However, this article at RAW Story does put into perspective a possible explanation for why they haven't been able to get anything done.
AP: Republicans set record for use of filibusterSo, as spineless and ineffective as the major Democrats are, at least it's obvious that they got that way be being beaten down day-in and day-out by the Republicans. Hopefully, when next things are reversed, the Democrats will "pay back the favor" by being every bit as harassing and obstructive as the Republicans. Of course, our Government will collapse under that pressure should it go on too long, and that concern will probably cause the Democratic leadership to wuss out yet again. Which is a shame, because in order to get any real reform in this (or any) country, things have to boil over and break down. This half-assed breakdown, where most of the nation can live in denial that everything is busted and spiraling out of control, is going to take forever. I mean, if it's all going to have to get a lot worse before it gets any better, I wish it'd at least hurry up and get worse.
The frequency of filibusters — plus threats to use them — are measured by the number of times the upper chamber votes on cloture. Such votes test the majority's ability to hold together 60 members to break a filibuster.
Last year, the first of the 111th Congress, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the first two months of 2010, the number already exceeds 40.
That means, with 10 months left to run in the 111th Congress, Republicans have turned to the filibuster or threatened its use at a pace that will more than triple the old record. The 104th Congress in 1995-96 — when Republicans held a 53-47 majority — required 50 cloture votes.
Man I sound bitter. Of course, I'd rather it all get miraculously better, without ever getting worse. It's just that with every passing day, it becomes harder and harder to muster up willing suspension of disbelief about such a fantasy scenario.
I just really want to fix what's wrong with the system.
4 comments:
I've recently changed my opinion of Obama. I now think he isn't a bad President. He is still far from being a good one, but right now 'not bad' is an improvement.
Wow. That's a bit surprising to hear from you. What changed your mind?
Not bad. W I rated as being more than 50% bad. That makes him bad. I would easily call him really bad but never go so far as to call him super bad because that changes the meaning of bad.
Barry "Hussein in the Membrane" Obama I think has a few decent intentions and maybe some possible actual concern. Let's face it, US citizens are impossible to please. So he isn't a bad President. Then again, Gerald Ford wasn't a bad President either. Weak, ineffectual, spineless, corporate slave? Maybe. But not bad per se.
Perhaps what it really comes down to is would I want to spit the guy in the face if he came up and started a conversation with me? No? Then not a bad guy.
Post a Comment