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