AP, Seattle Times Blame GOP for Downing DREAM Act; In Truth, Five Democrats' Votes Scuttled Cloture
By Ken Shepherd | December 18, 2010 | 17:30
Today liberal Senate Democrats failed to garner the 60-vote threshold to end debate on and move to a final passage vote for the DREAM Act.
In covering the story, the news wire credited Republican opposition for "doom[ing]" the legislation, but the math doesn't work out when you look at the breakdown of the votes on the motion to end debate -- also known as invoking cloture. [h/t reader Kevin Davis]
"Republicans block youth immigration bill," the Seattle Times headlined today's AP story on the DREAM Act vote, which began with dark, loaded language that painted Republicans in a sinister light (emphasis mine):
Senate Republicans on Saturday doomed an effort that would have given hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants a path to legal status if they enrolled in college or joined the military.
Sponsors of the DREAM Act fell five votes short of the 60 they needed to break through largely GOP opposition and win its enactment before Republicans take over the House and narrow Democrats' majority in the Senate next month.
In the lame duck Senate, Democrats and the liberal independents who caucus with them account for 58 senators, two votes shy of the 60-vote threshold to close debate. On cloture votes, Democrats -- plus Sens. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sanders (I-Vt.) -- need just two of the chamber's Republicans to join them in order to shut off debate.
Today's AP article itself noted -- in the 16th paragraph -- that three Republicans joined most Democrats in voting yes on ending debate. Had all the Democrats held together, there would have been exactly 60 votes -- Sen. Joe Machin of West Virginia did not vote -- ensuring a final vote would have been held on the DREAM Act.
Five Democrats did in fact defect from the party line and voted no on closing debate.
As such, those Democrats "doomed" the DREAM Act.
But why let the truth get in the way of a good liberal media meme?
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
This is a good thing, Ken
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:53pm.
Let the liberal media spread the myth that the "Hell No" republicans stopped this idiot Dream Act.
It will work to our advantage in the long run.
Nice find, tho, Ken. Media Bias in all its glory.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
That's an interesting spin...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:03pm.
Since a clear majority of the Senate supported passage of the legislation it would therefore have become law but for the Republican filibuster preventing a vote.
So, it is indeed correct to say the Republicans "doomed" the Dream Act.
Jer
The first lie wouldn't choke
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:53pm.
The first lie wouldn't choke you, would it?
3 Republicans DID vote for cloture ... but 5 Democrats did not. An thus, this sleazy attempt by the Democrats to sell the sovereignty of the United States to entrench their own political power failed.
Prove the lie.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:04pm.
What evidence do you have that a majority of Senators would not have supported passage of the bill? [You are permitted to research the question prior to posting your answer.]
Jer
Cloture requires 60% of the
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:38pm.
Cloture requires 60% of the Senate and it has since 1918 when the Cloture rule was adopted. In today's Senate, that is 60 votes. 51 votes cannot bring a measure to the floor of the Senate for an up or down vote. If a measure does not reach the floor, it can never become law. Ergo, 51 votes cannot pass any law in the Senate. This isn't too hard for you, is it?
The opposition to cloture included approximately 10%, or 5, of the Democrats who number 56 in the present Senate. These 5 joined with 39 of the 42 Republicans to prevent cloture. There is a word for this kind of opposition : Bipartisan. I thought you leftist tyrants liked bipartisanship but it now appears that liking only applies to situations where the defectors favor your proposals.
NL207---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:54pm.
I have made up my mind.
Do NOT confuse me with the facts.
(signed)
Jer
MD
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:13pm.
Just a helpful hint. You might think twice before hitching your wagon to NL's view of this issue. He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:21pm.
We're all hitching our ride to the same thing. That thing being logic and a clear understanding of math -- and of when the media is and is not framing a narrative to smear Republicans and the conservative movement. This is one of those (many) times.
- Shy Shake
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Well then slow down and get
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:40pm.
Well then slow down and get them under control, Shy Rider...because NL's flawed Logic and Math are dragging your wagon over the cliff. Sadly, he's already sprawled on the rocks below.
Follow me!
Jer
The flow of posts here should
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 9:52am.
The flow of posts here should tell you one something counselor : You are once again at the bottom of a smoking hole.
You now appear to be just another liberal bedwetter who is whining about bipartisan opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens. Do you want to know what the American people think about this? THIS is what the American people think about this. A clear majority oppose it.
I think that if Americans were better informed about this issue by this dishonest media culture, they would overwhelmingly oppose the DREAM Act. Specifically, I do not think most Americans understand that the DREAM Act is in fact a blanket amnesty for ALL illegals currently in the country and an open invitation to every other would be illegal in the world.
Dream Act
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 9:59am.
But what better way to lift the lower class than to import a slave class?
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:40pm.
My eternal thanks for looking out for me. :o)
A helpful hint is what got me hitched to my first wife.
Amityville Horror, I tell ya!
I do think twice, now. That is what prevents me from being a liberal.
Way back before the archives went away, I ran across a number of back and forths between you and NL.
Interesting, to say the least.
However, while I am sure that he has every bit as much faith in his perspectives as you do in your outlook as a liberal Democrat, the evidence, for me, is conclusive.
I shall go with anything in opposition to liberals, Democrats, liberal Democrats, and melanin-enhanced race baiters.
That way, even if by some extremely remote chance I were proven to be wrong, I would at least be happy with, and living by, my choices, instead of being a sour-assed, politically correct, but oh so sensitive, lefty.
MD
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:01pm.
Could it be that we were married to the same woman...at different times?
...the one I not-so-affectionately refer to as the "CalAmityville Horror"--in part because she fled to California. Out there where you are. And of course in part because 'calamity' just seemed, well...appropriate.
Hmm...wouldn't that be somethin'.
Jer.
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:51am.
That is an unbelievably scary thought.
Nah.
No one woman could ever be so unlucky as to get stuck with you and me both in the same lifetime. :o)
MD
Speaking of clueless.
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 3:13pm.
Try reading the Senate Rules you ignorant mope. There are only two kinds of measures that may pass the Senate without a cloture majority, and in recent years, the Democrats have 'reinterpretted' the rules to exclude one of these :
(1) Appointment confirmations. By Constitutional requirement, these must be able to pass the Senate with a simple up or down vote. In recent years, the Democrats have filibustered Judicial appointments they do not like, most notably, Miguel Estrada.
(2) Money Bills which have already passed the Senate once, that is, passed cloture, but whose House versions differ can be presented for Reconciliation, again, bowing to a Constitutional requirement that all revenue bills must originate in the House.
Which brings me to the lie that is the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. Which Chamber did this abomination originate in, Counselor? Is it a revenue bill?
Read them again...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 9:31pm.
you illiterate twit. You are arguing from the presumption that some type of delaying tactic has been employed by one or more senators for the purpose of blocking the vote on a bill they know or believe is supported by a sufficient number normally required for passage, i.e. a simple majority.
And that's precisely what the Republicans have been doing--placing "secret" holds and filibustering or threatening filibuster which forces cloture majorities--and they have been doing this at levels never before seen in American history. It is precisely what they have done with the Dream Act legislation, so to suggest it was "doomed" by Democrats is absurd.
Jer
The Cloture rule has existed
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 12:33am.
The Cloture rule has existed since 1918. In the last 92 years, there is not one piece of new legislation passed by the Senate that has not enjoyed the support of more than the requisite cloture majority at the time it was passed. That is a statement of fact, counselor. How do we know this? Because anytime a bill did not have the implicit or explicit support of at least the cloture majority, a filibuster has been threatened or in fact raised and the bill was not passed. There is 92 years of history behind this. I don't recall you complaining about your team misusing the filibuster rule to block Presidential Appointments made by Bush. Why is that?
Care to discuss what went on in the Senate PRIOR to the Cloture Rule? I seriously doubt it. You aren't interested in any inconvenient truths.
This is what is know as a 'Lame Duck' session : a Congress that has been invalidated by a recent election but still sits. All Lame Ducks are invalid and this one in particular is invalid because it was utterly repudiated at the polls in November. I think the Lame Duck needs to be constitutionally restrained from enacting anything except continuing budget resolutions or alternatively, the new Congress must be seated sooner after the election. Scheming cowards like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid cannot be permitted to hide an unpopular agenda from the electorate by planning to pass it in a Lame Duck. That is pure tyranny.
I, for one, an pleased the Republicans have begun to show some spine. This tyrant Congress is utterly out of control. It has been and continues to govern against the will of the majority of American citizens and in defiance of the Constitution itself. That the rules of the Senate are being correctly used to block further partisan legislation by this Congress is entirely appropriate.
The minority who opposed cloture for the DREAM Act included 5 Democrats making it bipartisan opposition. The Republicans alone did not block this. They were only able to muster 39 'nays' on their own.
And once more we see YOU speaking in the defence of naked tyranny. You wish to defend the sale of US citizenship to any foreigner who is able to invade our country with his offspring for the votes of those foreigners. You are a detestable.
C'mon NL...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 12:58am.
I am a detestable...what? Grab a thesaurus and spit it out.
Now, please point to where I have spoken "in defence (sic) of naked tyranny" or "the sale of US citizenship to any foreigner who is able to invade our country, etc."...or in support of the DREAM Act in any manner whatsoever.
My arguments have dealt soley with the issues of filibustering, blocking legislation, and blaming the Democrats for "dooming" the bill. You know I am kidding about clueless, illiterate, etc. I know you're smart. Use your brain.
Jer
Your arguments are being used
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 1:24am.
Your arguments are being used to defend the outrageous actions of a Lame Duck Congress, the worst Congress in recent history and possibly the worst in the country's history.
If you are not defending the DREAM Act and the Media description of its defeat as 'partisan' when in fact it was 'bipartisan' as evidenced by the votes in the Senate, then your entire point of argumentation is outside of this context, in which case, get the H*LL off this thread. Your argumentation here is defacto defense of the DREAM Act. Own it.
Aside form that, you are rejecting the application of the standing rules of the Senate, in particular, a rule adopted 92 years ago, by members of the present Senate to the present situation by claiming that only 51 votes are needed to pass any bill. Even in the absence of a filibuster that is a falsehood, as all that is required to pass a bill in the Senate once a cloture vote has brought it to the floor is a majority of the Senators present. That isn't necessarily 51. The Senate rules for the last 92 years have required a 60% super majority to bring any bill to the floor over the objections of any members present. Prior to 1918, there was no way to end a filibuster under the Senate rules. That is, a minority of dedicated Senators could block any bill no matter what their numbers actually were. This is part of what you do not get.
Easy, tiger...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 1:33am.
The blog is about the Senate legislative process and procedural issues, not the merits or flaws of the DREAM Act. If it's the latter you wish to work yourself into a lather over, then get the H*LL off this thread.
Jer
Hard for me?
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:17pm.
Not in the least. Hard for you? Obviously.
Recommended action: 1. Clear your mind of the accumulated nonsense. 2. Spend some time on basic research. 3. Then get back to me.
Jer
If there were any evidence to
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 11:33am.
If there were any evidence to the contrary to produce, counselor, you would have done that already. Quoting the Senate Rules isn't going to make your case, is it?
>FLUSH!<
Put your money where your mouth is, Jer.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:08pm.
"Since a clear majority of the Senate supported passage of the legislation it would therefore have become law but for the Republican filibuster preventing a vote."
Prove it, Jer, PROVE that a clear majority "supported passage" of the bill. The vote was a cloture vote, not a passage vote. Since the Senate DIDN'T vote on passage, we don't know who would have, or would not have, you know, "supported" passage. As has happened so many times in the past, a cloture isn't a guarantee of passage.
AS you said to someone else: Do the research, I'll be waiting.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
And the FIVE DEMS Jer?.. they
Submitted by Ran56 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:45pm.
And the FIVE DEMS Jer?.. they count for what?
Um, nothing to see here, move on
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:00pm.
Liberals can't do math.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Um, I can count to 51...which
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:17pm.
Um, I can count to 51...which is the number of "Yes" votes normally required for a bill to gain Senate approval, unless, that is, the filibuster is employed as it has been at levels unprecedented in American history by Senate Republicans.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:36pm.
You actually have proof of that?So the Dems never fillibustered before?
Of course they have.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:23pm.
Of course they have.
From the Article, Jer.
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:41pm.
Today liberal Senate Democrats failed to garner the 60-vote threshold to end debate on and move to a final passage vote for the DREAM Act.
Counselor, I rest my case. Liberals can't do math.
51 does not equal 60.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Blonde. Will you please answer just one question?
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:02pm.
Why did it require 60 votes? You know very well it only requires a simple majority to pass legislation.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:07pm.
Because it requires 60 votes to end debate!
This wasn't a legislative vote.
'Tis elementary, Counselor.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
And the continuation of debate
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:19pm.
And the continuation of debate by the minority party which triggers a cloture vote by the majority is known as what? Hint: It starts with an "f" and ends with "buster".
C'mon, now...so far I have to give you an "I" for Incomplete. But I have confidence in you.
Jer
And the refusal of the 5 on the D side?
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:22pm.
But of course, that wasn't your original question, was it?
You asked about why 51 were insufficient to PASS legislation.
Why did it require 60 votes? You know very well it only requires a simple majority to pass legislation.
Too bad, you were confused about that, weren't you Jer?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Er...no, not confused in the
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:33pm.
Er...no, not confused in the least, dear. Take another look at my reply to your cheeky little quip about liberals not being any good at math. :-) All of my comments have been perfectly consistent.
Jer
No...your coments have been totally whiggy
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:43pm.
But take comfort in that, Jer.
It's what we expect.
I quote you directly, above, yet you quibble.
Ta ta.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Wig on this: The votes were
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:12pm.
Wig on this:
The votes were there to pass the bill except for a Republican-led filibuster. Thus its passage was prevented by Republican blocking tactics--not the fact the Democrats couldn't muster 60 votes to invoke cloture.
This isn't all that difficult.
Jer
The rules of the Senate
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:06pm.
The rules of the Senate according to Jer.
You just can't face the truths of this situation:
(1) This Congress is engaged in illegitimate governance. It has been repudiated by the last election but continues on its way as though it had a mandate.
(2) The acts Congress is considering now could have been voted upon before the election. Indeed, the budget most certainly should have been since the fiscal year began Oct 1, and there is still no budget. The fact the Democrat leadership did not do this is telling. They know that a majority of the American people are opposed to this agenda of theirs. The lacked the courage to vote on these unpopular measures before the election because they were afraid of the consequences to them. This Lame Duck strategy has been in place for many months.
(3) The DREAM Act in particular is a loathsome piece of legislation. It is a craven attempt by the Democrats to sell US citizenship and by extension US Sovereignty in exchange for the vote of any foreigner who can break into our country with one of their offspring in tow. How you ask can the Illegal parent gains citizenship via the DREAM act which applies only to their children? Because of the chain immigration rules, which will permit the offspring to sponsor the illegal parent as soon as they themselves achieve citizenship.
You and your party are stealing our country and selling it for your political power. Detestable.
But you seem to not
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:01pm.
But you seem to not understand this was a bipartisan exercise, the Dems crossed the line. The GOP is merely using the rules of the Senate.
Here's the math, Jer.
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 10:18am.
I'm quoting Tom Blumer's most excellent piece here, where he very clearly lays it all out. For you to try to continue to lay blame for a non-legislative vote soley at the feet of the Republicans is absurd.
But it did. It was a cloture vote (60 needed to get the measure to the Senate floor) about about the so-called "DREAM Act," granting de facto amnesty to a vast number of illegal immigrants for entering college or joining the military. It has been a Democratic Party-"inspired" initiative with heavy Republican opposition from the get-go. It could easily have passed if the Democrats had been able to hold their membership together while picking off a couple of squishy Republicans.
They got their squishes: Republicans Murkowski (AK), Lugar (IN), and Bennett (UT) voted yes. That should have given the measure 61 votes. But Democrats Baucus (MT), Hagan (NC), Nelson (NE), Pryor AR), and Tester (MT) voted no, while Manchin (WV) did not vote. The measure's 55-41 support was not enough to move it to the next step.
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs#ixzz18ZCIjYsT
Now tell me again how the Republicans are solely responsible? Not that I think it's a bad thing, mind you. I think the majority of Americans who are against this Shamnesty nonsense are going to remember exactly this faux fact....for once the media's bias and out-and-out lie is going to do more good than harm.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Wig on this, Jer: you're speculating.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:46pm.
"The votes were there to pass the bill except for a Republican-led filibuster."
You don't know that, Jer, you're just speculating. The vote didn't take place, we don't know whop would have or would not have voted "yea" or "nay." How many times have one party claimed that they had enough vote to "pass" a given piece of legislation only to discover that, opps, they didn't have enough? That happens quite often, you know.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Perhaps a more important
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:59pm.
Perhaps a more important measure : do a majority of America's citizens support granting amnesty to this load of illegal aliens who have invaded our country? The answer to that question is a resounding 'NO!', which means your friends the Democrats are attempting to govern against the will of the people. There is a name for that kind of governance : tyranny. Congratulations, counselor, you support tyranny.
RE: That's an interesting spin...
Submitted by TomW on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:05pm.
Jer - You're saying it's all the opposition's fault because too many of them were, uh, in opposition. That's just BS, man. The Dems knew the score, that for this bill the bar was a little higher: 60 votes needed to pass it. They didn't get there.
Leave the criticism of filbuster and minority tactics out of the discussion. These same Democrats -- Reid, Pelosi, and even The One himself -- are on record as supporting the Senate filibuster rules as a fundamental tool designed to protect the interests of the American people.
Harry Reid very eloquently defended the filibuster rule in 2005: http://bit.ly/fgxqgZ
Now in 2010, Mr. Reid criticizes the minority when the filibuster rules are employed, and wants to "reform" (read: throw out) the rules because it doesn't suit his agenda. That's not politics, that's arrogance of power. And you Dems are suckers to follow the likes of Reid and his cronies.
It is my two cents. Let me spend it. -Anon
TomW...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:59pm.
Reid's defense of the filibuster came at a time when the procedure was used more sparingly and as a responsible check against the potential for political steamrolling by the majority party. The current Republican minority, however, has abused the tactic by literally forcing the Senate to conduct most of its legislative business under the "continuing threat of filibuster" which--along with secret "holds"-- effectively requires a supermajority simply to move bills, judicial appointments, etc. out of committees and on to the floor for votes.
This unprecedented obstructionism has so crippled the day-to-day operation of the Senate that bipartisan support for reform has been steadily building. These needed revisions would ultimately inure to the benefit of Republicans--who no doubt will be in the majority again--and to the general public as well.
Jer
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:42pm.
And your defense of Reid, and accusation of "the Republican minority" having abused the tactic by "literally forcing", under the "continuing threat of filibuster"---
is nothing more than sour grapes.
If I said your defense of Reid was extremely partisan because he is a pluperfect ass, you would say, "He is just doing his job".
Precisely what the Republicans are doing.
Your continued defense of Democrats, while not mandatory, is expected.
Carry on, because your explanations sound like either Lib-Dim excuses, or complaints.
Either is music to a conservative's ears.
MD
Say what you will, Matthew,
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:54pm.
Say what you will, Matthew, but, like I said, there appears to be a growing realization on both sides of the aisle that reforms are necessary. If the Repubs had a near 60-40 Senate majority and were being thwarted at every turn by rules that clearly and disproportionately favor the minority, they, and you too, would be screaming foul.
Jer
Well, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:16pm.
Like I said, sounds like nothing more than sour grapes.
Nice deflection.
MD
Here's an angle
Submitted by longway2go on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 3:13pm.
The Republican minority who bears responsibility is acting in the interest of a majority of the people. It makes sense to me that if more senators would act in the interest of the majority of the people, filibuster would be less necessary and easier to achieve the 60 votes to stop it when it did happen.
Jer, and this is where you
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:16pm.
Jer,
and this is where you fall short and LIE!
Sorry, Democrats were using the fillibuster and other Senate and House rules to thwart the Republican agenda during Bush's years!!!!!!
I could be wrong, but I NEVER heard anyone on the Right talk about rewriting the Senate rules OR House rules in order to prevent the Democrats (the minority party then) from constantly stopping Republicans(the majority party)!
I remember the talk about the so called "nuclear" option when Democrats were stopping Bush's judicial nominees from being appointed. Interestingly enough, the Democratic party, which claims to be for us minorities, was stopping minority judicial nominees from being appointed, such as Miguel Estrada. You know, this is how much Liberals "care" for us minorities.
The Democrats were fillibustering countless of Bush's judicial nominees and the ONLY way that they gave in on some is by the threat of the so called nuclear option. But heck, back then it was "responsible" for Democrats to fillibuster, right Jer?
Right
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 4:04am.
"Reid's defense of the filibuster came at a time when the procedure was used more sparingly and as a responsible check against the potential for political steamrolling by the majority party."
But Republicans trying to keep the country from being steamrolled by the commiecrats who have a nearly unstoppable majority are just being big old meanies.
Do you ever tire of being a liberal hack?Do I tire of being a liberal hack?
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 4:34am.
Not as long as there are ckc1227s whose self-beclownment provides such cheap entertainment.
Jer
Jer, sorry to burst your
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:06pm.
Jer,
sorry to burst your bubble, but I must make sure that you face the truth. Hmmmmm.....you are the one proving us all with cheap entertaiment.
Jer's "logic": Democrats fillibuster....awesome, great, patriotic, good for the nation
Jer's "logic": Republicans fillibuster...evil, ridiculous, abuse of the Senate rule, horrific for this nation, pathetic,
Oh my poor Jer. When will you stop being such a Liberal hack and wacko. LOL
Jer, LOL, where to start
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:07pm.
Jer,
LOL, where to start with radical Left wingers like you who claim to be oh so moderate. hahaha!
1) You have to love the typical hypocrisy from Left wingers. So, when the Democrats in the Senate, during the Bush years, used the fillibuster it was a responsible thing to do. I mean geez, the ever so good Liberals were just merely using it to put a stop to an irresponsible agenda, right?
2) Now that Reid's tactics of fillibustering bills is being used by Republicans against Reid's agenda it is irresponsible to use? Are you serious man? are you truly this blind to the obvious hyposricy of your claim?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It doesn't get any better than this. It truly doesnt! LOL
Does the hypocrisy of Liberals never end, Jer? ARE YOU SERIOUS with the double-talk, lies, hafl-truths and plain old dumb stuff that you type on NB?
Is this what passes as intelligent and thoughtful speech in Liberal circles? HAHAHAHA!!!
Typical radical Left wing hypocrisy, Jer. If Democrats do something, it is responsible, good, it was necessary for the good of the country. However, if Republicans do EXACLTY THE SAME THING AS DEMOCRATS, it is irresponsible, ridiculous, abuse of the rules, how dare Republicans do it.
The sad part is that you truly do not see it, do you? You believe what you spew and do not see the obvious hypocrisy of applauding Democrats when they used the fillibuster and attacking Republicans for using the fillibuster. WOW!!!!
Who here thinks that when Democrats are in the minority they will not use the fillibuster? Jer, put your hand down, I am asking intelligent, non-radical individuals. HAHAHA!!!!
Gravediggers
Submitted by vote24 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:15pm.
The lib media is so sure that if they just keep calling us all stupid and ignorant or racist or whatever, that the Liberal Fairy will come along and make everything allright. Well... not this time. They have resorted to simply digging their own graves.
Just what we need: more
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:34pm.
Just what we need: more illegal aliens from Mexico filling up our colleges on tax-payer money and taking divisive and useless "classes" like "mecha latino studies" and "machisimo history" and "la raza chico chica studies". You know, all those B.S. "LIBERAL ARTS" classes that became popular in the 1960's- so we could make colleges more diverse.
I do believe any U.S. citizen that gets straight A's in highschool and wishes to study science, english, math, history, engineering, etc. should have their school paid for. :) Our country needs more intelligent people.
I love you Mostly...
Submitted by beauxdog on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 6:46am.
... but you always seem to come up just a bit short.
I am not up on the specifics of the "Dream" act, but i doubt you are either. Since I can't discuss the specifics, I will look at the overall intent.
Now, I recognize that my thoughts on immigration, legal and illegal, tend to run contrary to my fellow conservatives, but I assure you, they are indeed... conservative.
First of all... any person willing to defend this country and our freedoms by serving honorably in our military should be allowed citizenship. Period. End of statement. After serving, should they be able to sponsor their family? Yes. They have risked far more than most of us have for the freedom of this country.
As for the ones who want to go to school... why wouldn't we want well educated people willing to contribute to our economy? I think you are stupid in assuming they will only take classes to build up their Latino egos. These people want to make something of themselves, make money, and keep that money for themselves and their families. Should we provide them a free education at the expense of native born Americans? No... but we shouldn't deny them access and the ability to find financing.
I know you THINK these people will be overwhelmingly Democrats because the liberal/revolutionary ones always have their faces on TV. I am not so sure. I think these people are smarter than you think and there is a silent majority that will support conservative causes to hang on to what they have achieved.
America has plenty of "intelligent" people. What we need are educated and dedicated people. Any immigrant, legal or illegal, who is able and willing to contribute to our economy and culture should be allowed to do so.
Please note that the above statement excludes criminals and leeches by its nature.
Thank you.
Why should criminals get all the goodies?
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 8:38am.
Why should people, who are here illegally and have no intention of making that right, get a better 'deal' with regards to college education than the people who are here legally?
Also, the Dream act does NOT require an illegal to perform military service. Please read this.
Good information, DFTT...
Submitted by beauxdog on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:16pm.
As I said in my statement, I was not familiar with the specifics of the Dream Act. Now I am and I would not support it as written.
As I also said, I would not support sending these kids to college at the expense of native born americans.
I also do not believe that any amnesty HAS to have a path to citzenship.
What I do believe is that the path to legal entry is way too high and way too expensive while illegal entry is way too easy. We are inviting these people to come here illegally, then blaming them for following human nature and coming in the easy way.
Please understand... I am 100% behind controlling the borders. Hire the Israelis and get us a proper wall. I am 100% behind exporting the criminals and leeches. I am 100% behind preventing the criminals and leeches from getting in. While we are at it, I would love to export all native born criminals and leeches as well... but I don't see that happening.
America has always benefitted from immigration, legal and illegal. To put it simply... I want to keep all immigrants, legal and illegal, who are willing and able to contribute to our economy and culture. By nature, that excludes the criminals and leeches. Amnesty should let them stay... citizenship should only be available to those who exit and re-enter legally, serve honorably in the military or children who successfully complete a four year degree at an accredited university. Should that give them the right to sponsor their families? I don't see why not. By completing the above tasks they have demonstrated their commitment to the American dream.
I think part of the problem is that we only hear and see the radicals and leftists on TV and we judge them all based on that. I think there is a silent majority out there... most of you don't.
And if you are going to continue to be on the opposite side of the fence from me, I strongly advise you to find and polish a better lead argument than "they are here illegally". While the argument is currently true, it can be swept away with the swish of the magic wand called the Obama administration and amnesty. Then you will be left scrambling for other reasons to justify your opposition. And you have plenty of valid arguments on your side... costs, schools, hospitals, crime, multi-lingual driver's license tests, etc. Or course, Christian values like forgiveness and charity sort of get in the way, but you don't have to worry about that.
Do you consider yourself conservative? Then do just one thing for me. Look at each of these people as an individual. Would this individual be an asset to our country? Yes or no.
They're criminals by definition
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:32pm.
"By nature, that excludes the criminals and leeches. "
By "nature," and by definition, all illegal immigrants are criminals and must NOT be given citizenship, by your very own argument!
These people, good or bad, have CHOSEN to violate our laws. They weren't FORCED here, they came here of their own free will, and, if they stayed past the expiration date of the VISA THEY applied for, they violated the laws of our Country in doing so. WHY should they be forgiven for that?
If someone ones to immigrate to the US, I say: Welcome. But they better follow the laws in doing so. That's how my great grandparents became citizens. That how ALL immigrant became citizens over the last 200 years. It's how we founded this great country. Why do we need to change it now?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobraman...
Submitted by beauxdog on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 4:07pm.
All things are relevant. Believe it or not, the "crime" of coming here illegally isn't the moral equivalent of genocide, though I have heard a conservative talk show host speak of using the death penalty for illegals who come back after being deported five times. Amazing.
Be careful how you throw around the "criminal" label. Most of us could easily have that label applied to ourselves. Have you ever smoked pot? Have you ever known someone who smoked pot and didn't turn them in? Have you ever exceeded the speed limit or driven in the HOV lane by yourself? Have you ever made money cutting lawns as a kid? Did you claim that income?
When I talk about criminals, I am talking about the violent kind. The kind most people think of when you say "criminal".
I am glad your forefathers immigrated here legally. I wish I could say that all of mine did. The times and rules were different back then. There is no Ellis Island for the Latinos. Today it takes years of waiting and tens of thousands of dollars to immigrate here legally. Yet we leave the border open and openly encourage these people to cross over.
I understand and appreciate your arguments. But in the end... if Jose and his family are law-abiding people (other than being here illegally), they are willing and able to contribute to our economy and pay taxes (so you don't have to support them), are willing and able to contribute to our culture... why would you not want them? Remember, your whole "they're criminals" argument goes south if Obama waives his magic wand.
The can use the standard process, what's preventing them?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:55pm.
There is nothing preventing the people you mention from becoming Citizens, IF they use the same naturalization process that tens of millions of others have used in the last 30 years alone. WHY do they need special treatment? WHY do they suddenly need an exemption from the normal naturalization process?
"What we need are educated and dedicated people."
If you truly believe this, then you would support the "standard" naturalization process and not "amnesty." You see, the people who use the naturalization process PROVE themselves to be highly dedicated and intelligent. They are the ones who richly deserve Citizenship as THEY have faithfully committed themselves to become Citizens through what is arguably a difficult and arduous process, one that take a high degree of intelligence and dedication. THOSE are the people you should be supporting.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
As I said before...
Submitted by beauxdog on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 4:21pm.
I don't think amnesty should automatically include a road to citizenship.
How many people are you saying legally immigrated here in the last 30 years? Please document your source on that one.
My argument, my friend, is that these people have been invited here, by us (actually our friendly federal government) for decades. If you and your family are hungry... and you are promised welfare and free medical... by human nature, you are going to take advantage of it.
What I am saying is secure the border, stop the flow of illegals, then we need to deal with the ones who are already here. The ones willing and able to make a positive contribution should stay. Why would you throw someone out who is willing to share the tax burden with you?
People are individuals. Treat them that way.
An even better spin
Submitted by sherlock1 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:21pm.
Yesterday the Seattle Times spun even better - they compared how many Republicans and Democrats voted against the extension of the Bush tax rates. A strange angle to report huh?
That's how they kept from mentioning that more Democrats voted for the tax rate extension than Republicans.
Ah, the MSM, what would we do without them? More to the point, what would the Democrats do without them!?
The news wire is correct in
Submitted by yutsnark on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:31pm.
The news wire is correct in attributing this to the Republicans. A whole lot more Republicans than Democrats voted against cloture. Had the Republicans stayed home, the bill would have passed easily.
But since the legislation is unpopular, why don't the Republicans want to take credit for blocking it?
Um, no.
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:43pm.
The 3 Republican votes, plus the 58 Dem + Indies = 61.
Oops....5 Dems voted "wrong" according to you.
Liberal Math fails again.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Um no
Submitted by yutsnark on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 2:31pm.
No, were it not for the Republicans, there would have been no filibuster, hence no cloture vote. The bill would have passed by a huge majority.
But again, why don't the Republicans take credit for blocking this bill, and present it as another feather in their cap? Are they trying to give the Democrats a head start in the next election?
I keep hearing this.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:50pm.
"Had the Republicans stayed home, the bill would have passed easily. "
I keep hearing this, but it isn't true. We don't know if the bill would have passed or not. It's not like ALL the Democrats supported this bill, there's quite a bit of opposition coming from the Democrats themselves. Yes, the majority of them voted for cloture, but that doesn't meant they would have voted for PASSAGE of the Bill itself. That's just speculation on your part.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
You right CobraMan
Submitted by yutsnark on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 2:50pm.
Indeed, it's posssible that all those voting for cloture secretly opposed the bill, and all those filibustering secretly supported the bill. But I can't think of a reason they would all act in opposition to their own convictions, can you? April Fools? Opposite Day?