Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not like the Republicans wrote this particular play into the book.
So long as we're agreeing that the Pubbies aren't any better, then.
Depends on what you mean by "better". In the context of using the things that are inherent in our congressional system and designed to give the party with the majority an edge, no. They're no better. But I don't find any particular ethical quandry here. The ability to schedule votes is an advantage granted to the majority party. Not using it to their advantage would be kinda like a football team avoiding plays that give them an advantage depending on which direction down the field they're facing (wind direction, sun blinding, etc).
It's not "better" really. It's just the way it is.
Republicans are "better" in my mind because I happen to agree with them politically. So, if I have a choice between two parties, and both have the exact same tools available to them, and both have the exact same advantages when they are in the majority, but I happen to agree with the agend of one party and disagree with the other, then clearly it is "better" for the party I agree with to be in the majority.
Would I prefer that such tactics be avoided? Sure. But it's the height of hypocracy to argue for such a thing only when it's your side that's at a disadvantage. If you want to argue that the majority party should have no power to set the voting schedule, then by all means, make your argument. But don't do so just because the Republicans happen to be the majority party right now. Do so because it's the right thing
regardless of party in power. I have a sneaking suspicion that none of those complaining about this would have brought up a similar argument if it was the Democrats in majority, and it was one of their wedge issues being brought to a vote in the months leading up to an election.
I could be wrong on that, but I highly doubt it.