Tweet
Mitt Romney has recently dishonestly attacked President Obama’s executive actions on immigration on the grounds it is only “temporary” and political. Romney’s attack stresses that Obama didn’t pass a permanent legislative solution during his first term, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and that should prove that Obama is not serious about immigration reform. From Romney’s speech to NALEO (via CNN)
For two years, this President had huge majorities in the House and Senate – he was free to pursue any policy he pleased. But he did nothing to advance a permanent fix for our broken immigration system. Instead, he failed to act until facing a tough re-election and trying to secure your vote.
Last week, the President finally offered a temporary measure that he seems to think will be just enough to get him through the election. After three and a half years of putting every issue from loan guarantees for his donors to Cash For Clunkers before immigration, now the President has been seized by an overwhelming need to do what he could have done on Day One. I think you deserve better.
Some people have asked if I will let stand the President’s executive action. The answer is that I will put in place my own long-term solution that will replace and supersede the President’s temporary measure.
For someone who doesn’t follow legislative fights closely, which is most of the country, this may seem a solid criticism. Obama and Democrats did fail to get the DREAM Act passed. If we had a parliamentary system, and prime minster Obama with a large majority didn’t implement the changes he promised, then Romney’s argument would be a completely fair and strong attack.
What makes Romney’s statement on this issue so deeply dishonest is that he knows we have a horribly unrepresentative legislative structure full of accountability destroying rules. Under Obama the DREAM Act did win majority support in votes in both houses of Congress. The only reason Obama didn’t enact this “permanent” solution is because a minority composed of Mr. Romney’s fellow Republicans in the Senate filibustered the bill.
That is why this dishonest attack is taking political cynicism to a new level. Republicans use questionable voting rules to stop Obama and the Democrats from passing laws he promised to support, despite having majorities in Congress. Then they attack him for not getting the laws passed, even though he had majorities. The sad thing is that this dishonest claim could easily work, since most people don’t follow legislative fights closely.
I can think of no better example of why the filibuster is fundamentally horrible for democracy. It is literally being used to make a mockery of basic democratic accountability. If it can be used to stop an incumbent from governing, and then the opposition party can successfully attack the incumbent for failing to govern, the idea of accountability has been perverted beyond recognition.
18 Comments
The whole of the “Obama Achievements” list is dishonest, a set of minor “accomplishments” that fob off all of the bad things on someone else’s dime. I’d like to see an accounting of that, too.
Republicans managed to punk the Dems from minority status in both houses. When they are in the majority they bully the Dems around like drunk loggers. The Dems are a heard of panty waste money grubbers, expecting their progressive base to play their Ladies In Waiting while the call us Effin Morons.
2010 should have slapped them awake. Instead they hector everybody who took the ring out of their noses and 2012 is going to be very close. Scary Republicans aren’t going to be enough this time around.
I think the Democrats left the Filibuster in place so they could use it as an excuse for not passing legislation they did not want but looked good to the left.
However, I am not one for completely removing the filibuster, which can have its place. What I think is that the minority party should be allocated a limit of 5 filibusters per session. Then they would have to decide what is really important to fight and not just use the tool for political gamesmanship.
C’mon, Jon, majority rule is passé in our brave new Oligarchy.
I once heard of a proposal in which the number of votes required to break the filibuster would decline during the duration of the filibuster. So, 60 votes on day 1, 59 votes, on day 2, etc. Thus, there is an opportunity for the minority to take action for a time, but then it gets harder and harder.
We elected President Obama because he said he would work with the congress to fix the government so it would once again work for the people of the United States. He also promised to bring us all together again as one people, no longer Red states and Blue States, but the United States. All we’ve heard since is that the GOP is blocking everything. . .
Reagan worked with the Democrats who controlled congress to pass his programs, G.H.W. Bush worked with the Democrats in control of the House and Senate to pass all of his programs.
Bill Clinton worked with Newt to pass his programs. G.W. Bush passed his
tax cuts with the help of a Democrats. In other words divided Government is not new! The difference today is that we have a president that is trying to divide us instead of uniting us. He’s failed at his number one goal of uniting the country, and he has no agenda for his 2nd term.
On a side note:
If you look at the history of past Presidents you’ll find that their first term is always better than their second term. So even though it doesn’t seem like it could get worse, history tells us it will.
I haven’t recieved a satisfactory answer to this question, so I’ll ask it again;
Why is the threat of filibuster never met with “bring it on”?
It seems to me that the republicans would quit threatening to filibuster if they actually had to hold the floor?
Or do I misunderstand the process?
If I’m correct, how is it the democrats keep getting away with folding at the mere of hint of republican filibuster?
It’s a “gentleman’s agreement”. Or maybe it’s just the tangible expression of a logic formula:
1. You could filibuster.
2. You have said you would filibuster, so the filibuster will happen.
3. When you filibuster, we don’t have 60 votes to break it.
4. Therefore, the filibuster will succeed.
QED
No need to actually take ACTION, or anything. Let’s all go have a martini lunch instead. Harumph, harumph.
What is being ignored is that romney and his fascist masters are serial liars who use lies to control the fools who listen. romney is a serial liar, as a presidential candidate. What the fuck is wrong with this country that the fascists can get away with this behavior?
I understand that is the “gentleman’s agreement”, but it’s a completely dishonest representation.
Your point #2 is where the lie comes in.
Demonstrably untrue, due the fact that a filibuster requires much more effort than republicans could reliably muster on an ongoing basis.
The reason that real filibusters were/are rare is the effort necessary to sustain them, and the very real PR problem that an actual continuous campaign of filibuster would present to the offending party.
It is my contention that the democrats phony fear of the filibuster is the main technique that sets the stage for the Kabuki theatre we are asked to accept as governance.
Yes, #2 is the lie.
But is the Democrats’ (big “D”) fear of the filibuster phony, or are they really afraid to lose face? There’s the mystery. They are either limp noodles, or weasels, depending.
In the end, we can all be angry that our Senators are taking the easy way out. Where is the outrage?
A filibuster is very easy to maintain. It requires simply one GOP Senator to sit in the chamber calling roll call votes. This would require Democrats to get a quorum there to get business started again. Even once the Democrats show up to just tie things up with more point of order votes.
The filibuster exists to prevent passage of legislation that a large minority intensely opposes. For a long time, that is how it was sparingly used. What is needed is a change to the rules of the Senate that would allow the filibuster to be used only twice a year. Every time it was used thereafter, the number of votes required to overrule it would drop by 2 (from 60 to 58 to 56, etc.) until a simple majority ended the filibuster.
I like that. However, the problem with an arbitrary limit on “number-of-occurrences” is that there could be many crappy pieces of legislation introduced in that year. Unless there is a limit on occurrences of crap legislation, there can’t be a limit on occurrences of the filibuster. The alternative that I described in #5 (which I did not invent) would take effect on each new piece of legislation, and would affect every filibuster.
If they want to keep the filibuster let them be honest about it, have them ditch the gentlemen’s agreement, and force a real filibuster with senators wearing depends, cots on the floor, reading of the Washington phone book, etc., etc.
I agree with your interpretation, and it’s evident that it supports the truth of the duopoly that is our goverment and the Kabuki Theatre concept.
Besides, am I the only one who objects to rewarding military service, coporation killer service, with a path to citizenship? People shouldn’t be rewarded for joining the war machine and the US drive for hegemony.
What you describe is true, but only in the short term, how many days would the republicans be willing to hang their asses out when their efforts are reported every night on the MSM?
When you consider that the longest filibster in history was just over 24 hours, it seems to me that we could probably put an end to this charade by insisting the republicans put-up-or-shut-up about three times in a row.
From About.com
My point is that the filibuster is an empty threat that wouldn’t last even one actual occurance because neither party would be anxious to use it again after even one protracted episode.
The filibuster has become a mythical threat used as a smokescreen to hide the fact that neither party serves the people.
They have that already! (rimshot!)
Thanks, I’ll be here all week. Try the Caesar salad.