An alternative to popular faith
The Republican minority repeatedly has used the threat of filibuster to obtain concessions or even to block majority decisions. I wonder why this threat is so powerful. Isn’t there a danger that voters will become sick and tired of a stalemated Congress, and blame the Republicans for repeatedly being “the party of ‘no'”?
Now we come to the Elena Kagan circus, excuse me, hearing, and once again the threat of filibuster sits like an elephant in the room. Yes, ask her questions to see if she is qualified (though it’s doubtful T.V sound bites will prove anything.) And yes, if you really believe someone’s attitudes about guns and abortion should be the sole considerations for Supreme Court Justice, vote accordingly. But, must every vote on everything be accompanied by the same “I’ll take my ball and go home” threat?
If the child learns it can get its way by stamping, screaming and holding its breath, who’s to blame — the weakling parent or the kid? Why not just let the brat stamp, scream and hold its breath until it gets tired? As I said, what’s so fearsome about a filibuster?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com
No nation can tax itself into prosperity
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
“Isn’t there a danger that voters will become sick and tired of a stalemated Congress”
No, there is no danger.
Q: What is the number one thing a politician wants to do?
A: Nothing. And worse, we keep electing the same people who do nothing.
If a politician would actually DO something than that means they will upset some people. And maybe just enough people that they won’t vote for the politician next time.
Instead, it is easier to blame the other party for not being able to get things done. The politician wanted all these great government programs. They wanted to end war, shutdown Git’mo, etc., etc., but the other party just wouldn’t do it.
Yeah, health care came through, but it wasn’t supposed to. After all, Kennedy died and the 60th vote in the Senate went to a Republican. Oops, now some Democrats will lose their seat this year or in two years.
Most of our politicians only want to grandstand in the sandbox. They don’t have the backbone to actually lead.
LikeLike
You can’t be serious?!
What does filibuster cost per day to taxpayers? Think pay-wise here…
Republicans have made it clear they will use it at every turn.
Reason being? I think they are biding time, letting it pass until election time.
The more they can do nothing but act like spoiled children, and put everything on hold… The more they can say nothing was done during this administration. Of course not! Because they stopped all progress the entire time.
And, as far as sound bytes and news clips (eh hem, paid for leaning “news”), the general public does not, or cannot, find the time to sift through all the crap to find a seed of truth.
Of course we should be afraid.
LikeLike
Actual dollar cost of a filibuster is minuscule in the world of U.S. finance.
My original question had to do with the inability to keep a filibuster going all the way to November elections. So what are the Democrats afraid of?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
Minuscule in terms of big money, yes. In terms of the what it means to real people, and not the closed of boardrooms these officials cluster themselves into, no.
My guess is they are afraid that the republican intentions to block all progress is hurting people.
Isn’t that what this is about? The People?
They made is clear from the beginning they would block anything and all things on the table.
What bothers me is while they huff and point fingers and seem to blame everyone in any given decade, they have yet to come up with one solution.
The dirty politics is doing nothing to help the economy, or the people.
LikeLike