Amazing power grab by dems...not one peep...

[Soonerjeepman]

actually obama loved it....

where are all the libs saying the pubs are the power hungry bastards...oh that's right, it's for the good of the country. What's even more frustrating is some pub's voted for it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/21/obama-applauds-reid-for-filibuster-overhaul-critics-warn-move-will-damage/

[okie52]

I didn't see where any pubs voted for it and 3 dems voted against it giving the 52-48 count

[rock on sooner]

What goes around comes around....about time SOMEBODY grew what was
needed to get the body off dither. It WILL bite the Dems but, so what? At
least something in Congress will move! Pubs bitch now but eventually they'll
get the bennies! The Pubs are holding up so much in the judicial that maybe
now (right or wrong) justice can do something..gonna take a while, but you
Pubs will reap as well.....

[Soonerjeepman]

I just think it's so ironic that dem bitch and moan when pubs are in office and they (dems) do the same thing...the dems are just as power hungry and 2 faced as they accuse the pubs of being.

I doubt the pubs will get any value...we'll see.

Okie..my bad...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The dims do it worse...I hope the Senate turns and the scorched earth that will come about will have the dims reeling...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I didn't see where any pubs voted for it and 3 dems voted against it giving the 52-48 count
They are scared shi*less of the MEDIA.We going full-on Leftist Banana Republic.

[okie52]

Okie..my bad...

No problem...

[badger]

Filibusters aren't what they used to be, and certainly not like that Jimmy Stewart movie or what that woman had to do in Texas to stop the abortion bill. As such, they became far too easy for anyone to use to hold up anything.

If you held a Senator's feet to the fire and made them pull a "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," then you'd probably see a lot less gridlock.

As is the case right now, it became an abuse of power... how fitting that an abuse of power brought about its end.

[KantoSooner]

It's always interesting to see the Holier-Than-Thou Democrats opt for results oriented actions over principle based ones.

This will come back to bite them in the butt.

And it increases the 'yaw' factor in our politics by injecting more extremism and partisanship into lifetime appointments.

Really a bad idea all the way 'round.

But that's Harry Reid for you.

[okie52]

Reid in 2008 Said 'Nuclear Option' Would 'Ruin Our Country'

Thursday, 21 Nov 2013 10:39 PM
By Todd Beamon

Sen. Harry Reid vowed in 2008 that he would never invoke the "nuclear option" as long as he was Senate majority leader. saying it would "ruin our country" — yet that's exactly what happened Thursday.

"As long as I am the leader, the answer’s 'no,'" the Nevada Democrat told Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota in an interview on C-SPAN.

Reid was talking about his book, "The Good Fight," which he co-wrote with Mark Warren, in during the interview, which was put in the spotlight Thursday in a Washington Free Beacon report.

"I think we should just forget that," said Reid, who was battling Republicans who sought the measure. "That is a black chapter in the history of the Senate. I hope we never, ever get to that again because I really do believe it will ruin our country."

Reid orchestrated Thursday's move, which led to Democrats voting 52-48 to let a simple majority confirm most presidential nominees — stripping Republicans of the filibuster, their primary weapon in blocking such selections.

The change would not apply to nominees to the Supreme Court or to legislation.

Here is the exchange with fellow Democrat Daschle, who was majority leader from 2001 to 2003:

Daschle: What was the nuclear option, and what likelihood is there that we’re going to have to face nuclear option-like questions again?

Reid: What the Republicans came up with was a way to change our country forever. They made a decision if they didn’t get every judge they wanted, every judge they wanted then they were going to make the Senate just like the House of Representatives. We would in fact have a unicameral legislature where a simple majority would determine whatever happens.

In the House of Representatives today, [Nancy] Pelosi’s the leader. Prior to that, it was [Dennis] Hastert. Whatever they wanted, Hastert or Pelosi, they get done. The rules over there allow that.

The Senate was set up to be different. That was the genius, the vision of our Founding Fathers, that this bicameral legislature which was unique, had two different duties. One was as Franklin said, to pour the coffee into the saucer and let it cool off. That’s why you have the ability to filibuster and to terminate filibuster.

They wanted to get rid of all that, and that’s what the nuclear option was all about.

Daschle: And is there any likelihood that we’re going to face circumstances like that again?

Reid: As long as I am the Leader, the answer’s no. I think we should just forget that. That is a black chapter in the history of the Senate. I hope we never, ever get to that again because I really do believe it will ruin our country. I said during that debate that in all my years in government, that was the most important thing I ever worked on.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/harry-reid-nuclear-option-ruin/2013/11/21/id/538050#ixzz2lO4e7mYK

[badger]

Reid: As long as I am the Leader, the answer’s no.

I wonder if Harry Reid is truly the leader anymore then? We've always joked that Dems are beholden to the special interests (unions, etc), but we've also known it to be true at the same time.

[yermom]

They are scared shi*less of the MEDIA.We going full-on Leftist Banana Republic.

what are you even blathering about?

the R's are whining plenty. where were the people complaining about power grabs now when W was doing it?

the fact is that our political system is broken and people like you are the reason

[FaninAma]

what are you even blathering about?

the R's are whining plenty. where were the people complaining about power grabs now when W was doing it?

the fact is that our political system is broken and people like you are the reason

I think you can include most people in that condemnation including yourself. Both parties love the benefits of power. Both parties are willing to do unprincipled things to gain and maintain it. I just think the Democrats are a lot more blatant in their actions with their obvious buy-a-vote efforts.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

the fact is that our political system is broken and people like you are the reason:topsy_turvy::congratulatory:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think you can include most people in that condemnation including yourself. Both parties love the benefits of power. Both parties are willing to do unprincipled things to gain and maintain it. I just think the Democrats are a lot more blatant in their actions with their obvious buy-a-vote efforts.They are absolutely authoritarian, and with the Media, Schools and Entertainment on their side, there are NO stops.

[yermom]

It's only authoritarian if you disagree with it, right?

And I don't include myself in that. I can't really back either side in all this

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I can't really back either side in all thisof course you can't. you're an independent thinker.

[yermom]

i'm fairly sure you can find me calling both sides on their bull****

[Turd_Ferguson]

i'm fairly sure you can find me calling both sides on their bull****

Bout a 50:1 ratio...:D

[Soonerjeepman]

what are you even blathering about?

the R's are whining plenty. where were the people complaining about power grabs now when W was doing it?

the fact is that our political system is broken and people like you are the reason

know it's not intended for me...BUT I'll respond, I said BOTH parties do it...but YOUR party vowed of transparency and hope and change...what a joke. Kind of ironic your dems WERE complaining back then but now they are all for it...lol

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

know it's not intended for me...BUT I'll respond, I said BOTH parties do it...but YOUR party vowed of transparency and hope and change...what a joke. Kind of ironic your dems WERE complaining back then but now they are all for it...lolThe last conservative democrat I can think of is Zell Miller. The last semi-conservative, "moderate" democrat president was JFK.

[8timechamps]

What goes around comes around....about time SOMEBODY grew what was
needed to get the body off dither. It WILL bite the Dems but, so what? At
least something in Congress will move! Pubs bitch now but eventually they'll
get the bennies! The Pubs are holding up so much in the judicial that maybe
now (right or wrong) justice can do something..gonna take a while, but you
Pubs will reap as well.....

Agree with you 100%!

This will sting in the short term, but it's good for two reasons:

1) Congress has been doing nothing for too long, and at least this gets things moving (albeit small things).

2) What goes around, comes around. At some point in the future, the Dems will be in a position to be fully affected by this action.

[Skysooner]

actually obama loved it....

where are all the libs saying the pubs are the power hungry bastards...oh that's right, it's for the good of the country. What's even more frustrating is some pub's voted for it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/21/obama-applauds-reid-for-filibuster-overhaul-critics-warn-move-will-damage/

Power grab? It is in the Constitution. Isn't that what all of you tea party know it alls are always whining about? Stick to the Constitution.

[Skysooner]

Agree with you 100%!

This will sting in the short term, but it's good for two reasons:

1) Congress has been doing nothing for too long, and at least this gets things moving (albeit small things).

2) What goes around, comes around. At some point in the future, the Dems will be in a position to be fully affected by this action.


Totally agree with both of these. It will affect both and honestly shouldn't even have been a rule in the first place. Congress was meant to be run by a simple majority (not a super majority) except in the case of a veto.

[FaninAma]

Thomas Jefferson instituted the rules of the Senate. The filibuter rule is not in the Constitution but it is the product of 230 years of tradition. Somehow having THE scumbag of the Senate, Harry Reid, overturn a tradition started by Jefferson is a perfect symbolic rresentation of the current state of our government and nation.

Can there be any doubts that the current Democratic party craves nothing more than raw, unchallenged power?

[rock on sooner]

Totally agree with both of these. It will affect both and honestly shouldn't even have been a rule in the first place. Congress was meant to be run by a simple majority (not a super majority) except in the case of a veto.

Welp, what's rilly bad is that is isn't a rule, just something these good ole
boys have sort of agreed to...otherwise the Dems couldn't have changed
the game. As I said earlier, glad to see that someone grew some big
enough to get off the dither...this bunch in Washington is an absolute,
overgrown, completely off the charts group of idiots that need to be sent
to the Old Congress People's Home and fed stuff that renders them impotent
(don't want them to reproduce) and weak enough that they can't walk/think/
talk without a swift kick....

[rock on sooner]

Thomas Jefferson instituted the rules of the Senate. The filibuter rule is not in the Constitution but it is the product of 230 years of tradition. Somehow having A scumbag like Harry Reid overturn a tradition started by Jefferson is very appropo for the current state of our government and nation.

Can there be any doubts that the current Democratic party craves nothing more than raw, unchallenged power?

Fanin, I'm not sure it is a power grab as much as it is some of the group
feeling the heat of not doing jack diddly and are looking at self preservation.
I could be wrong, though, and you may be right!

[FaninAma]

Fanin, I'm not sure it is a power grab as much as it is some of the group
feeling the heat of not doing jack diddly and are looking at self preservation.
I could be wrong, though, and you may be right!

I am hopeful that one of these days voters with a few active brain waves will realize that an activist government is not a good thing for the long term viability of our civil liberties and economic prosperity.

[okie52]

Power grab? It is in the Constitution. Isn't that what all of you tea party know it alls are always whining about? Stick to the Constitution.

Tea party know it alls? My my sky, you seem a bit angry.

Evidently senators for over two hundred years thought it was an important enough rule in the senate to leave it in place even though either party when they were in the majority could have removed it.

And it was a power grab....the only reason that Reid invoked the nuclear option was to pursue his agenda....one that he swore he would never use just a few years earlier and went so far as to state "it would ruin the country".

Whether this turns out good or bad only time will tell....but just what piece of legislation were you wanting to see emerge That was so important to change the rule?

[diverdog]

I am pretty sure 139 filibusters is a bit excessive. Maybe the Republicans had it coming. I also find it bit ironic to describe this as a power play and not attach the same description to all those filibusters.

[achiro]

Agree with you 100%!

This will sting in the short term, but it's good for two reasons:

1) Congress has been doing nothing for too long, and at least this gets things moving (albeit small things).

2) What goes around, comes around. At some point in the future, the Dems will be in a position to be fully affected by this action.

and I disagree 100%. The best government is one that stays out of the way. Obamacare is a great example of what happens when something gets through quickly. The only thing government does when they are able to pass bills is to spend money. Gridlock to some extent is good for the country.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Thomas Jefferson instituted the rules of the Senate. The filibuter rule is not in the Constitution but it is the product of 230 years of tradition. Somehow having THE scumbag of the Senate, Harry Reid, overturn a tradition started by Jefferson is a perfect symbolic representation of the current state of our government and nation.

Can there be any doubts that the current Democratic party craves nothing more than raw, unchallenged power?Superb post!

Unabashed naked move for authoritarian control. Characteristic nonchalant treatment by the MSM.

[Soonerjeepman]

I am pretty sure 139 filibusters is a bit excessive. Maybe the Republicans had it coming. I also find it bit ironic to describe this as a power play and not attach the same description to all those filibusters.

well DD, I'll take a stab at answering that...since I started this. Let's see, it's been this way for over 200 years, it's (was) an unwritten rule so that the majority party didn't just ram everything through (a "power play")..but now they can. Reid HIMSELF said a few years back when the pubs tried it.."I'll NEVER do that...bad for the country"...I guess it's okay for him to go back on his word, please tell me why? The filibusterers I don't call a power play, they just don't want the same thing so it's the minorities way of saying no..or their way of keeping the majority to just ram everything through.

For the record, about 480 of the 500 or so folks in Washington need to be "released" of their duties.

Just my gut response to it all. So yes, I call it a power play.

[Soonerjeepman]

Hypocrisy at it's best....and YES it's on BOTH sides..but at least ADMIT it from your side~

Obama: “It Certainly Is Not What The Patriots Who Founded This Democracy Had In Mind. We Owe The People Who Sent Us Here More Than That.” SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Right now we are faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we have ever had, while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe. These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we do not always agree on how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That does not serve anybody’s best interest, and it certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05)

[Soonerjeepman]

from your boy Biden...he even says it's a POWER GRAB~ guess only since it was being done by the pubs..

In 2005, Biden Called The Nuclear Option The “Single Most Significant Vote” In His “32 Years In The Senate” And “An Example Of The Arrogance Of Power.” SEN. JOE BIDEN: “Mr. President, my friends and colleagues, I have not been here as long as Senator Byrd, and no one fully understands the Senate as well as Senator Byrd, but I have been here for over three decades. This is the single most significant vote any one of us will cast in my 32 years in the Senate. I suspect the Senator would agree with that. We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party, propelled by its extreme right and designed to change the reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to individual rights and property rights. It is nothing more or nothing less. … We have been through these periods before in American history but never, to the best of my knowledge, has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 5/23/05)

[Soonerjeepman]

more information...

Of course, these desperate claims are entirely false: the Senate has already confirmed more of President Obama’s nominees (129) than it did during President George W. Bush’s entire second term (120), and has done so at an almost identical pace (average of 218 and 211 days, respectively, from nomination to confirmation). Indeed, not long ago Reid acknowledged that the Senate has “done a good job on nominations,” and a Judiciary Committee Democrat recently noted that we have been “speeding up the confirmation of judges

It is a matter of historical record that beginning in 2001, Senate Democrats dramatically changed the confirmation process. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats actively sought to block numerous judicial nominees, forcing more than 30 cloture votes as Republicans tried to end persistent Democratic filibuster efforts.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), voted against cloture a record-setting 27 times. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), cast 26 votes to filibuster Bush nominees and, in 2003, defiantly declared: “Yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster. That is part of the hallowed process around here.”

During President Bush’s first three years, Senate Democrats forced 19 cloture votes on judicial nominees; during President Obama’s first three years the Senate took only 6 such votes. Indeed, contrary what some Democrats now claim, the reality is that 84 percent of all votes to filibuster judicial nominees in American history have been cast by Democrats. For those same Democrats to claim Republican obstruction is the height of hypocrisy.

[okie52]

I am pretty sure 139 filibusters is a bit excessive. Maybe the Republicans had it coming. I also find it bit ironic to describe this as a power play and not attach the same description to all those filibusters.

Every filibuster could be called a power play as it was a power that was afforded the minority and it was also power play that senate rules had been established to protect for a couple of centuries...

I don't really mind seeing it gone though as the dems hid behind the filibuster for a long time in the last two decades until it became a pain in the *** for them as the majority. Who knows when the worm will turn but I look forward to that day.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Since the days of Der Schlickmeister, the democrats have figured out that they can get away with almost anything, since the Media either gives them a pass, or even actually defends whatever abomination or unacceptable behavior they perform. So, they have become so brazen as to pull sh*t like the nuclear option power grab they just did, and use the race card on anyone criticizing Obeary, regardless of how well founded are the complaints of His behavior.

[diverdog]

Every filibuster could be called a power play as it was a power that was afforded the minority and it was also power play that senate rules had been established to protect for a couple of centuries...

I don't really mind seeing it gone though as the dems hid behind the filibuster for a long time in the last two decades until it became a pain in the *** for them as the majority. Who knows when the worm will turn but I look forward to that day.

yes Okie but it was rarely used. And when it was used someone had to hold the floor. What they should have done is changed the rules and said if you want to filibuster then start talking. Once you lose the floor the vote goes forward. What you guys are missing is that the filibuster ...... the mere mention of the word stops legislation. And yes both parties are guilty of it. And it needs to stop. It is time for our leaders to put on their big girl panties and start working together and fix chit like SS. It should hav never come to this.

But lets get to what the Senate did. I believe the bill is limited in scope...is it not? It pertains just to judicial and cabinet nominees and not legislation.....correct? I am pretty sure the idea of a filibuster to stop appointments by the President was not the original intent of the filibuster.

[diverdog]

Hypocrisy at it's best....and YES it's on BOTH sides..but at least ADMIT it from your side~

Obama: “It Certainly Is Not What The Patriots Who Founded This Democracy Had In Mind. We Owe The People Who Sent Us Here More Than That.” SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Right now we are faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we have ever had, while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe. These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we do not always agree on how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That does not serve anybody’s best interest, and it certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05)

jeep:

It is both sides and I am fine admitting that. The problem is that the filibusters of today are filed motions. No one takes the floor and starts reading the bible. Well let me rephrase that....they rarely take the floor. No all you have to do is to attach a filibuster to a bill and it is stopped. That is not the way it is suppose to work.

You will get no defense from me for Reid and Biden. They are ****** bags of the highest order. Reid is every bit as bad as the other side. He is the king of the filibuster.

[okie52]

yes Okie but it was rarely used. And when it was used someone had to hold the floor. What they should have done is changed the rules and said if you want to filibuster then start talking. Once you lose the floor the vote goes forward. What you guys are missing is that the filibuster ...... the mere mention of the word stops legislation. And yes both parties are guilty of it. And it needs to stop. It is time for our leaders to put on their big girl panties and start working together and fix chit like SS. It should hav never come to this.

But lets get to what the Senate did. I believe the bill is limited in scope...is it not? It pertains just to judicial and cabinet nominees and not legislation.....correct? I am pretty sure the idea of a filibuster to stop appointments by the President was not the original intent of the filibuster.


You are right DD...the threat of filibuster stopped legislation many more times than the filibuster was actually used so it is hard to say just how much legislation was stopped in the past by the "threat" vs today. The pubs could've certainly changed the rule under W but chose not to do it...Reid, who swore never to do it, did. There is nothing noble nor were things so dire that he had to change it, he was just frustrated and took the easy way out.

I don't know how far the rule change goes other than supreme court justices being exempt but the precedent has been set that if the majority can't get what it wants then the "nuke"
Option will be used and I don't know that that will always be a good thing...for over 200 years most senators didn't believe it was.

[Soonerjeepman]

DD...I agree, and yes I know you are not a over the top lib...hell probably wouldn't put you in that category...I apologize if I did. It just amazes me that the true libs can't see this.....or if they do it's "okay, because the pubs tried to do it".

As far as it's limited...we'll see. That is the way I am reading it..but like anything else in Washington..as Pelosi said.."we have to pass it to see what's in it". Yes, I do want the checks and balances even on appointments...especially judicial. What if a super conservative pres got in and appointed super conservative judges...they DO influence the way the country is run. Again, just my 2 cents worth...the beauty of the forum!

[FaninAma]

I really think Obama and the Dims are trying very hard to push the GOP into another confrontation to try and divert attention away from the catastrophic mess they foisted upon the country via ObamaCare.

[diverdog]

I really think Obama and the Dims are trying very hard to push the GOP into another confrontation to try and divert attention away from the catastrophic mess they foisted upon the country via ObamaCare.

No doubt.

[diverdog]

DD...I agree, and yes I know you are not a over the top lib...hell probably wouldn't put you in that category...I apologize if I did. It just amazes me that the true libs can't see this.....or if they do it's "okay, because the pubs tried to do it".

As far as it's limited...we'll see. That is the way I am reading it..but like anything else in Washington..as Pelosi said.."we have to pass it to see what's in it". Yes, I do want the checks and balances even on appointments...especially judicial. What if a super conservative pres got in and appointed super conservative judges...they DO influence the way the country is run. Again, just my 2 cents worth...the beauty of the forum!

I think any President, by and large, should get their chosen cabinet appointments. What is happening is that we have a huge backlog of open vacancies that need to be filled and they keep getting stopped because of the filibuster. It is really another case of both sides not working together.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I really think Obama and the Dims are trying very hard to push the GOP into another confrontation to try and divert attention away from the catastrophic mess they foisted upon the country via ObamaCare.The dems just roll right along, doing whatever TF they want, with VERY little concern over admonishment or retributionfrom the MSM, Entertainment or the Public Schools. The price to the country is almost unfathomable.

[KantoSooner]

I think it's importatnt to go back and look at why the filibuster was enshrined in the first place. It was a last gasp chance for the minority party to get in the way of something that was seriously 'too far' (whatever that thing was, an appointment, a bill, whatever).
It was meant as an extreme measure to combat extremism, if you will. And was intended for use only in the most dire circumstances.
Have recent politicians overused the filibuster? Obviously. For one, it's easier to do now. You don't have to literally stay on your feet for days. That rule change was a mistake. For another, it's been employed in petty matters and for petty reasons. A President SHOULD, largely, get his choice of executive team. And simply filibustering to try and ensure a President 'fails' is beyond petty and borderline treasonous.
That being said, a Senate rule change to address misbehaviour by a bunch of ignorant fools is overreaction on a massive scale. And it matters.
Why? Because, with the filibuster for all intents and purposes gone, the door is now open for whichever party is in majority to appoint real whack-jobs without the risk that they won't be confirmed. Elizabeth Warren, anyone? How about Akins to the Supreme Court (yes, I know, not yet, but Supreme Court nominations falling under this new rule is really only a matter of time)?

If you like a divided, bickering legislative branch, just think how much you'll adore injecting that same mindset into the executive and legislative branchs.

We've long enjoyed a government that was, in many important ways, self-limited. This rule change removes a small, but very important part of that restraint and leaves the job to be done by the personal rectitude of 100 Senators. I would have preferred to keep it out in the open, myself.

[8timechamps]

and I disagree 100%. The best government is one that stays out of the way. Obamacare is a great example of what happens when something gets through quickly. The only thing government does when they are able to pass bills is to spend money. Gridlock to some extent is good for the country.

First, this congress has done nothing for far too long. THAT is not good for the country. Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't change much as it only applies to nominees and still requires a simple majority...you know, the way the government should work.

I have no problem with occasional gridlock, but what we've seen in recent years is just ridiculous. If you think what's been happening is good for the country, then I don't know what to tell you...other than you may be alone.

[8timechamps]

I think it's importatnt to go back and look at why the filibuster was enshrined in the first place. It was a last gasp chance for the minority party to get in the way of something that was seriously 'too far' (whatever that thing was, an appointment, a bill, whatever).
It was meant as an extreme measure to combat extremism, if you will. And was intended for use only in the most dire circumstances.
Have recent politicians overused the filibuster? Obviously. For one, it's easier to do now. You don't have to literally stay on your feet for days. That rule change was a mistake. For another, it's been employed in petty matters and for petty reasons. A President SHOULD, largely, get his choice of executive team. And simply filibustering to try and ensure a President 'fails' is beyond petty and borderline treasonous.
That being said, a Senate rule change to address misbehaviour by a bunch of ignorant fools is overreaction on a massive scale. And it matters.
Why? Because, with the filibuster for all intents and purposes gone, the door is now open for whichever party is in majority to appoint real whack-jobs without the risk that they won't be confirmed. Elizabeth Warren, anyone? How about Akins to the Supreme Court (yes, I know, not yet, but Supreme Court nominations falling under this new rule is really only a matter of time)?

If you like a divided, bickering legislative branch, just think how much you'll adore injecting that same mindset into the executive and legislative branchs.

We've long enjoyed a government that was, in many important ways, self-limited. This rule change removes a small, but very important part of that restraint and leaves the job to be done by the personal rectitude of 100 Senators. I would have preferred to keep it out in the open, myself.

I don't think this rule change will have that much affect. Until recently, the filibuster was used sparingly, and by and large the party that was in power got their appointments through. Nothing really changes on that front.

When the Republicans (who once upon a time wanted to exercise the same 'nuclear option') regain control, I suspect the filibuster (for the nominees) will be re-instituted.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

more information...

Of course, these desperate claims are entirely false: the Senate has already confirmed more of President Obama’s nominees (129) than it did during President George W. Bush’s entire second term (120), and has done so at an almost identical pace (average of 218 and 211 days, respectively, from nomination to confirmation). Indeed, not long ago Reid acknowledged that the Senate has “done a good job on nominations,” and a Judiciary Committee Democrat recently noted that we have been “speeding up the confirmation of judges

It is a matter of historical record that beginning in 2001, Senate Democrats dramatically changed the confirmation process. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats actively sought to block numerous judicial nominees, forcing more than 30 cloture votes as Republicans tried to end persistent Democratic filibuster efforts.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), voted against cloture a record-setting 27 times. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), cast 26 votes to filibuster Bush nominees and, in 2003, defiantly declared: “Yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster. That is part of the hallowed process around here.”

During President Bush’s first three years, Senate Democrats forced 19 cloture votes on judicial nominees; during President Obama’s first three years the Senate took only 6 such votes. Indeed, contrary what some Democrats now claim, the reality is that 84 percent of all votes to filibuster judicial nominees in American history have been cast by Democrats. For those same Democrats to claim Republican obstruction is the height of hypocrisy.

This is entirely about stacking the deck and the Judiciary with Leftists before the next vote. They know the will lose big with Obummercare. Leftist power grab. I would call them Fascists, but for the fact thats these Leftists are not about Sovereign pride or love of country, it is entirely about seizing power and remaining in power. Other than that, They (Reid, Pelosi and they guy sitting in the oval office) are Fascists.

[okie52]

I don't think this rule change will have that much affect. Until recently, the filibuster was used sparingly, and by and large the party that was in power got their appointments through. Nothing really changes on that front.

When the Republicans (who once upon a time wanted to exercise the same 'nuclear option') regain control, I suspect the filibuster (for the nominees) will be re-instituted.

Why would the pubs put an additional burden on themselves whenever they return to power that wasn't present for the dems?

[KantoSooner]

I don't think this rule change will have that much affect. Until recently, the filibuster was used sparingly, and by and large the party that was in power got their appointments through. Nothing really changes on that front.

When the Republicans (who once upon a time wanted to exercise the same 'nuclear option') regain control, I suspect the filibuster (for the nominees) will be re-instituted.

What changes is that, unless or until the filibuster is readjusted, there is no threat of it. In the same way that risk keeps business activity more rational, the threat of of a filibuster has prevented true extremism on the grounds that it would draw return fire from the minority. That threat is now gone and I doubt that either side has the self-restraint to 'keep it in their pants'. At least that's my concern.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This is entirely about stacking the deck and the Judiciary with Leftists before the next vote... Leftist power grab. I would call them Fascists, but for the fact that these Leftists are not about Sovereign pride or love of country, it is entirely about seizing power and remaining in power. Other than that, They (Reid, Pelosi and they guy sitting in the oval office) are Fascists.Seems to me that fascism is always about seizing power and remaining in power. When a political leader or party goes outside the law, especially on structural or domestic issues, such as this, Love of Country is not a consideration.

[okie52]

Barack Obama among flip-floppers on Senate's 'nuclear option'

Full Flop

"What (the American people) don't expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet."

Then-Sen. Barack Obama, remarks on Senate floor, April 13, 2005

"I support the step a majority of senators today took to change the way that Washington is doing business — more specifically, the way the Senate does business. What a majority of senators determined … is that they would restore the longstanding tradition of considering judicial and public service nominations on a more routine basis."

President Obama, remarks on Senate efforts to confirm presidential nominees, Nov. 21, 2013.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-among-flip-floppers-senates-nuclear-o/

But, but it was different then...

[okie52]

WSJ's Stephen Moore: Filibuster Change a 'Shameless Power Grab'
Friday, 22 Nov 2013 07:11 PM

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's embrace of the "nuclear option," which gives Senate Democrats sweeping new power, "is one of the most shameless power grabs I've seen in Washington in 25 years," says Stephen Moore, of the Wall Street Journal editorial board.

"We are not a majority-rules country, the ingeniousness of our Constitution is that it protects the rights of minorities," Moore told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"Just because you have four votes and I have three doesn't mean you can run roughshod over me, and yet that is what has happened here," he said Friday.

Moore says Reid's move, which changed the rules on filibusters, "basically says . . . we have more votes than you do, so we can just do whatever we want to. We can run roughshod over 100 years of tradition in the Senate."

It will likely have a negative effect on the economy, Moore says.

"Now you're going to get these left-wing judges . . . packed into the courts, [and a] lot of these major decisions that do affect the economy with respect to environmental regulations, tax laws, Obamacare — these are now going to be adjudicated by left-wing Obama judges," he said.

"These regulatory agencies that are now going to be stocked with liberal, left-wing, pro-regulation Obama appointees with 51 votes in the Senate, that could do serious, serious damage to our economy over the next three years."

Moore said there is "hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle here. I want to be very clear on this. Back in 2005, the Republicans tried to get rid of the filibuster so they could get through Bush appointees."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/Stephen-Moore-power-grab-filibuster/2013/11/22/id/538239#ixzz2lg814KJo
.

[okie52]

Filibuster Reform: The Stakes for 2014
Posted: 11/24/2013 10:11 pm

The Senate Democrats' long-deferred success in reforming the filibuster rule for executive branch and judicial appointments will have reverberations that are only gradually being appreciated. Not only will 76 long-blocked appointments -- a record -- now go forward in short order. Obama, if he chooses, will be able to appoint more robust progressives.

In the past, especially on court appointments, prospective Obama nominees were pre-cleared with Republicans to make confirmation more likely. The result of this White House strategy was not only to slow the process of nominations but to place a premium in coming up with centrists rather than liberals.

The liberals who did get nominated typically faced a Republican buzz-saw. One was Goodwin Liu, now a justice of the California Supreme Court. Obama nominated him to the 9th Circuit in February 2010. The nomination was blocked until May 2011, when Goodwin withdrew in order to get on with his life.

And the list of blocked appointees includes not just federal judges but appointees to other key jobs requiring Senate confirmation. Some stellar people who were blocked by filibusters might now be re-nominated.

For instance, the Federal Reserve will soon have four or five vacancies. Janet Yellen, the new chair and the rare liberal to head the central bank, could be very lonely unless she gets some like-minded colleagues.

Fear of a Republican filibuster might have inclined the White House to send up centrist Fed nominees, who would put the new chairwoman in a minority. Now, if he so chooses, Obama can appoint other liberals.

One is MIT economist Peter Diamond, a Nobel Laureate who was blocked for a seat on the Fed in 2011 because Republican senator Richard Shelby of Alabama thought he cared too much about unemployment and not enough about inflation (just like Yellen.) How about naming Diamond to one of the new open seats?

The limitation of the filibuster threat will also make it easier to recruit good people to executive and judicial appointments (quite apart from ideology) because prospective nominees will no longer have to put their lives on hold for a year or move while Republicans block.

One of the best pieces of news in the filibuster story was the report that President Obama personally got into the act, working the phones to help enlist the last few Democratic votes for reform. This may bode well for more hands-on leadership by a president whose trademark has been reticence.

Especially courageous were the senators who voted to change the rule despite being up for re-election next year in swing states. Mark Prior, who faces a difficult election next year in Arkansas voted no. But Mary Landrieu (LA), Kay Hagan (NC), and Mark Begich (AK) all voted yes, as did freshman Jeff Merkley of Oregon who won in 2008 only by three points, but who led the reform effort.

This nervy move by Democrats raises the stakes for 2014. If Republicans retake the Senate, they will be in a mood for payback and then some. Though Democrats and their independent allies hold 55 Senate seats, several veteran Democrats in red or purple states are retiring, and several freshmen who won narrowly will be defending seats in swing states.

As many as six seats now held by Democrats are considered vulnerable, enough to tip control to Republicans (Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia) if the GOP runs the table. On the other hand, Tea-Party Republicans are planning primary fights against more traditional GOP incumbents, leaving Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, among others, vulnerable. We can expect the 2014 mid-terms to be a cliff-hanger.

Weighing in the Republicans' favor are continuing problems with the Affordable Care Act. Helping the Democrats are Republicans' divisions over immigration reform. A very slowly improving economy could cut either way. The appointment of the new Fed chair Janet Yellen, a strong proponent of monetary stimulus to boost the recovery, should help the Democrats.

The hardest question to predict is turnout and the impact of voter suppression tactics newly permitted by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that overturned key protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Other things being equal, demographic trends are moving in the Democrats' direction, with an electorate that is more of a rainbow and more liberal on social issues. But with new barriers to the right to vote, turnout (which is always lower in mid-term elections) may be suppressed even further.

One hopes that new voter suppression efforts will stimulate new voter registration drives, with an energy that recalls the great civil rights movements of the 1960s. What a shame that we have to fight these battles all over again half a century later, but a new movement could be a silver lining.

Filibuster reform has restored a measure of democracy to the Senate. To make that reform durable and meaningful, it's necessary to restore democracy to the process of exercising the even more fundamental right to vote.

Robert Kuttner's new book is Debtors' Prison: The Politics of Austerity Versus Possibility. He is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior Fellow at Demos..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/filibuster-reform_b_4334511.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[achiro]

First, this congress has done nothing for far too long. THAT is not good for the country. Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't change much as it only applies to nominees and still requires a simple majority...you know, the way the government should work.

I have no problem with occasional gridlock, but what we've seen in recent years is just ridiculous. If you think what's been happening is good for the country, then I don't know what to tell you...other than you may be alone.
I completely disagree with you on this. Either one party is in power and they pass legislation that leans extremely left or right or they split power and have to find common ground to pass things. Currently, this administration won't find middle ground, wants to pass extreme left legislation and the right fights it...gridlock. It's good for the country. If you are a lefty and think what is going on is good, just think about how you would like a conservative agenda driven court system, your precious abortion rights would be gone, Pubs passing ultra conservative legislation. Lower taxes, pro corp, no more EPA, etc etc. My heaven but if you are a dim, you would hate it. Then long term you would be swinging the country from one extreme back to the other and you talk about a mess.
Legislation is regulation and or spending, that's all, and neither is good for our country.

[Soonerjeepman]

I completely disagree with you on this. Either one party is in power and they pass legislation that leans extremely left or right or they split power and have to find common ground to pass things. Currently, this administration won't find middle ground, wants to pass extreme left legislation and the right fights it...gridlock. It's good for the country. If you are a lefty and think what is going on is good, just think about how you would like a conservative agenda driven court system, your precious abortion rights would be gone, Pubs passing ultra conservative legislation. Lower taxes, pro corp, no more EPA, etc etc. My heaven but if you are a dim, you would hate it. Then long term you would be swinging the country from one extreme back to the other and you talk about a mess.
Legislation is regulation and or spending, that's all, and neither is good for our country.

EXACTLY....

this far outreaches "just nominations"..these appointments will have major consequences in every facet of our lives. On top of that, it's meant to have a BALANCE...this is throwing that out the window.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

"The more the Left(Obeary) loses it's popularity and approval, the more blatant and bigger are their power grabs" -my clone, from today

[Skysooner]

Just a quick history lesson. These numbers may not be exactly right since I'm having to remember the article I read. Prior to Clinton, there had only been 2 filibusters to deny judicial appointments. With Clinton, it was 12 or so. With Bush, it was 32. With Obama, it has been 80+. This is just a continuation of the obstructionist policies of a small minority within Congress. I don't like an activist Congress any better than anybody else, but there comes a time when enough is enough. When the tea party threatens my portfolio with pushing us against the borrowing limit then I am looking out for my economic interest.

Okie52-This is not overly angry, but I'm tired of the bs that this minority espouses.

This change is for judicial appointments only. I highly doubt that any of the parties wants Supreme Court nominees or legislation put on this. Kanto Sooner was correct in that they need to bring the old filibuster rules back. It is too easy now.

[okie52]

Just a quick history lesson. These numbers may not be exactly right since I'm having to remember the article I read. Prior to Clinton, there had only been 2 filibusters to deny judicial appointments. With Clinton, it was 12 or so. With Bush, it was 32. With Obama, it has been 80+. This is just a continuation of the obstructionist policies of a small minority within Congress. I don't like an activist Congress any better than anybody else, but there comes a time when enough is enough. When the tea party threatens my portfolio with pushing us against the borrowing limit then I am looking out for my economic interest.

Okie52-This is not overly angry, but I'm tired of the bs that this minority espouses.

This change is for judicial appointments only. I highly doubt that any of the parties wants Supreme Court nominees or legislation put on this. Kanto Sooner was correct in that they need to bring the old filibuster rules back. It is too easy now.

Sky-
That "this " minority abuses?...hell, the pubs thought the same thing about the dems under W and Obama and Reid squealed how wrong it was to change the rules... But, but now it's different. As I recall (from an article although I could be wrong), Obama has had a higher percentage of his appointments approved than W...

Well I'm not necessarily against this change because I do envision a future where the pubs control the senate and paybacks are hell...although as some columnists have pointed out the majority used to have to use some discretion in its nominees such as having them be more moderate to get past a possible filibuster....now, let the extremism begin.

[8timechamps]

I completely disagree with you on this. Either one party is in power and they pass legislation that leans extremely left or right or they split power and have to find common ground to pass things. Currently, this administration won't find middle ground, wants to pass extreme left legislation and the right fights it...gridlock. It's good for the country. If you are a lefty and think what is going on is good, just think about how you would like a conservative agenda driven court system, your precious abortion rights would be gone, Pubs passing ultra conservative legislation. Lower taxes, pro corp, no more EPA, etc etc. My heaven but if you are a dim, you would hate it. Then long term you would be swinging the country from one extreme back to the other and you talk about a mess.
Legislation is regulation and or spending, that's all, and neither is good for our country.

First, I am not a liberal, just a business-owner tired of the non-movement in this government. You may look at it as the Republicans "doing the right thing" by stopping the Dems at every turn. I, see it as a bunch of morons, each trying to get their way, with NO give on either side. Say what you want, but that is clearly not good for the country.

Some of you expect this to change the country in some dramatic way. It simply will not. What it will do, is make it a little easier for the President to get his nominees through, which should be expected for every president.

As I said in my previous post, some gridlock is fine. The kind we've seen lately is not, and if you think it's all "well and good", then you are the dim one.

[8timechamps]

EXACTLY....

this far outreaches "just nominations"..these appointments will have major consequences in every facet of our lives. On top of that, it's meant to have a BALANCE...this is throwing that out the window.

No, it doesn't far outreach the nominations. That is specifically what this was invoked to do. It's not as if the Libs (or Pubs) can simply pick anyone and he/she has the job, they still must pass through with a majority vote, the way our government was designed to work.

[okie52]

No, it doesn't far outreach the nominations. That is specifically what this was invoked to do. It's not as if the Libs (or Pubs) can simply pick anyone and he/she has the job, they still must pass through with a majority vote, the way our government was designed to work.

So would you have supportive of the pubs going nuclear 10 years ago ?

[Skysooner]

So would you have supportive of the pubs going nuclear 10 years ago ?

Given that there were 32 of these judicial blocks at the time, they should have gone this same route yes.

[okie52]

Given that there were 32 of these judicial blocks at the time, they should have gone this same route yes.

Well they didn't, though, and they certainly had the numbers to do it.

What I've found laughable is the moral justification that some, like Obama and Reid, have tried to claim when doing a complete about face on the issue...and that is all I've really tried to project here.

As I said, time will tell whether this is good for America...but one thing is for sure, you will definitely end up with more extremists in the judiciary.

[achiro]

First, I am not a liberal, just a business-owner tired of the non-movement in this government. You may look at it as the Republicans "doing the right thing" by stopping the Dems at every turn. I, see it as a bunch of morons, each trying to get their way, with NO give on either side. Say what you want, but that is clearly not good for the country.

Some of you expect this to change the country in some dramatic way. It simply will not. What it will do, is make it a little easier for the President to get his nominees through, which should be expected for every president.

As I said in my previous post, some gridlock is fine. The kind we've seen lately is not, and if you think it's all "well and good", then you are the dim one.
OK, so you are a business owner. Tell me then what legislation that the lefties have proposed, that was blocked by the GOP, would be good for you and the country if it had been passed?

[Soonerjeepman]

No, it doesn't far outreach the nominations. That is specifically what this was invoked to do. It's not as if the Libs (or Pubs) can simply pick anyone and he/she has the job, they still must pass through with a majority vote, the way our government was designed to work.

Judges and appointments influence legislation/policies, support of the laws, etc. I don't think you or I can even see how this will play out in the future. So for you to say it doesn't is just your opinion, just like mine saying it will. For the record, both sides are having issues...I agree.

The fact of the matter is...the pubs DIDN'T do it...Reid, Obama, etc all blasted the pubs for even THINKING of doing it...but yet they do it and it's all good. Love your football insight but not on this one... ;-)

[okie52]

CNN Poll: Huge Swing to GOP Puts Senate in Play
Tuesday, 26 Nov 2013 09:41 AM
By Drew MacKenzie

Republicans have made a massive turnaround in the past month boosting hopes that the GOP be headed for victory in next year's Congressional elections, anew poll shows.

The GOP now has a real chance of taking control of both the House and the Senate, as rich, white and rural voters move away from the Democrats, the CNN/ORC International survey shows.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/CNN-Republicans-Senate-turnaround/2013/11/26/id/538715#ixzz2llNvHzeS


Oh the irony would be rich indeed if this happened in 2014.

[okie52]

Lamar Alexander: Eliminating Filibuster is 'Obamacare II'

Saturday, 23 Nov 2013 12:42 PM
By Cathy Burke

The tyrannical Senate rule change that effectively eliminated the filibuster to make it easier to approve President Obama's nominees should be called "Obamacare II," Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander said Friday.

"This was the most dangerous restructuring of Senate rules since Thomas Jefferson wrote them," the Republican from Tennessee wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Post.

"It creates a perpetual opportunity for 'tyranny of the majority,' which Alexis de Tocqueville called one of the greatest threats to American democracy."

"Call it Obamacare II," he added, "for which the only cure is a referendum next November."

In the piece, Alexander called the Democrats' reasons for the controversial rule change "flimsy" — and in "many cases, untrue."

No Supreme Court nominees, federal district judges or Cabinet nominees have been defeated by a filibuster, he wrote.

"Regarding sub-Cabinet nominees, there were two for President Obama, three for George W. Bush, and two for Bill Clinton," he wrote. "As for appeals court judges, Republican filibusters have blocked five, but that happened only after Democrats first blocked five."

He also noted Obama’s second-term Cabinet nominees have been confirmed at about the same pace as those of Presidents Clinton and Bush, refuting arguments the president's nominees have waited too long.

And as to the charge of "Republican obstruction" hobbling the majority leader, Alexander noted former majority leader Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., called the filibuster the "necessary fence" against "the executive and popular passions."

"Majority leaders could do whatever they needed to do under the rules, Byrd said," Alexander noted.

He also refuted arguments Republicans have unfairly blocked the president from filling vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

"In 2006, Democrats insisted on doing precisely what Republicans are asking in 2013: moving judges from courts where they are not needed to where they are needed most," he wrote. "They did not think this unfair then."

"So why would Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., engineer a rules change that he said in 2006 'would be the end of the Senate'?" Alexander added.

"Because the vote was not about the filibuster. It was about permitting the majority to do whatever it wants."


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/lamar-alexander-obamacare-filibuster-journal/2013/11/22/id/538254#ixzz2llbQWROK
.

[FaninAma]

Apparently several of the so-called filibusters of Obama appointments happened when Reid attached other motions onto the nomination process and the GOP would not rubber stamp the mess. If a move to impose cloture(end debate) was called then that is counted as the use of a filibuster. In other words, the number of "filibusters" against Obama appointments is artificially high.

It sounds like Reid has been planning this for a while.

[yermom]

Oh the irony would be rich indeed if this happened in 2014.

Because rich white and rural voters were voting D in droves before?

[Skysooner]

Because rich white and rural voters were voting D in droves before?

My tea party representative will be going out in 2014.

[okie52]

Because rich white and rural voters were voting D in droves before?

Hmmm...I guess enough to change the poll numbers, eh?


A month ago the Republicans were reeling as the blame for the government shutdown in the bitter battle over the Affordable Care Act was laid at the GOP's door. In a generic ballot last month, asking voters to pick between Democrats and Republicans in their congressional district without naming candidates, Democrats were chosen, 50 percent to 42 percent.

But things have turned around in the past four weeks as the extent of the problems with Obamacare have become clear. The new poll shows a staggering 10 percent reversal for the Democrats, and Republicans now lead 49 percent to 47 percent.

"It looks like the biggest shifts toward the Republicans came among white voters, higher-income Americans, and people who live in rural areas," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

"If those patterns persist into 2014, it may indicate that Obamacare is popular among those who it was designed to help the most, but unpopular among the larger group of voters who are personally less concerned about health insurance and healthcare,"

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/CNN-Republicans-Senate-turnaround/2013/11/26/id/538715#ixzz2lmrPxoXV

[okie52]

My tea party representative will be going out in 2014.

You had a tea party guy representing you?....that must have hurt.:highly_amused:

[Skysooner]

You had a tea party guy representing you?....that must have hurt.:highly_amused:

The district was changed to a half D - half R, but the last D was pretty bad. The one running unopposed now is about 15 points ahead. Mike Coffman has been trying to back pedal on all his weird statements. He will be out of here come 2014.

[okie52]

The district was changed to a half D - half R, but the last D was pretty bad. The one running unopposed now is about 15 points ahead. Mike Coffman has been trying to back pedal on all his weird statements. He will be out of here come 2014.

Who controls Colorado's legislature...the dems or pubs?

EDIT: Never mind, I see the dems are in control

[Skysooner]

The really bad thing here is that some of our more liberal communities banned fracking which won't stand up since it is the state's mandate to control that. Still they are trying to get a referendum on the state budget. Most have no idea what it would do to their energy costs, tax base and unemployment if they did a state level ban. Doubt it passes since the industry would be all over this one.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Because rich white and rural voters were voting D in droves before?

Do you corn roll your hairs?

[okie52]

The really bad thing here is that some of our more liberal communities banned fracking which won't stand up since it is the state's mandate to control that. Still they are trying to get a referendum on the state budget. Most have no idea what it would do to their energy costs, tax base and unemployment if they did a state level ban. Doubt it passes since the industry would be all over this one.

Sad how uninformed many are on the issue...the industry really needs do some heavier PR in states like CO

[okie52]

Do you corn roll your hairs?

Heh heh...

[FaninAma]

The really bad thing here is that some of our more liberal communities banned fracking which won't stand up since it is the state's mandate to control that. Still they are trying to get a referendum on the state budget. Most have no idea what it would do to their energy costs, tax base and unemployment if they did a state level ban. Doubt it passes since the industry would be all over this one.
It would serve Colorado right to succumb to the same liberal policies that are trashing California and Illinois.

[okie52]

Speaking of Colorado...


Udall's Colo. Senate Seat Suddenly in Play
Wednesday, 27 Nov 2013 08:39 AM
By John Gizzi

Considered a sure bet for re-election six months ago, Colorado Democratic Sen. Mark Udall now finds himself locked in a tough battle for re-election.

Republicans in the state point to his record in support of Obamacare and the recent snafus surrounding its website as reasons for the sudden low polling numbers and prospects of a close race.

"Sen. Udall's deciding vote that passed Obamacare has finally caught up with him," former state GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams told Newsmax. "He parroted President Obama in promising Coloradans they could keep their health plans. These actions define his otherwise undistinguished five years in the Senate. Udall rode the Obama wave into the Senate in 2008 and he's riding it right back out in 2014."

According to a just-completed Quinnipiac Poll, the freshman senator leads all six of his potential Republican rivals by single digits.

What makes the prospect of Udall fighting for his political life so newsworthy is that none of the six was considered a particularly well-known or formidable opponent until now.

For example, former Weld County District Attorney and tea party favorite Ken Buck was widely criticized among Centennial State Republicans for fumbling a lead against Democrat Michael Bennet and narrowly losing the 2010 Senate race.

But, according to Quinnipiac, Buck actually is Udall's strongest potential rival and trails the incumbent senator by a slim margin of 45 percent to 42 percent among likely voters.

Another Republican Senate contender is state Sen. Owen Hill, who came within an eyelash of ousting the state Senate Democratic leader in 2010 and then won a state Senate seat two years later. But the U.S. Air Force Academy graduate and stalwart conservative had been widely considered as moving too quickly to be U.S. Senate material.

Nevertheless, the Quinnipiac Poll showed him losing to Udall by a margin of only 45 percent to 39 percent.

Udall also manages unimpressive margins against two other GOP hopefuls, state Sen. Randy Baumgardner (44 percent to 39 percent) and state Rep. Amy Stephens (45 percent to 38 percent).

When pitted by Quinnipiac against two businessmen and first-time candidates, Udall again has less-than-stellar margins, defeating Jaime McMillan by 43 percent to 40 percent, and Mark Aspiri, 45 percent to 36 percent.

Udall's poll numbers are almost the polar opposite of a Public Policy Polling survey of Colorado voters in April, which found him with a 50 percent approval rating and 33 percent disapproval.

These are "the best numbers we've found for him so far since he took office," concluded PPP at the time. "Most importantly for his re-election prospects, he's at a 50/31 spread with independents similar to his overall numbers."

Republicans in Colorado agree that Udall's sudden vulnerability is directly related to the president's recent drop in popularity nationwide and outrage over the failures surrounding implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

According to Quinnipiac, the president's approval rating in the state — 36 percent, compared to 55 percent who disapprove — is the worst Obama has experienced in the poll since he became president.

Among Republicans, Obama's disapproval is at 98 percent and among independents, 65 percent, according to Quinnipiac. By a margin of 78 percent to 15 percent, Democrats still approve of his performance as president.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/John-Gizzi/gizzi-udall-quinnipiac-re-election/2013/11/27/id/538950#ixzz2lrZSYzlG

[KantoSooner]

It would serve Colorado right to succumb to the same liberal policies that are trashing California and Illinois.

Not that I disagree with this in particular or the general principle that people should live with the consequences of their own choices (I would be happy to see NYC have to deal with it's garbage inside the boroughs, for example; afterall, they have a fine plot of land that could be used for a landfill: Central Park.) But what makes you hate on Colorado? Fairly non-descript state, really. One city. Some mountains. A little industry, a little cattle ranching. Some salmonella laced melons. That's about it.

[okie52]

Not that I disagree with this in particular or the general principle that people should live with the consequences of their own choices (I would be happy to see NYC have to deal with it's garbage inside the boroughs, for example; afterall, they have a fine plot of land that could be used for a landfill: Central Park.) But what makes you hate on Colorado? Fairly non-descript state, really. One city. Some mountains. A little industry, a little cattle ranching. Some salmonella laced melons. That's about it.

I'd give Colorado two cities as Colorado Springs has gotten fairly large.


The city had an estimated population of 431,834 in 2012.,[5] being the second most populous city in the state of Colorado, behind Denver, and the 41st most populous city in the United States,[6] while the Colorado Springs Metropolitan Statistical Area had an estimated population of 668,353 in 2012.[7] The city covers 194.7 square miles (504 km2), making it Colorado's largest city in area. Colorado Springs was selected as the No. 1 Best Big City in "Best Places to Live" by Money magazine in 2006,[8] and placed number one in Outside's 2009 list of America's Best Cities.[9]

[FaninAma]

Kanto, I am a huge advocate of individuals learning from their mistakes. It is really the only thing that truly changes human behavior in a positive way. I am also, believe it or not, a big supporter of the democratic principles of governance. Therefore, I really want to see this failure of an experiment called liberalism-socialism play itself out so the people who think it is a viable system of governance can see first hand the consequences of the eltitist policies.

BTW Okie, I am sure there are several cities in California and elswhere that were once att he top of the "most desirable places to live" list that are now facing bankruptcy. My uncle lived in Rialto, Ca 40 years ago. I remember it a a pretty nice place once upon a time.

[okie52]

FaninAma-I wasn't really highlightling Colorado Springs as a great place to live...just that it has gotten fairly big.

I did use to go to Colorado Springs quite a bit in the 70's and thought it was a great town but I haven't been there in a long time.

[FaninAma]

FaninAma-I wasn't really highlightling Colorado Springs as a great place to live...just that it has gotten fairly big.

I did use to go to Colorado Springs quite a bit in the 70's and thought it was a great town but I haven't been there in a long time.

It is still pretty nice but should the exodus from California and other liberal bastions continue I don't expect that to last much longer.

A lot of people really do not look at the consequences of their actions(or votes ) until they feel some, or a lot, of pain personally from those actions. Even then most people will do little self-examination of how they got into the situation they find themselves in but will instead try to point fingers at others....especially if there is a large group of enablers helping them do that(i.e. The present day Democratic Party).

[Turd_Ferguson]

FaninAma-I wasn't really highlightling Colorado Springs as a great place to live...just that it has gotten fairly big.

I did use to go to Colorado Springs quite a bit in the 70's and thought it was a great town but I haven't been there in a long time.

Same here. Back in the day, the Royal Gorge was our summer vacation spot many of times.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

[QUOTE=FaninAma;4215920]Kanto, I am a huge advocate of individuals learning from their mistakes. It is really the only thing that truly changes human behavior in a positive way. I am also, believe it or not, a big supporter of the democratic principles of governance. Therefore, I really want to see this failure of an experiment called liberalism-socialism play itself out so the people who think it is a viable system of governance can see first hand the consequences of the elitist policies.
QUOTE]



bravo. But, the consequences can be so unpleasant that it would be MUCH better if the ship could be turned around before the chit hits the fan.

[FaninAma]

[QUOTE=FaninAma;4215920]Kanto, I am a huge advocate of individuals learning from their mistakes. It is really the only thing that truly changes human behavior in a positive way. I am also, believe it or not, a big supporter of the democratic principles of governance. Therefore, I really want to see this failure of an experiment called liberalism-socialism play itself out so the people who think it is a viable system of governance can see first hand the consequences of the elitist policies.
QUOTE]



bravo. But, the consequences can be so unpleasant that it would be MUCH better if the ship could be turned around before the chit hits the fan.

But that would take a level of thoughtfulness and honesty that is not to be found in today's poiticians and electorate.

[okie52]

Same here. Back in the day, the Royal Gorge was our summer vacation spot many of times.


The summers were great. Used to have a cabin in chipita park (inlaws cabin) and loved the trips down to Manitou Springs and CS...of course it was quite a bit smaller then. Rain every day for about 15 minutes at 3 oclock and then it was over...but the smell of pine trees was great. 80's during the day and wearing a windbreaker at night...in July. Loved it.

[okie52]

It is still pretty nice but should the exodus from California and other liberal bastions continue I don't expect that to last much longer.

A lot of people really do not look at the consequences of their actions(or votes ) until they feel some, or a lot, of pain personally from those actions. Even then most people will do little self-examination of how they got into the situation they find themselves in but will instead try to point fingers at others....especially if there is a large group of enablers helping them do that(i.e. The present day Democratic Party).

I look at what's happened to Florida and growth is not always good.

[8timechamps]

So would you have supportive of the pubs going nuclear 10 years ago ?

Probably not. But that's because I felt like congress wasn't stuck in honey 10 years ago.

[8timechamps]

OK, so you are a business owner. Tell me then what legislation that the lefties have proposed, that was blocked by the GOP, would be good for you and the country if it had been passed?

That's not my argument. In fact, there is legislation that has been passed that has negatively affected my business. The business I am in depends on investors and their willingness to invest. When the government is in a deadlock, their confidence gets shaken, and that directly affects my bottom line. Like I said, I'm no liberal, I'm just tired of Washington doing nothing.

[8timechamps]

Judges and appointments influence legislation/policies, support of the laws, etc. I don't think you or I can even see how this will play out in the future. So for you to say it doesn't is just your opinion, just like mine saying it will. For the record, both sides are having issues...I agree.

The fact of the matter is...the pubs DIDN'T do it...Reid, Obama, etc all blasted the pubs for even THINKING of doing it...but yet they do it and it's all good. Love your football insight but not on this one... ;-)

Fair enough, but I also believe that the party in charge (the White House) should get the benefit of having their appointments approved. That's how it's typically done. For the republicans to nix every appointment, because they disagree with other legislation, is maddening. And I'm a Republican. Do I think this was a petty attempt by the Dems to circumvent traditional measures, just to get their way? Sure I do. It's a childish as my own party nixing every nominee put in front of them, regardless of qualification. The one thing I agree with (in all of this) is that it will force some movement from the body. Maybe, just maybe this will settle down some of the blocking both parties have taken a liking to, and possibly get the congress in motion. My opinion is that this isn't an "end of the world" move by the dems. It's a childish move, and will eventually come back to bite them in the ***. Nobody really wins in this deal. But, if it gets congress off their asses, I'm for it.

No, the Pubs didn't opt to use the same option, and maybe they should have. But, don't kid yourself, there were several members in congress that went down fighting for the Pubs to do it.

[8timechamps]

FaninAma-I wasn't really highlightling Colorado Springs as a great place to live...just that it has gotten fairly big.

I did use to go to Colorado Springs quite a bit in the 70's and thought it was a great town but I haven't been there in a long time.

Well, it's bigger, but nothing too much more than that. Not a place I would dream of moving to some day down the line.

[Soonerjeepman]

Well, unless my comprohension is bad, I'm pretty sure the dem didn't approve more for bush than the pubs for obama...days taking approval are basically the same. So not sure why this "For the republicans to nix every appointment, because they disagree with other legislation, is maddening"

I agree, probably will come back to bite them but for any dem or supporter to say this is justified is total Bull$hit.

[8timechamps]

Well, unless my comprohension is bad, I'm pretty sure the dem didn't approve more for bush than the pubs for obama...days taking approval are basically the same. So not sure why this "For the republicans to nix every appointment, because they disagree with other legislation, is maddening"

I agree, probably will come back to bite them but for any dem or supporter to say this is justified is total Bull$hit.

Why is it bull****? Is it because you don't agree with it? I'm serious, I'm curious.

Like I said, I'm no liberal, so anything that supports the liberal agenda, I'm typically at odds with. However, there (whether real, or perceived) is a logjam in congress right now, and the public (at least those that I deal with daily) are tired of it, and if this maneuver helps that perception, I'm all for it. Again, I don't think this will have the kind of affect some believe. I think it was by and large a political maneuver, meant to make the dems look like they are 'doing something'. Now, if this comes back and bites me in the ***, I'll be the first to say I was wrong. I just don't think that's going to be the case.

As for the claim that the pubs have remained status quo when it comes to nominations, the fact is that the average nomination for Obama has taken 227 days to approve, for Bush it was 175. That's just a high level look, if you dig into the details, I think you'll be surprised how accurate my statement was.