. Not to mention the issue of the constitution being on his side...

I get the filibuster, or other motions that shelve actions forever... but I understand also there is a way to get things done in office regardless of any roadblocks and their, uhem, "size." If not, well then that is your failure as a politician. It is your job to get shit done…

I am not saying Obama has not succeeded on issues important to Americans. I am saying failure cannot be acceptable because your opponent was smarter or stronger than you...