Senate passes Nuke option

[CountDeMoney]

Next thing you know, the President is going to try to actually get governmental departments moving again.  And then all hell's gonna break loose.

[garbon]

I thought Michelle was on the Let's Move campaign.

[Zanza]

it is possible to be a Republic without being a Democracy (like North Korea and Syria, for example - in spite of what their names might claim)

Those two are the worst possible examples of republics considering that they have a quasi-monarchical rule of succession. There are lots of republics that aren't democracies though, e.g. Russia or China.

[Jacob]

The Executive branch, the President, would need to work with the opposition party also, not just his own party. That works for a President of either party and I'd much rather it that way, part of the check/balance on the process.

The fatal flaw of that reasoning is that it relies on the assumption that the opposition party is interested in the government governing.

A President who leads and is willing to give and take can get appointments through. He just won't get his own way all the time, as it should be. We're not a dictatorship.

I think the current GOP Congress has proven that to be utterly false. Time and time again Obama has negotiated and compromised, only to have the GOP move the goal posts until they ended up at "give us everything we wanted in our starting position".

How do you negotiate the head of an agency that the GOP want to render ineffective by denying the appointment of a head of that agency?

[derspiess]

Next thing you know, the President is going to try to actually get governmental departments moving again.  And then all hell's gonna break loose.

That's cute.

[DGuller]

The Executive branch, the President, would need to work with the opposition party also, not just his own party. That works for a President of either party and I'd much rather it that way, part of the check/balance on the process.

The fatal flaw of that reasoning is that it relies on the assumption that the opposition party is interested in the government governing.

A President who leads and is willing to give and take can get appointments through. He just won't get his own way all the time, as it should be. We're not a dictatorship.

I think the current GOP Congress has proven that to be utterly false. Time and time again Obama has negotiated and compromised, only to have the GOP move the goal posts until they ended up at "give us everything we wanted in our starting position".

How do you negotiate the head of an agency that the GOP want to render ineffective by denying the appointment of a head of that agency?

With leadership and bipartisanship.

[garbon]

Reaching across the aisle.

[CountDeMoney]

Next thing you know, the President is going to try to actually get governmental departments moving again.  And then all hell's gonna break loose.

That's cute.

What's cuter is how the GOP doesn't like an agency, hey, let's keep it from getting its appointed leadership.  Now THAT'S really fucking cute.

It's "Advise and Consent", not "Advise and Cockblock for Shits and Giggles".

[The Brain]

I don't think anyone believes that America is a democracy. The American demos is not ultra-liberal Jews/lizard people.

[Admiral Yi]

I think the current GOP Congress has proven that to be utterly false. Time and time again Obama has negotiated and compromised, only to have the GOP move the goal posts until they ended up at "give us everything we wanted in our starting position".

I've seen and heard this characterization of events repeated a number of times in progressive print and TV, and I just don't see how it can possibly be supported by the facts.

Obamastimulus was a completely Democratic creation.  Obamacare was essentially an internal debate between progressive and centrist Democrats, with the two Republican chick senators joining the centrist Democrats.  Teh Fiscal Cliff was a compromise: Democrats got the higher rate on fat cats and Republicans moved the fat cat line up to 450K.  Debt Limit I was a compromise: Teh Sequester was a fraction of what Republicans had asked for going in.  Teh Government Shutdown was not a compromise: Obama said he was not willing to give anything and that's what the Republicans ended up getting.

[Razgovory]

I think the current GOP Congress has proven that to be utterly false. Time and time again Obama has negotiated and compromised, only to have the GOP move the goal posts until they ended up at "give us everything we wanted in our starting position".

I've seen and heard this characterization of events repeated a number of times in progressive print and TV, and I just don't see how it can possibly be supported by the facts.

Obamastimulus was a completely Democratic creation.  Obamacare was essentially an internal debate between progressive and centrist Democrats, with the two Republican chick senators joining the centrist Democrats.  Teh Fiscal Cliff was a compromise: Democrats got the higher rate on fat cats and Republicans moved the fat cat line up to 450K.  Debt Limit I was a compromise: Teh Sequester was a fraction of what Republicans had asked for going in.  Teh Government Shutdown was not a compromise: Obama said he was not willing to give anything and that's what the Republicans ended up getting.

[Ideologue]

tiresome

That is it, in a word.

[Jacob]

Hey Kronn - a bit on how a Republican rule change in the House of Representatives ensured the government shutdown occured: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-house-gop-s-little-rule-change-that-guaranteed-a-shutdown

[grumbler]

NYT editorial yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html?_r=0

For five years, Senate Republicans have refused to allow confirmation votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President Obama for government positions. They tried to nullify entire federal agencies by denying them leaders. They abused Senate rules past the point of tolerance or responsibility. And so they were left enraged and threatening revenge on Thursday when a majority did the only logical thing and stripped away their power to block the president's nominees.

And in 2005:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29tue1.html

The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes.

Not sure what argument you think you are making here, since you don't make any argument at all, but these conclusions certainly aren't mutually exclusive.  Why don't you make an argument, and use these quotes as evidence, rather than simply providing the quotes and expecting people to read your mind as to why you think they are significant?

[jimmy olsen]

NYT editorial yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html?_r=0

For five years, Senate Republicans have refused to allow confirmation votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President Obama for government positions. They tried to nullify entire federal agencies by denying them leaders. They abused Senate rules past the point of tolerance or responsibility. And so they were left enraged and threatening revenge on Thursday when a majority did the only logical thing and stripped away their power to block the president's nominees.

And in 2005:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29tue1.html

The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes.

But it wasn't used with caution. From Washington to G.W. Bush it was used to block 86 Presidential nominees while in Obama's administration it has been used to block 82!