“Up or down vote”… how I love that phrase.
In four short words the blatant hypocrisy of so many congressmen (and the White House) is exposed for all the world to see. Before the 2006 stripped them of their majority status Senate Republicans were quick to demand immediate up or down votes on a number extremely controversial judicial nominations. When they didn’t get their way they threated to strip the right of filibuster entirely with their “nuclear option“.
Predictably now that the tables have turned it’s a whole new ball game. Now instead of the filibuster being no good it’s breaking a filibuster that’s the “dirty tactic”. It’s interesting how, no matter what, everything the Democrats do is described as a “political stunt“… unless of course you’re Diane Sawyer, the professional who can’t even get who’s doing what straight in this filibuster fight. John Bambenek of BC Politics has things pegged exactly right, this is a matter of principle:
The Democrats have challenged Republicans to actually perform a filibuster in the Senate to delay legislation designed to renege on a deal made earlier about troop levels in Iraq. While they plan to go to the press to trash Bush during the filibuster, they are at least trying to break the filibuster. This stands in stark contrast to how the Republicans handled filibusters just one year ago.
Back then, the Republicans, instead of challenging the filibuster, went to the press and cried. There was never any real attempt to even make the Democrats actually perform a filibuster, they simply complained and sulked away.
[...]
At least the Democrats are facing the challenge head-on though. They aren’t trying to change the rules to avoid a filibuster, they aren’t crying in the press. They are saying if the Republicans want to filibuster, they’re going to actually have to do it. Bluff called.
Democrats acknowledge they likely will not win the filibuster fight but they are going to wage it anyway. While I disagree with their principles, at least they fight for them.
And just for the record: that image isn’t photoshopped.
***
Other blogger reactions (thanks in part to MemeOrandum): Pam (Pam’s House Blend) - left; Joe Sudbay (AMERICAblog) - left; Mark Gisleson (Norwegianity) - left; Michelle Malkin - right; Digby (Hullabaloo) – left
Have something to add? Feel free to comment here or contact the author directly.
Loading ...
10:20 am on July 18th, 2007 1
Dustin
If the idea behind your article is that Washington DC is rife with hypocrisy, I’m all onboard with that. As you pointed out, just one short year ago it was the Republicans whining about the Democrats preventing an up or down vote. If you would help me out, what were the Democrats saying about the filibuster then? I seem to recall that the idea of a straight out vote held somewhat less appeal then.
What I see today makes me appreciate the genius of the founders of this country. They created a system of government designed to lock up and do nothing without widespread support. Some may bemoan the inability of one side or another to further an agenda, but given the current public divide, I find inaction to be preferable .
6:22 pm on July 18th, 2007 2
I’m on the same table with you Chuck, mostly. I do believe that, when used properly, a filibuster is a worthy tool in the Senate and I’ve got no problem with it. It’s the bold-faced short-order hypocrisy of our Senators, their ability to do one thing while in power and the opposite while not and act like the other side is Satan himself no matter what, that should offend us.
But let’s not fool ourselves: when in the midst of a war and debates over war policy, when lives are literally in the balance, there is no such thing as inaction. This isn’t a debate over some governmental post after all, not this time, and any action (or no action at all) will have consequences.
2:41 pm on July 26th, 2007 3
Rather interesting that you cast this from the point of view of the Republicans. If looked at from the other side, one could say that the Democrat’s “principled stand on minority rights” (as it was phrased then) last year was cravenly abandoned this year. So how come there was applause last year for the Dems for a “principled stand”, but none this year for the Repubs for the EXACT SAME REASON? Nice to call attention to hypocrisy on the floor, but the GALLERY appears to have a log in its own eye as well.
Of course, you could bother to look at the context of both situations: This “filibuster” happened to be over an amendment governing military forces that was being slipped into an EDUCATION BILL. Ted Kennedy bloviated at length on how DARE the Republicans not allow a vote on an EDUCATION Bill, but the only way to get a vote on an EDUCATION bill, per the demands of the DEMOCRATIC house leadership, would have been to have allowed an amendment governing MILITARY forces to be put into the bill. The Filibuster, thus, was an attempt to REMOVE an UNRELATED amendment so that an unambiguous Education bill could be voted upon, passed, and signed, on its own merits, not one containing a poison pill that would allow the Democrats to MOUNT THE PULPIT to declaim against the anti-education Republicans. The real reason for the veto would have been as silent in their denunciation as it is in your post.
Now, compare this attempt to stuff a rattlesnake into the skin of a kitten to the Republican’s devious attempt to get their judge confirmed by slipping an amendment into a bill that… oh, wait a minute, it was presented to the Senate as a Judicial Confirmation, not as a military control measure under cover of an unrelated Senate matter being put forth to confuse and bamboozle the public. Regardless of whether you think the animal was a snake or a kitten, the animal being presented actually WAS that animal.
Oh, about that quote on the “bluff called”: my knowledge of card playing is hazy, but if I recall, one starts a bluff by raising the pot, and one calls the bluff by meeting the pot, then optionally raising it. Bluffing is a way to WIN THE HAND, and calling the bluff is applauded only if one subsequently wins. If one loses, IT WASN’T A BLUFF. So who WON THE HAND this time? The Republicans, by defeating the amendment and allowing the education bill to go forward to a vote. As for the eeeevil Republicans’ “threat” to change the rules to allow a vote on their Judicial nominee, I should point out that one can’t tell if it was a bluff or the real thing, because McCain was able to use it to put together that coalition of Republicans and Democrats who committed to vote to not stall judicial nominations. The Republicans got what they wanted, a vote on the nominee, so it has all the earmarks of a successful bluff that wasn’t called. In my book, that is what’s called good cardplaying.