The Nuclear Option

[desidono.livejournal.com]

There's been a lot of talk about how everyone should embrace bipartisanship and how the Republicans need to have a voice too, but as a small reminder, it was only a few short years ago (2005) when the Republican leadership in the Senate was actively trying to get rid of the filibuster to silence the Democratic minority, a minority that had more seats in the Senate than the Republicans do now.

In my opinion, the Republicans did a lot of damage to the ideals of listening to the minority and working together for the good of the country, and the attempted "nuclear option" to get rid of the filibuster is just one small part of that. Repairing it will take some time.

Questions for the Community:

1) Should the Democrats follow the precedent set by the Republicans in bipartisanship with the minority?

2) Would those who supported removal of the filibuster in 2005 still support it today?

3) If the Republicans tried to filibuster President Obama's judicial nominees, no matter how liberal they were, would that make them hypocrites? (I state for the record that if the Dems protested a Repub filibuster on the grounds it was unconstitutional, it would make them hypocrites)

4) Why don't Republicans want to take personal responsibility for reaping what they've sown? They claim to be the party of high moral standards after all. Perhaps that doesn't extend to politics for them?

Comments

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Wrong group for political discussion is wrong group.

[jblaque.livejournal.com]

Shut the fuck up, Brett. This post is more thoughtful, intelligent and engaging than anything you've ever contributed.

Ever.

[jblaque.livejournal.com]

He's nothing more than a butthurt Republican who still can't accept the fact that his party got tarred n' feathered by the voters in November... a mindless, spoon-fed tool. Have a gander at his journal (if you've got the time to waste). Grumpy right winger is (decidedly) grumpy.

Eight, long years for him to tear his remaining hair out...

Enjoy the show.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Now now, remember Brett said months ago that the economy thing had bottomed out because Buffett was buying up stocks. *Smirk*

[zombiesmustdie.livejournal.com]

^

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

*pats you on head*

You never were any good at playing the internet bully.

[desidono.livejournal.com]

He wasn't playing one here.

So tell me, what does playing a fourth rate shock jock make up for in your life?

[desidono.livejournal.com]

I've posted a political cartoon and the commentary is relevant not only to this cartoon but other posts within this same community.

That the cartoon brings up facts that you find inconvenient and uncomfortable, so much that not only you'd refuse to participate but that you'd actively pursue trying to silence it, is not my problem.

[jblaque.livejournal.com]

Don't waste your keystrokes, man... you're casting pearls before swine.

[desidono.livejournal.com]

I'm very aware of the quality that the reality_hammer brings to all of his discussions, but my experience of the last eight years has shown me how important it is to provide a thoughtful rebuttal should others wish to be swayed by arguments such as his.

Silence can be taken for agreement and I decidedly do not agree with his premise.

[jblaque.livejournal.com]

Point taken.

FWIW, you have my official blessing to tear his slope-browed head off. ☺

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

[desidono.livejournal.com]

Is that for you? Cuz you're the only one complaining here from what I can see.

[jblaque.livejournal.com]

[zombiesmustdie.livejournal.com]

1) No
2) I doubt it
3) Yes
4) Because Republicans don't actually believe in personal responsibility, they only claim to believe in it as a vote gathering tactic.

[thormonger.livejournal.com]

1. No. Let them be better than they say the Republicans were.
2. I didn't support it then, and I don't now. The majority party will eventually be the minority, and then they'd regret that mistake.
3. The Republicans should accept that "to the victor go the spoils," and only oppose a nominee if there are valid reasons for doing so: stuff like dubious decisions and actions, not because the nominee's politics are opposite that of the minority's. Besides, it's a good bet that Obama will only get to replace one liberal justice for another, so I don't see much of a shift in the courts anyway.
4. I agree. If the public liked what the Republicans did, they wouldn't be in the minority now. They should learn from their mistakes and try again. Likewise, if the Democrats go overboard now, they'll find themselves in the minority again, and they'll get to pick up the pieces. Sanity's a good thing for everyone. :)

[luper.livejournal.com]

iawtc

you said it better than i could have done.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

1) No. the Dems have commanding majorities in both houses of Congress, and look to extend that in 2010, 2012 and 2016.

2) Probably not.

3) Yes.

4) Personal responsibility? From the GOP? It is to laugh. You're talking about the party of David Vitters, Larry Graig, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and John McCain. They wouldn't know personal responsibility if it came up and bit them in the ass.

[oronoda.livejournal.com]

There's been a lot of talk about how everyone should embrace bipartisanship and how the Republicans need to have a voice too, but as a small reminder, it was only a few short years ago (2005) when the Republican leadership in the Senate was actively trying to get rid of the filibuster to silence the Democratic minority, a minority that had more seats in the Senate than the Republicans do now.

For the record, I'm a moderate with conservative leanings and I do not agree with everything the GOP does just like I do not believe the Democrats are somehow "better". However, this statement bothered me a little bit mainly because I'm a firm believer in treating others how you would like to be treated and if you do something because you claim the other side did it to you, all you're doing is contributing to the vicious cycle. The cycle has to be broken in order to make any progress.

So the fact that you had to remind people that the Republicans did this makes it somehow valid is just a bit hypocritical. Republicans will point to a time in which Democrats did the same thing. The cycle has to be broken but which side will swallow their pride has yet to be seen.

Your discussion points just generalize the Republican party through a few dumbasses. I have huge issues with this just as I do with my conservative friends who love to rip on liberals. I wish people would understand that this is a bipartisan community and making generalizations is only just going to get people riled up so people can use the butthurt argument. I know plenty of Republicans who live up to the high moral standards argument and just like there are many, lets say Christians who go to church but are horrible people, there are going to be Republicans who do not follow the train of thought. I don't consider Bush to be a real conservative for instance.

I just like to look at both sides as capable of mistakes and must learn to reap what they sown period. Neither side are complete angels as far as I'm concerned.

So to answer:

1. I'm confused what you mean by this question. But I will say bipartisanship is something that should always be attempted.

2. If it is convenient for them, they will support it. We have too many corrupt politicians on Capitol Hill

3. Yes.

4. Once again, I think this question is a swipe at Republicans and doesn't deem an answer. This is just like a conservative making a comment like, "Why are liberals hypocrites?" It's too generalizing and polarizing. You may not agree with Republicans but to say that all of them are hypocrites when it comes to the moral standard is rather silly.

I appreciate you trying to bring discussion to the community. This is the only reason why I responded, me being of a slightly conservative persuasion.

[ltmurdoch.livejournal.com]

I disagree that the question is hypocritical. I think what it amounts to is a sort of "Prisoner's dilemma." Which comes down to the question of, "Are we competing or cooperating?"

If we decide we are cooperating, we should work together to increase the welfare of all parties. If we are competing, each party should decide to do what's best for itself, to the detriment of the other party.

The problem is that if one party thinks all are cooperating, but the other side is actually competing, the first party is totally fucked. That's the dilemma the Democrats face. If they take the high road now and cooperate, but the Republicans decide that they are going to continue to compete (as many of them clearly demonstrated was their intent prior to 2006) then the Dems are fucked.

So, it's a good question. I would hope that enough Republicans decide the high road is the best for the long run. That would be best for all. But if enough fools keep listening to and believing Rush Limbaugh and that cunt, Ann Coulter, the republicans will keep electing enough warriors to keep us at each others throats long enough for China and India to have their way with us from behind.

[oronoda.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your very civil response :D I was prepared to get pounced on.

I understand what you're saying and it is a dilemma. I just thought the OP was being a bit polarizing in her/his wording and I had to say something. I'm getting sick of statements from both sides that alienate more than help. I felt a bit alienated by the OP's wording and I'm not a full-fledged conservative.

However, I hope the democrats take the high road too because it has been my experience that there are many (not all) that demonize the Republicans (mainly through people like Al Franken). I think both sides need to take a chill pill and understand that either side seeks what they deem is best for the country but we just believe in taking different paths. We have the same goal in mind just the method is different. Sometimes you have to team up with an enemy to get to a similar goal. It is something I learned in the Army. You may not get along with your higher ups on a personal level but you got to realize your common ground is in the mission.

But who am I to say such things? I'm just an American citizen.

Once again, thank you for your civil reply.

[ltmurdoch.livejournal.com]

One can only hope. Hmmmm..."Hope"....where have I seen that before?...........

[oronoda.livejournal.com]

Do you want the answer to that rhetorical question or do you want a cynical one? XD

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

1) Should the Democrats follow the precedent set by the Republicans in bipartisanship with the minority?

2) Would those who supported removal of the filibuster in 2005 still support it today?

3) If the Republicans tried to filibuster President Obama's judicial nominees, no matter how liberal they were, would that make them hypocrites? (I state for the record that if the Dems protested a Repub filibuster on the grounds it was unconstitutional, it would make them hypocrites)

4) Why don't Republicans want to take personal responsibility for reaping what they've sown? They claim to be the party of high moral standards after all. Perhaps that doesn't extend to politics for them?

It was my understanding that the dems are treating the repubs the same way that the repubs treated the dems the same way the dems treated the repubs. In other words, nothing has really changed.

[desidono.livejournal.com]

It was my understanding that the dems are treating the repubs the same way that the repubs treated the dems the same way the dems treated the repubs.

As has been shown in this community countless times, you have a habit of making blanket statements without actually being able to back them up. So here's a request for proof of that statement from me that's relevant to the cartoon:

Please point me to the time when Democrats tried to get rid of the filibuster to silence the Republican minority.

I won't hold my breath.

kthxbye.

(edited twice for sentence structure and grammar - I just woke up and should've proofread before I hit post)