GOP officially breaks filibuster record

Thorgrim · 12-19-2007, 11:20 AM

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Republican Senate minority today filibustered an omnibus budget bill, setting a modern-day record for blocking the most legislation during a congressional session. A new report released today by the Campaign for Americas Future details the 62 times conservatives have used the filibuster to block legislation (or force modification of bills) in the first session of the 110th Congress. In just the first year of this two-year Congress, their use of the filibuster in the Senate topped the previous record, reached during the entire 107th Congress.

The new report outlines every bill filibustered, vetoed or threatened to be vetoed by President Bush. Conservatives filibustered bills to end the occupation of Iraq, provide soldiers in Iraq rest time equal to their deployments, support renewable energy and grant residents of the District of Columbia representation in Congress. Todays record-breaker involved a $516 billion budget package passed by the House to fund the federal government in 2008. The conservative minority demanded $20 billion additional funding for the war and opposed House language to bring troops home, and threatened a filibuster to prevent the bill from getting an up or down vote.

In just one session, a minority in Congress has prevented a mind-blowing 62 pieces of legislation from going to the floor for an up or down vote, said Campaign for Americas Future co-director Roger Hickey. Our report shows how over and over again, the uncompromising minority has thwarted the will of majorities in Congress and of the American people, holding the Senate floor hostage to a radical right-wing agenda.

Sixty votes are needed to invoke cloture and end a filibuster. The 62nd cloture vote of the session is more than any single session of Congress since at least 1973, the earliest year cloture votes are available online from the Senate. Republicans are on pace to force 134 cloture votes to cut off a filibuster, according to the Campaign for Americas Future analysis, more than double the historical average of the last 35 years.

Even pieces of legislation that have made it past the Senate filibuster blockade have been obstructed by President Bush. Last week the President vetoed for the second time a popular bill that would expand health coverage for 10 million American children. According to the Campaign for Americas Future report, Bush has threatened to veto 84 bills and has vetoed six as of December 17. In contrast, during the period when the Republicans were in the congressional majority, Bush went the longest time without vetoing a bill since President Arthur Garfield.

Eric Lotke, Campaign for America's Future research director and lead author of the new report, calls the obstruction a deliberate strategy. He observes that the congressional Republicans block legislation, then blame the Democrats for getting nothing done. Its like mugging the postman and then complaining that the mail isnt delivered on time.

The story of this historic level of obstruction has recently been covered by The New York Times, but has yet to be fully told in the media. The new Campaign for Americas Future report shows how major media outlets describe the 60-vote threshold as an ordinary procedure, neglecting that this tactic is an unprecedented assertion of minority control.

** NOTE: To obtain an electronic copy of the Campaign for Americas Futures report Block and Blame: The Conservative Strategy of Obstruction in the 110th Congress, please visit

**

Record Breaking: Senate Conservatives Use Filibuster for 62nd Time in This Session of Congress - Yahoo! News

Pretty pathetic that even with the Bush veto pen at the ready, they are obstructing bills, most of which have overwhelming popular support

What makes this sad is, unlike 2003, the minority party is not filibustering because if they don't, there will be dire consequences for our nation

No, they just want to spare Bush the use of the veto pen and try to make Democrats look ineffective, the bills themselves obviously have no chance of going over his veto

It's record breaking obstructionism for pure political theater, unlike say, the Democrats, who didn't want to appoint judges like the ones who decided in the DC court of appeals that US citizens can be detained without charge, forever

That was overturned by the SCOTUS (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), thankfully...but avoiding a fascist state = good thing

Blocking the president's ability to consider and veto an Iraq spending bill = pure theater, all that is wrong with politics

ib "I heard from some conservative that Democrats filibusterd all these good things, it must be true, I have no idea what they are talking about, but if what I overheard at lunch is true, the Democrats are getting a taste of their medicine...and who cares about records anyway"

bheld · 12-19-2007, 12:35 PM

They're going to keep doing it until they get punished in some way.

motivez · 12-19-2007, 12:37 PM

It's too bad Reid is such an ineffectual hack, Democrats need 60 votes to pass anything, Republicans only need 51..

He should force them to actually stand up and filibuster bills, instead of just being able to threaten to do so. That way, the American public would be able to see and decide for themselves whether or not they agree with the Republicans blocking passage of a bill

Right now, 99% of the time in the media it's characterized as Democratic "inaction" on x or y bill .. and it's often repeated by people here on this site.

I have no problem with a minority party blocking legislation they feel shouldn't be passed, any responsible minority party would, the Democrats certainly did while they were in the minority.. but make them actually do it instead of just threatening to.

bheld · 12-19-2007, 12:41 PM

The hilarious thing is that most of the presidential candidates are in the Senate. Dodd is the only one that's shown any balls whatsoever when it comes to battles like this. If so many of them are so ineffective in the freaking senate, how are they going to lead an entire country? Hillary, Obama, are you paying attention? The way I see it, there's not much that's going to change with either of them in charge. They can't win a presidential election if they can't even win a PR battle that's tilted in their favor.

kinggovernor · 12-19-2007, 02:00 PM

they are still getting what they want without being the party in power = win

WickedLou9 · 12-19-2007, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they are still getting what they want without being the party in power = win

They aren't really though. They are just preventing the Dems from doing what they want.

motivez · 12-19-2007, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

They aren't really though. They are just preventing the Dems from doing what they want.

No, he's right. They are getting what they want on stuff like Iraq, FISA, torture, and so forth..

kinggovernor · 12-19-2007, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

They aren't really though. They are just preventing the Dems from doing what they want.

House Approves $70 Billion More for War
By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 19, 2007; 6:03 PM

WASHINGTON -- Congress approved $70 billion Wednesday for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a bitter finish for majority Democrats who tried to force a change in President Bush's war policy.

The House's 272-142 vote also sent the president a $555 billion catchall spending bill that combines the war money with money for 14 Cabinet departments.

Bush and his Senate GOP allies forced the Iraq money upon anti-war Democrats as the price for permitting the year-end budget deal to pass and be signed. But other Democrats were eager to avoid being seen as not supporting troops who are in harm's way _ and avoid weeks of bashing by Bush for failing to provide that money.

"This is a blank check," complained Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

the Senate already approved it, the Republicans are still getting what they want

kinggovernor · 12-19-2007, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

No, he's right. They are getting what they want on stuff like Iraq, FISA, torture, and so forth..

A new FISA bill was tabled to until at least after New Years, which wasn't what the Pres. Bush wanted. But the Republicans are still winning about Iraq, which is great news for this country.

motivez · 12-19-2007, 07:21 PM

Yeah, but unless Reid grows a backbone and substitutes the judiciary committee's version, the other stuff will pass too.

Too many Democrats scared of being called weak to do the right thing.

Thorgrim · 12-19-2007, 07:50 PM

From what I understand, most Democrats are fed up, but a storng minority are saying:

Look, people don't appreciete us that we haven't passed anything, but they hate the Republicans even worse...if we keep this up, they'll continue to hate Republicans more and we'll win in 2008 and everything will be much easier, if they keep obstructing, we can get 60 seats in 2010

As a bonus, people don't get beaten by Republicans for NOT passing progressive bills...they are leaving the GOP without any real ammo

"The democrats cut off...i mean they voted to strip fisa...err well they stopped the Iran vo...oh fuck it, look im prettier!"

Some incumbents are very happy that only the overwhelmingly popular things passed, because they CAN run as the party which increased minimum wage, helped college tuition rates, 9/11 recommendations...and nothing else major...I mean, what GOPer can run against that? It'll be hard

What republican with a straight face can go "He/She hasn't done enough to end the war in Iraq!!!" All the close elections involved incumbents who specifically said they DIDN'T want to cut off funds for the troops, and their district agrees, so they're sitting pretty

tbone · 12-20-2007, 08:29 AM

IMO, it makes both sides look ineffectual and makes me really want a legitimate 3rd party.

JaJae · 12-20-2007, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by tbone

IMO, it makes both sides look ineffectual and makes me really want a legitimate 3rd party.

I agree. I didn't like it when the Democrats were doing it, and I still don't like it when the Republicans are doing it. Most of these filibusters are because of little partisan issues injected into the bills. The House is in a dream world right now of what can and can not pass in the Senate and they keep repeatedly throwing bills out that have no chance. That's why there's so many filibusters, they've filibustered some issues more than once, twice, three times..

The House needs to work with the Senate to make bills that can pass. The Democrats used to filibuster bills with little partisan injections as well. And they also filibustered for the sake of filibustering. Both sides have done it. No side is any less innocent or guilty. If we had a third party with a major representation all this partisan BS and filibustering would take a big hit.

7th Ninjai · 12-20-2007, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

A new FISA bill was tabled to until at least after New Years, which wasn't what the Pres. Bush wanted. But the Republicans are still winning about Iraq, which is great news for this country.

I'll bite - especially considering that you identify yourself as a libertarian, how is Iraq great news for this country?

kinggovernor · 12-20-2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by 7th Ninjai

I'll bite - especially considering that you identify yourself as a libertarian, how is Iraq great news for this country?

stable democratic Iraq = win for this country

and from nearly everyone accounts Iraq is stabilizing

Ardentfrost · 12-20-2007, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

stable democratic Iraq = win for this country

and from nearly everyone accounts Iraq is stabilizing

Yeah! sweet! $611 billion and countless lives later and we can finally get a stable Iraq that helps us in some intangible way... maybe cheaper oil prices! Oh, but Oil is more expensive now than it's ever been... hmm... maybe stopping Al Queda! Oh, but since they have no country, they have no centralized group to attack so it's impossible to ever expect an "end" to be put to them.

Oh, I know what it is! Another place where we can have too much of a presence in the Middle East which pisses off the people of the region and we get blowback for another 50 years. That worked out so well from 1959 til now.

kinggovernor · 12-21-2007, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Yeah! sweet! $611 billion and countless lives later and we can finally get a stable Iraq that helps us in some intangible way... maybe cheaper oil prices! Oh, but Oil is more expensive now than it's ever been... hmm... maybe stopping Al Queda! Oh, but since they have no country, they have no centralized group to attack so it's impossible to ever expect an "end" to be put to them.

Oh, I know what it is! Another place where we can have too much of a presence in the Middle East which pisses off the people of the region and we get blowback for another 50 years. That worked out so well from 1959 til now.

Iraq is for another thread, feel free to start another thread about that. My point is this thread is that Republicans are still accomplishing their goals without having power in Congress.