What is to be gained by blocking debate?
 

Seriously, I guess I'm not savvy enough to understand a move like this by the Republicans

I'm not sure which debate you're referring to, but both sides do this all the time. Since few floor debates are any real debate at all, one party sometimes does this to keep the other from getting a lot of tv face time and making long-winded speeches. It's not like those floor debates ever change anyone's mind. At the most, they give the whip more time to count votes or browbeat members to voting the right way. Go sit in on a committee meeting one day, one you know is important but won't be televised. Sometimes only three senators or members show up. Then go to a controversial confirmation hearing that will be televised and they'll all be there.

OK, we'll talk about your savvy.... meaning in this instance your ability to be suckered by the AP for Democratic propaganda purposes.

So sayeth the most holy and revered AP:

"Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed to find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.

"We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people," said Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid, D-Nev., spoke moments before a vote that sidetracked a nonbinding measure expressing disagreement with Bush's plan to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

The vote was 49-47, or 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate, and left the fate of the measure uncertain.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky described the test vote as merely a "bump in the road" and added that GOP lawmakers "welcome the debate and are happy to have it."

From the Left: "Naaaaaahhhhhhmmmmmennnnnnn." (or whatever Godless word not connoting religion they'd use).

Trouble with that AP rendition? Yeah. Aside from a gratuitous editorializing mention of the number of dead (but there's no AGENDA!!!) it's not so much square with fact. Like that slows down the AP or the mouth-breathers it panders to.

The Democrats actually want to end debate and vote on the resolution. What the Republicans are arguing for is keeping debate open and considering other resolutions. That of course might make passing the proposed resolution less likely, which is what the Democrats are trying to avoid.

An interesting (and informed) view from Captain Ed:

"Reid and the Democrats insisted on blocking any consideration of alternatives and demanded an end to debate — which makes Reid's complaint that the GOP would not allow debate on the issue somewhat mystifying. Cloture is an end to debate on the floor, a limitation to allow a vote on the question before the Senate. The filibuster provides for unlimited debate, which the Republicans appear ready to provide. Dick Durbin accused Republicans of running from the debate, but in truth the Democrats tried to shove Warner-Levin down the GOP's throat in order to demand that the US run from Iraq. It's a strange accusation to make that a political party exercises cowardice in not allowing the other to demand retreat — a position that some Democrats clearly want to make."

From the Senate glossary, herewith the definition of "cloture":

"The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes."

Now read this next part slowly... a vote for cloture is a vote to end debate and take a vote on a bill, often used to overcome a filibuster. The Republicans will attempt to keep debate open until the Democrats allow other resolutions to be considered.

How does this, from the AP "The vote was 49-47, or 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate, and left the fate of the measure uncertain." square with the fact that a vote for cloture is a vote to close debate? That there weren't the 60 votes needed to "stifle" debate, to end it, to truncate discussion .... WHO wanted to do that? The Democrats. You're being deliberately deceived by the AP, on the Dem's behalf. Sucker.

This isn't hard to get, but three of the most influential news organizations in the world either do not understand or are purposely adopting the Democrats spin.

In short -- it is the Democrats that do not want new/competing ideas... they want to pass their tantrum bill without having to have it, or any alternatives discussed.

And they're misleading you about what they're doing, with the complicity of the AP, the NYT and WaPo.

And you're falling for it. Again.

"... a move like this by Republicans." Meaning, now, a move to keep debate open and propose alternative language and resolutions. Yeah, those damned closed-minded fascists.

Once again, you've been suckered. But, take solace in the fact that you're not alone. Most the rest of the cattle whose diet is principally AP/UPI (and the MSM that passes it on) has been duped as well.

But the rest of us will have to deal with the impenetrable smug and moral righteousness that comes from your not knowing or accepting you've been duped.

JP

In a nutshell.....Since those up for re-election in 2008 are uncertain as to what will appeal to the voters then, they are "waffling", otherwise defined as protecting their a$$e$.

Waffling? Never!!!!!

Hey JP, I think you put a little spin on that too.

If I read this correctly, cloture is to force a timely vote on a bill, to bring it to the floor for vote where people can speak to it, debate it just before a vote is then taken. Is this incorrect?


What the Republicans did was to defeat an attempt for cloture and so the bill/resolution will not come up for vote soon, but will languish until all parites agree that it is time to vote on it. Sort of a group filibuster.


What we will get now is a bunch of them making those speeches we see on TV when no one esle is there.

if you block debate defish can't get to it!

Booooooooo. Hissss.

For the past 12 years Democrats have been up to the same tactics. The Filibuster forces compromise and avoids the majority steam-rolling over minority opinion. At least that what Robert Byrd has been telling everyone for his entire Senate career.

The House rules are different and the majority can rule with an iron fist. The minimum wage bill is a good example of how different the Senate is from the House of Representatives.

During the debate over Bush's judicial nominees, Republicans threatened to change the Senate rules, thus shutting off the filibuster. However, notice how there was never a real effort to actually vote in the change. Senators know it is only a matter of time before they wind up in the minority again.

I guess Harry and company had better buck up and stop their effin' whining. Maybe they could do some real work and start repealing all of the useless laws they have passed over the years.

It's pretty simple, really: If you are a Democrat and you block debate, then you are being noble. If you are a Republican and you block debate, then you are partisan and obstructionist.

Not to mention all of this debate (or more specifically, debate about when to debate) is about a non-binding resolution. Which means that Congress doesn't have the ability to actually do anything, but merely wants to look like it's doing something while actually doing nothing. So this is a debate to determine when to debate about doing nothing while trying to look like their doing something.

Did that help?

and the truth shall set you free.

Remember, these guys are master debaters...

In my best Beavis and Butt-Head laugh, "Yeah, yeah. Heh heh."

I vote we move to a parliamentary style where we can really see people do some debating even if it is not much more than questions and answers. I really enjoy watching the sessions from the English parliament.


The phony Congressional speeches at night to an empty hall are pathetic.

I enjoy watching British Parliament debates too. But I don't think Americans would stand for having a head of state that is not directly elected.

I got a lot of that today. :cool:

Oh man poor GB would not last a day in TB's shoes. Thinking on your toes is a requirement there.

We need a method of "no confidance" voting whereby if a president is clearly voted down by the election process, as Bush II was last November, then he either does what Americans want, or gets thrown out on his keister.

Fastpat, that's known as a presidential election. It happens every 4 years. Remember, GWB was already re-elected after the start of the war, so that essentially was the referandum on his policies.

People tend to forget that.

Here is something to ponder:

When was the last time the pols in Washington did anything to benefit the people in a meaningful way?