Trade war with China?Follow

I'll restate what i said the last time we talked about filibuster and you seemed to think that the GOP were being bad guys for using it.

"The people" like a filibuster when it's stopping legislation they don't like. They don't like the filibuster when it's being used to hold up things they do like. So... Filibuster to try to stop health care from passing? Viewed as an heroic effort. Too bad the Dems used procedural tricks to get past it. Filibuster by the Dems to prevent a rollback or repeal of health care? Going to be viewed badly to say the least.

But I'm sure you'll disagree.

Well, damn.

I guess there's always heavy drinking.

And when it's being used to stop legislation that will waste vastly more tax dollars? They're on board with it. It think it's incredibly naive to think people just support or oppose the use of a political tool. Most people don't care about the tool. They care about how and why it's being used.

Um... At the risk of stating the obvious, how on earth does that disprove my position that people don't care about the tools or procedures, but just about the end results? And how does that support your allegation that people oppose "the filibuster" if so many people don't even know what it is, how it works, or when it's being used?


You just kinda argued for my position, didn't you?

You have argued that the party using it will somehow be viewed negatively for doing so. You have made this claim many times and each time I've responded that it depends *why* they are filibustering and whether or not the majority of people want the thing blocked or not.



Unless they wanted the bill to be blocked because they disagreed with it, in which case the word you're looking for isn't "blame", but "credit". Do you see how it matters how the people view the issue at hand?

The majority of people polled may not have known what a filibuster was or how it worked, but they did oppose the passage of the health care bill. Thus, the use of a filibuster by the GOP doesn't hurt them in the eyes of the public. It helps them.

You keep trying to ram the square peg of opposition/support for the tool itself into the round hole of... (ok, I'm just bailing on this analogy right now before things get creepy).




And the people will blame the Dems for preventing said repeal. Get it? The majority of people did not want the health care bill to pass. Thus, they supported the filibuster by the GOP even if they didn't understand how it works. The majority of people will oppose the use of a filibuster (or other procedural tricks) by the Dems to block repeal or a rollback of the health care law.

You keep failing to get this. It's not about the tool. Its about what it's used to accomplish. Do they agree with the objective? Then they support it. If they oppose the objective, they oppose the use of the tool to achieve it.



No. You're the only one who keeps insisting that it's about the actual use of the filibuster. The Dems will be blamed for preventing a repeal or some form of rollback of a law which the majority of the voting public doesn't like and wants to be repealed or rolled back in some way. How many times do I have to explain this to you?



Then why do you argue the exact opposite part of the time? They wont be blamed as the "filibustering party". They'll be blamed as the "party that refused to get rid of that awful law which we all hate". The pundits will talk about the tools used, but the public really doesn't care. You know this, but keep wanting to think that somehow the Dems wont get blamed for using the filibuster. They will. But not because it's a "filibuster", but because they're doing something which results in something the public doesn't like.


Surely you understand this?

Edited, Oct 13th 2010 5:37pm by gbaji

You'd have to dig up some context. If I made that argument, it hasn't been for a while because I've been saying that people just aren't aware for months now.

There is no "blame" for the filibuster. There is no "credit" for the filibuster. People just aren't aware of the filibuster. It's not even on their radar. You saying ************ stuff like "Filibuster to try to stop health care from passing? Viewed as an heroic effort" is just silly. People weren't viewing it as anything.

They won't. You keep failing to get it. Which is fine because it's no skin off my nose if you keep telling yourself it'll be a big deal and it's not. You're still wrong about it though.

Heh. It's funny because you're all over the map.

The minority party won't really get blame. Forget health care. Look at the financial reform bill which had wide support from the public. Were people all upset and at arms over the GOP filibuster? Nope. That's what you don't get. You think one example is proving what you want it to prove and missing the forest to gaze upon your one favorite tree.

Edited, Oct 13th 2010 7:59pm by Jophiel

I'm not sure how to respond without risking WW3 then. If the filibuster results in not passing legislation which will cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, then I'm not sure how the cost of the filibuster itself would be considered relevant. Do I really need to provide you with a cite showing that 500 Billion dollars is greater than the amount of dollars it cost to do the filibuster itself? Or can you do the math yourself?

I think you're getting caught up in the word "filibuster". It's not about the tool. It's about what a given party is doing (or trying to do). They may not cheer in the street because of a filibuster, but they will cheer on their party for opposing legislation they don't like and they'll cheer more when that legislation fails because of that opposition.

In the same way that they'll cheer actions which support legislation they do like and boo those who act to oppose it. A filibuster is just an action which opposes passage of legislation. The public only needs to understand that a position is "for" or "against" and pick a side based on that. I think maybe you're just over thinking this (or thinking that I am, I suppose).



We'll have to disagree on this point. You're repeating the current Dem party line about how majority parties get blamed for everything. But that's just a dodge. They get blamed when they're doing things people don't like. Minority parties absolutely get blamed when they block things that the people do like. That's why sometimes the public gets mad about the use of the filibuster and sometimes they don't. You keep trying to fit this into some broad thing about the filibuster itself, but if you look at the pattern, it's always about the underlying issue at hand.




That's a terrible example though. The idea of financial reform had wide support. But the specifics of what "reform" meant varied wildly. When you get down to the specifics of a bill, fewer people liked it (and even fewer understood it). But since the details weren't discussed and debated to the same degree as the health care bill (btw, "health care reform" as a concept tends to poll highly for the same reasons), you're not going to find the same kinds of strong negatives. That's not surprising at all.



No. I get it. They didn't care about the filibuster because it didn't affect them much, and a compromise was reached pretty quickly. I'm not sure why you'd pick this as an example. And I don't know how this illustrates your position. If people opposed filibusters on principle, then they should have been up in arms about this, right?

But they didn't. And they didn't because they saw it as a legitimate part of the negotiation process of this bill. Americans may not understand the details of the political process, but they do understand that there is one.



Huh? You're the one who insisted back in the day that the GOP would be reviled for their use of the filibuster. You're the one who insisted that it was some kind of sign that the GOP was doing something wrong that the numbers of filibusters had increased since 2008 when the Dems took control. You're the one who constantly wants to blame the GOP for using said tactic.


I'm the one who has stated consistently that the publics view of the use of a filibuster is related to their view of the issue at hand (which includes the strength of their support or opposition). And that is absolutely consistent with the historical results. People didn't condemn the GOP for filibustering health care. In fact, they condemned the Dems for using procedural tricks to get around it. That's because the majority of people strongly opposed the health care bill as written. People didn't condemn the GOP for filibustering financial reform because they didn't feel as strongly about it either way.

When people condemn filibusters is when its used as to block legislation they really do think is important (and despite vague polling, the financial reform bill wasn't), or when it's used capriciously to block what should be "normal" procedural things (like appointments). The Dems have tended to be on the wrong side of this. It's not surprising that liberals will tend to try to slide that opposition off of the choices of how their party uses the filibuster and onto some kind of broader position on the use of the filibuster itself. You don't want to acknowledge that the Dems have picked some incredibly unpopular positions to make strong stands on. I get it. I really do. But that's really just wishful thinking on your part.


The bigger theme here is that the Democrats have a need to portray themselves as the party of the people and their positions as popular with those people. Your approach to the use of the filibuster is just an aspect of that need. I've touched on this in other threads as well, but it's worth noting here too. The pattern is becoming amusingly clear in fact.

You're confusing me with someone else. Or else link to a thread or something. I've certainly commented disparagingly on the GOP use of the filibuster and on the procedural filibuster in general but you'd have to find chapter and verse of me saying anyone was going to be widely reviled for it.

That's absolutely true but, as I said earlier, that's because I'm a creature who pays attention to and cares about those things. Most people (probably thankfully) aren't me.

The rest of your post was just going in circles.

The filibuster is, and has always been, the Congressional equivalent of the loser in an argument sticking his fingers in his ears and going "la la la la not listening la la la la." That is why people don't like it.

ETA: and probably why gbaji does.

Edited, Oct 13th 2010 9:52pm by AshOnMyTomatoes

My feelings on filibustering and stalled legislation is similar to sailing: do you make more progress tacking into the wind, or stalled dead in the water? Going 80 degrees of your desired direction with the opportunity to change course and go another 80 degrees back is better than going nowhere at all, or being pushed backwards.

Trying to help induce labor, eh? <wink nudge>

That's an interesting narrative to be sure.