Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Clogged

The Dems in the Senate have put out a fact sheet about the Republicans obstructing legislation in this session. It turns out that the Republicans have blocked twice the number of bills that have been block in the past two Senate sessions. It really is a nifty fact sheet. It has all kinds of cool small print, bullets, bill numbers and statistics. It's a classic Democratic policy statement. And it will go nowhere in terms of public awareness. Instead of a position paper, why aren't Dems out screaming bloody murder all over the media?

A couple of things strike me about this. First, I'm not sure if that's good for Dems or bad. Does it suggest that Dems should have been blocking more in the past two sessions? Dems have a reputation for being unwilling to "obstruct". Is it factually been proven?

The other thing is the entire filibuster issue. Have you heard anyone say "filibuster" lately? Yet that is exactly the tactic being used by Republicans on an almost daily basis. By requiring a defacto two-thirds votes to pass a bill, it's become virtually impossible to move legislation through Congress. Even legislation that Bush would sign, i.e. the immigration bill, is going nowhere because of the filibuster. So where's the hue and cry over obstructionism in the media? Why aren't Dems all over the tube threatening to eliminate the filibuster?

I've always claimed that getting rid of the filibuster works in favor of Democrats. Back when the Republicans were threatening to do it, I thought the Dems should have called their bluff. Likely the Republicans would have folded like a cheap tent because they know that they're usually in the minority in Congress due to the nations tendency to be inherently progressive. But suppose Republicans actually did vote to eliminate the filibuster? Would the nation be in any worse shape now as a result of the past Republican Congresses? And would Democrats be having an easier time passing legislation that puts Bush's feet to the fire, putting the political pressure on him rather than on a generic "Congressional" failure?

No comments: