[identity profile] kinvore.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
This was about more than Obama's victory. Several Tea Party extremists were also defeated. Todd Akin, Allen West, Joe Walsh (not of Eagles fame hehe), Richard Mourdock, and others were among them. While Democrats made gains in the House, the GOP still holds the majority.

The question is will this end GOP stonewalling in Congress? It would be nice if the House could pass something (aside from a repeal of Obamacare that has no chance of becoming law). It would be nice if the Senate would stop filibustering everything that Obama proposes. If the GOP continues their obstruction tactics, how will it affect them in 2014?

(no subject)

Date: 7/11/12 20:21 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com
Nope, I don't think their attitudes will change all that much.

(no subject)

Date: 7/11/12 20:31 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com
So at least another two years of nothing going on in Congress? We're all the losers in that circumstnce honestly. In fact, Mitt was making precisely that as a reason to vote for him "If you elect Obama, you know NOTHING will get out of Congress. Elect me, that could change!"

(no subject)

Date: 7/11/12 21:21 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com
To do that, they'd need to control the agenda, which I suspect that Boehner will deny them from the first by putting out the first fiscal cliff solution.

(no subject)

Date: 7/11/12 21:33 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] the-rukh.livejournal.com
It would change a lot if anybody had spine enough to make them actually stand there and fillibuster.

(no subject)

Date: 7/11/12 21:46 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
Good luck finding 66 Senators to go along with that.

(no subject)

Date: 7/11/12 22:05 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com
No luck needed. And won't need 66 votes.

(no subject)

Date: 7/11/12 22:19 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
Sure you do. As the Senate is a continuing body, it cannot change its rules without 66 votes.

(no subject)

Date: 7/11/12 22:36 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
The Senate rules are the Senate rules. Argue against reality at your own peril.

(no subject)

Date: 8/11/12 00:34 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com
Why not? You do it ALL the time :-)

Harry Reid's Uphill Battle.

(no subject)

Date: 8/11/12 01:58 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com
Do you not understand the mechanics of the "nuclear option," or what? I've seen you raise this point about a half-dozen times and never tell me why it wouldn't work.

(no subject)

Date: 8/11/12 02:05 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
I understand the desire to attempt it, but it's not workable - there aren't enough votes to make it stick, and it exposes the leadership to legal troubles.

(no subject)

Date: 8/11/12 02:20 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com
I'd love to see a judge get involved in that particular mess. Congressional rulemaking screams political question nonjusticiability. And, why would you need votes to make it stick? It requires fifty and the Vice Presidency, which they appear to have. They might not have 50 for specifically killing the filibuster, and if that's what you mean, then OK. But it appears they have the requisite number to attempt it.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
910 1112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Summary