Obama: Eliminate The Senate Filibuster
Source: TPM
President Barack Obama came out for eliminating the filibuster in an interview with Vox published Monday.
-snip-
Here's the relevant quote by Obama, via Vox, in response to a question about how to govern amidst polarization.
###
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-eliminate-the-filibuster
TPM LIVEWIRE
Obama: Convincing GOP To Expand Medicaid Is ACA's 'Biggest Challenge'
In an interview with Vox, President Barack Obama said that convincing Republican governors and state legislatures to expand Medicaid is the "biggest challenge" remaining for the Affordable Care Act.
Obama pointed out that Medicaid expansion was supposed to account for nearly half of the law's coverage expansion, but the Supreme Court's 2012 decision had undermined it by making expansion optional.
"The big problem we have right now with Obamacare is that it was designed to make sure that some subset of people qualified for Medicaid, and that's how they were going to get coverage, and others were going to go into the exchanges because they had slightly higher incomes," he said.
"And because of the decision of the Roberts court — that we couldn't incentivize states to expand Medicaid the way we had originally intended — you've got a lot of really big states, you've got tens of millions of people who aren't able to get their Medicaid coverage," he continued. "And so there's this gap. And that's probably the biggest challenge for us."
more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-medicaid-expansion-biggest-challenge
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)to delay a bill the Republicans wanted. It doesn't even need to be eliminated, just returned to
the 'talking filibuster' as the number of those that succeeded was very small.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)The filibuster should've been removed in 2009 when the Senate filibustered just about every bill then Speaker Nancy Pelosi had sent to them, killing 440 very good bills that would have benefited the American worker.
On the other hand...President Obama must be confident that Democrats will take back the Senate in 2016 and then, of course, his coming out in favor of removing the filibuster now makes a lot of sense, since it would "appear" to benefit Republicans (although he'll veto just about everything they send him) so it doesn't appear politically motivated (although I don't know why he or any Democrat should shy away from politics since Republicans do nothing BUT play politics) while, at the same time, the removal of the filibuster will certainly benefit Democrats in 2016.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Did he ever state that during the infamous first 6 years of his terms?
Leaves me wondering: What side is he on? Working class or corporations. I see this as a cooperative effort by the leader of the "dem" party to make easier the advancements of the kochs/libertarian, right wing agendas.(IE:TPP/War/Big Oil etc)...in my humble opinion....of course. I don't understand this at all.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)progressive goals and advancing corporatism.
thesquanderer
(13,006 posts)The only chance filibuster reform EVER has of happening is if it is promoted by the party that is OUT of power (in Congress). If you think it's the right thing to do, and/or if you think it will be to your party's benefit in the long term, then you do it when you *can*, not some more "beneficial" time when, in fact, there would be no way to do it.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)that's promoting it is out of power? That doesn't make sense to me.
However, the rest of your post does. If President Obama is eyeing the future and the retaking of the Senate by Democrats in 2016 and to not appear to be "playing politics", then the promotion he's doing to eliminate the filibuster makes sense.
But I've always understood that filibuster reform is as simple as the Senate using a simple majority to eliminate it...although it can be added back if power switches hands and the other Party controls the Senate.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)We need much more debate of ideas, Senate Democrats should just drop the filibuster now of veto proof bills the GOP would have to openly defend with their own ideas...of which they have none.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But there are members of each party who do not want the filibuster changed. For this example, let's say there's 20 in each party.
So while one party has the majority, they do not have enough votes to remove the filibuster by themselves. Because at the moment, there are 20 Republicans who would vote no. And back in 2009, there were 20 Democrats who would vote no.
The minority party wants to hang on to the filibuster in order to assert power. So they aren't going to vote to remove the filibuster.
As a result, the filibuster will remain unchanged until the minority party will vote to remove it, giving the majority party enough votes to change the rules.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)is suicide.
oldlib2
(39 posts)Yes, do it now. It was the right thing to do in 2009 and it is still the right thing to do today.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)and then busted their asses neutering Wall Street and taking care of the rest of us, Republicans would not only NOT be in control of both chambers of Congress, their support would be in Lyndon LaRouche territory.
This game of getting all progressive when proposals have no chance of passing then going corporate when Dems do have power is becoming too transparent.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)
PSPS
(15,322 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
zeemike
(18,998 posts)We started out with both houses of congress but the Senate needed 60 votes for closure and the GOP could block with one Senator threatening to filibuster...then we lost the house and now we lost both the senate and the house and now they want to remove any chance a democrat can do what the GOP did to stop things.
What is wrong with that picture?
Sure say it now that it could only hurt Democrats who would try to stop the GOP...again we are suckered.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Everyone gets more loot later upon return to private sector. Services rendered. Touch o' the nose.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)was unfortunate, but I really don't think he was talking about "removing" the possibility of a filibuster. Just not using it the way the Rethugs have done during Obama's presidency.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)eliminate the routine use of the filibuster, not eliminate the filibuster. However, imo, they should eliminate the filibuster altogether. The people have overwhelmingly voted for President Obama - twice - and then directly and/or indirectly voted for a Republican Congress. The country needs to feel the consequences of that vote or they'll never learn.
Anyway, the filibuster was based on honest and fair political arguments and opposition which, today, no longer exists thanks to the Koch Bros and Adelson who have all but bought our Congress and have taken away the need by these Congresscritters to work in favor of the American people since, well, their reelection is all but guaranteed thanks to the millionaires and billionaires in this country.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Autumn
(48,962 posts)
Wow, that's real treat. rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Just sayin'. Manny and the President are on the same page. That might make some heads explode.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)They were rare before then.
But... Why does Obama want to fix it now when Democrats are in the minority?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)so I had to buy some of my own. Not that it's a big deal. Really.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)If some Senator wants to stand up and bloviate for 24 plus hours at a clip, whatever. But, the majority should, at some point, be able to vote on the substance of the bill.
annabanana
(52,804 posts)oh fer cryin' out loud....
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Sounds like Dems are going to filibuster TPP.
Johnyawl
(3,210 posts)Both of us had the same thought.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)As I read the OP, I was thinking "WTF, why would he want to do this *now* of all times, is this an old interview?" Then I read your post and got a sick feeling in my tummy...
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Suddenly it all makes sense.
The Big Screw is in. And of course the Republicans will happily change the rule, because they plan to be in power for the foreseeable future.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)pnwmom
(110,261 posts)He called for eliminating the "routine use of the filibuster." In other words, I think he's saying we should go back to the way it used to be used -- judiciously. Not for virtually every bill the majority party proposes, as the Rethugs did the whole time they were in the minority.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)although. Especially in regard to TPP and fast track, which I call my Rep and Sens to vigorously oppose.
Johnyawl
(3,210 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Johnyawl
(3,210 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)TPP must be stopped, even if it has to be the filibuster rather than a presidential veto (which Obama seems too corrupt to be able to sign in this instance!)
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)...super-majority.
mwooldri
(10,818 posts)The filibuster is meant as part of the "checks and balances" to ensure really horrible legislation doesn't get passed. Now we all know the filibuster was abused by the Republicans when they were in the minority but if Obama persuaded Mr. McConnell that eliminating the filibuster is a good thing then the Republicans won't have the filibuster for when they return to the minority. A united legislative and executive branch could lead to damaging laws being passed. A filibuster removal just makes it easier for a small majority, or a minority majority to have a House and Senate that agree with each other.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The filibuster cuts both ways.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I would much rather that a majority of voters decide the nation's fate than a minority of Senators.
If we don't believe in majority rule, we can always revert to Ancient Rome.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It allows those in the majority to avoid being accountable to voters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Right now, you have to get 60 votes to break a filibuster. Which means the majority must muster the effort instead of the filibustering minority. That makes it trivially easy to start one but hard to break one. You can trigger one, then fly out of town for fundraising because you don't have to be there to vote to continue it.
Instead, require 40 votes to maintain a filibuster. Those votes can be taken any time the Senate is in session. That forces the filibustering minority to put forth the effort to keep it going.
samsingh
(18,426 posts)xocet
(4,442 posts)
meow2u3
(25,250 posts)If we have rethug-run government with a rethug president, they'll ram through one piece of oppressive legislation after another without any chance of Dems blocking bad bills.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... done it without his prior blessing they might have taken some heat. Now they can do it with impunity.
Another betrayal.
djnicadress
(39 posts)The minority has to have some way to stop the majority so we need keep the Filibuster but needs be like the old days if you really want to stop something you get up and talk.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Please see Replies 40 and 44.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)In every viable democracy, there must be a way for the minority, or discrete groups of people, to ask for redress.
merrily
(45,251 posts)That happens after the majority gets something unfair done. Before something unfair is done, no need for redress arises.
The 60 vote rule is about the minority thwarting or blocking the legitimate will of the majority so that nothing much gets done--which suits conservatives just fine---and about making sure neither Republicans nor Democrats have to be accountable to voters. See also Replies 40 and 44.
The minority asking for redress re: Prop 8 was a lawsuit under the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That is how, in the US, minorities get redress against the unfair will of the majority.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... which is why it is more of a Senate issue and not an issue in the House, where representation arguably (without gerrymandering of course) has the number of representatives more closely represent the population segments and viewpoints of the country.
When you had a Republican majority with small states like Wyoming having more representation in terms of votes than those in the minority from states like California and New York, then it is possible for a slim majority of a party in the Senate to represent far less of the population than the minority members of the Senate, and therefore for a majority to impose minority agenda over a majority of Americans' will. The argument for the filibuster then was to allow for a minority in these cases to keep the majority from being too powerful in some instances. This of course was mostly the case for a Democratic minority and Republican majority, as I don't think it would be very possible for the Democrats to have a majority of senators and not have all of their senators represent a collective majority of citizens like the Republicans could with a lot of small states like Wyoming, etc.
Therefore a filibuster is in effect a choice to keep a minority majority from passing bad legislation when Republicans have the majority, whereas a filibuster also enables an even smaller population representing minority to block a much more arguably majority population representing majority like the Democrats that we've experienced before this year's election and keep anything from getting done.
So would we rather an extreme of have good stuff representing most American's will from being done, or having an extreme of a lot of bad stuff representing a minority of American's will from being done. That is in effect the choice when you say you are for or against the filibuster.
If there is a time when the filibuster's original intent is applicable, it would be NOW, when the majority of Americans in America are NOT represented by a majority in the Senate as they have through the rest of the Obama's administration.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/02/let_the_majority_rule.html
If the Democrats do this filibuster, they those that do the filibuster, if they can show that those doing the filibuster represent collectively a set of states that represent a majority of the population, they should make that a MAJOR POINT of their vocal arguments on camera on CSPAN, which Republicans will NEVER be able to do, and which will help make the case of why they are representing the American people in carrying out a filibuster too.
merrily
(45,251 posts)First, let's understand: Filibustering--Senators bloviating--is not the problem. Requiring sixty votes--or any supermajority-- to end a filibuster, more than 51 votes for cloture, is the problem. The faux filibuster rule compounds the problem created by the super majority cloture vote rule. Neither was contemplated by the Constitution.
Whatever the inequity of giving each of California and Texas the same number of Senators as Rhode Island, that inequity was built into the Constitution, which was ratified by a supermajority of states. Only a majority of Senators had to approve of the super majority rules.
The House is the Constitutional check on the issue you raised--of lesser populated states dictating to the more populated states. The House is based on population (and also on gerrymandering, but that is another story.) No bill is going to pass unless the population-based House passes it. The House itself makes sure that a bunch of states with small populations do not run rough shod over a majority of people.
What the cloture rule does is ensure that a minority of Senators can thwart the will of both the House (population) AND a majority of Senators (states).
ETA: Some historical minutiae: The first Senate under the Constitution convened in 1789. The first filibuster did not occur until 1837. Cloture was not invoked until 1919, to end filibustering of the Treaty of Versailles.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... congress and ultimately to the President's desk.
1) More Americans have collectively voted for Democrats than Republicans in the House, but the Republicans have a majority due to gerry mandering.
2) More Americans have collectively voted for Democrats than Republicans in the Senate, but the Republicans have a majority due to the structure of the senate representing states "equally" and not the population segments in American equally.
3) Obama got elected as our president by Democrats, but due to the corruptive nature of our political system now put in place by Republican judges on the Supreme Court with Citizen's United amongst other things, he will likely work more to represent corruptive money interests in signing TPP favoring legislation that favors the 1% corruptors of this system, rather than the majority of Americans he represents.
In this system, the one place we have where a majority of Americans can have their voice represented in the area of Fast Track Authority and TPP is to have the Senate minority representing a MAJORITY of Americans to filibuster Senate legislation on this. Arguably that usage of the filibuster where that minority represents a MAJORITY of the American populace, is far more justified than the repeated usage of the filibustering by Republicans representing an even SMALLER minority of the American populace when they were in the minority earlier on.
It is almost as if the Republicans intentionally abused the filibuster to condition us to want to get rid of it when they took the majority in the Senate, and Obama is getting paid by these 1% money people to facilitate that happening.
We need to say NO now, and hopefully when more of the truth gets out to the American people on this mess, then even if the filibuster efforts can't be sustained, and later we see the heavy damage that is wreaked on us by the TPP, the American people will remember that there were those who tried to stop it in the Senate, and that they deserve more power in 2016.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And the problem with TPP is that you have both political parties backing it, including a Democratic President. As I have posted elsewhere on this thread, I have long opposed the supermajority requirements. However, this is the worst possible timing in the last six years for Obama to propose getting rid of it.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Down the road, I could see looking at updating the process for a filibuster to have it be more about allowing a minority to get face time to have a longer period of time to have their viewpoints be made public and heard by the voting populace, so that they can make their case to voters, and champion them to call other senators not part of the filibuster to change their votes to support the minority. Arguably that is far more useful, when that filibuster by a minority of senators represents a majority of American opinions, which I think especially in the case of TPP, if the word can get out more and more, a lot of public pressure can be applied to senators to counteract them money being spent trying to buy their votes to pass Fast Track and TPP now.
I liked the proposals my Senator Jeff Merkley had been proposing in previous Senate rule sessions, that would have limited the filibuster, but preserved a period so that a minority that truly wanted more public airing of minority opinions would still have a better platform to do so. I think Merkley could help lead the filibuster in this instance, and point out how it should be properly used to represent what American citizens would want passed. I also think he could help us if we put a lot of pressure on his fellow Senator Wyden in getting Wyden to back off the negotiations for updating Fast Track bill, which should be just avoided altogether.
As I have noted in the past, there's ways that Oregonians and those outside of Oregon can help us is to call Wyden's offices and remind him that the Oregon Democratic Party already had issued a platform resolution AGAINST any negotiation for doing Fast Track Authority legislation back in August of 2013. Read that resolution here.
http://www.dpo.org/party/business/resolutions/2013-060
We need to look at the big picture and realize that this Fast Track Authority is about to jeopardize our political system itself, and stopping it in any way possible now, even with a filibuster rule that might not yet be perfect for us all, is in the big picture the most important priority we should have now.
merrily
(45,251 posts)In my opinion, that just doesn't happen. There was so much public support for a public option, but it was ignored. So much public opposition to the invasion of Iraq and that also got ignored.
And TPP has so many companies and such big money backing it. Also a Democratic President running interference for it, ala Clinton with repeal of Glass Steagall and NAFTA.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)You had a lot larger groundswell of people looking even further to the left for communist or other socialist representation then.
We need that kind of movement now, and if we can get more of that together, that is what could start getting Senators more concerned about votes than campaign money, if they see a movement that isn't as easily manipulated by corporate media any more.
The Senate is the tool with the filibuster now... We the people are the means to speak up now to stop too much of it from being sold out. I'm not saying we'll win this time, and you KNOW that is why they are pushing Fast Track Authority now, so that a movement won't be better organized later if they delay their efforts to pass it later. The quicker we move and start opposition to this, the more effective we'll be in preserving our democracy. If we give up now, we might as well say good by to the whole concept of small d democracy. It will be substantively GONE.
If we move and can be effective in organizing a filibuster, that Elizabeth Warren already looks to start being a part of, that could also catapult her in to running for 2016. That would be perhaps the movement moment that could make a difference. And then mobilizing around a filibuster effort will serve an even greater purpose in helping revitalizing the Democratic Party for 2016.
Truthteller3562
(11 posts)"1) More Americans have collectively voted for Democrats than Republicans in the House, but the Republicans have a majority due to gerry mandering. "
Not sure what idiot told you that but here are the accurate numbers.
The number of votes received by each party for U.S. House in the November 4, 2014 election:
Republican 39,679,791
Democratic 35,450,701
Libertarian 965,396
Working Families 249,112
Green 246,567
Constitution 61,271
other parties 548,720
independent candidates 676,463
http://www.ballot-access.org/2014/12/national-totals-for-each-party-for-u-s-house-november-2014-election/
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Not all House and Senate seats were up in 2014.
Truthteller3562
(11 posts)The poster did say "in the House". And yes, every seat in the house was up in 2014.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)...
It can be a bit difficult to tally up the popular vote in House elections because you have to go ballot by ballot, and many incumbents run unopposed. But The Washington Post's Dan Keating did the work and found that Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. That's a close election -- 48.8%-48.5% --but it's still a popular vote win for the Democrats. Those precise numbers might change a bit as the count finalizes, but the tally isn't likely to flip.
...
Truthteller3562
(11 posts)You didn't specify a year. But since the entire house is elected every two years, I just assumed that you meant the current house. Not sure what discussing the old house in context of current events accomplishes but I concede you didn't say what year.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... as well that looks like it affected numbers quite a bit as well. Probably a lot due to it not being a presidential year, but also due to disappointment that Dems votes haven't been counting as much as Republicans have either. Given that Dems did turn out more voters for House elections when the turnout was high but still didn't vote in a majority, it seems one more area where the split of representation in the House is also just as unrepresentative of the citizens as the Senate is.
I still argue that a talking filibuster IS a valuable part of our system today that allows the views of a majority of Americans represented by minorities in congressional bodies to be heard, and shouldn't be discouraged now.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Obama is getting worried his POC trade bill will die quickly.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)it puts McDipshit in a bind to agree with Obama or not.
merrily
(45,251 posts)They didn't want him to get credit for anything before. With their huge majority, it will be easy for them to take credit for anything he does not veto--and he has no say on Senate rules.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)
forest444
(5,902 posts)Where was this crowd when everyone in the Progressive spectrum - from MoveOn to right here in DU - was calling for Filibuster reform in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 - back when it mattered!!!
Talk about fast learners! McCocaine must be getting a big, double-chin jiggling laugh out of this.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)to require real filibusters, where they have to stand and talk and talk. If that were required, and the media covered it properly, than the true obstructionism of the Republicans these last few years would have been much more obvious. Instead, we have what amounts to a phony filibuster system, where somehow 60 votes is the new majority needed to pass legislation, rather than the 51 which is the actual simple majority of votes.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)majority, which is 51 votes if all 100 senators are present. What takes 60 votes is to shoot down a phony filibuster. No one ever stands up and does a genuine filibuster, which is what I'd like to see return. The problem isn't whether or not Obama will veto awful bills, but the fact that good ones have not gotten passed in recent years because of the idiocy of how the filibuster is used.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)If Congress is not sitting when the 10 days expires, and the bill is not returned to the Congress by the President as approved, then the bill is automatically vetoed, the "pocket veto".
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)I will repeat: It really only takes 51 votes (assuming all senators are present) to pass a law there. Unfortunately, the phony filibuster bullshit means that since practically every single bill proposed by Democrats is faced with the threat of a filibuster, then 60 votes are needed to override. I really, really wish we'd go back to the original filibuster, where a person blocking legislation actually had to stand up and speak. And speak. For hours and hours.
I'm actually old enough to remember vaguely when these things actually happened, although I don't recall any details about them.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The nation needs government and it needs to know who is responsible for which laws.
Omaha Steve
(109,232 posts)I even gave a speech in front of the Federal Court House in Omaha. The link to hear the speech is dead. Wish I had a copy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3205361
adieu
(1,009 posts)Several things:
1. The filibuster is mis-used. When the GOP was the minority, there were not enough people to push for filibuster reform (or removal).
2. And doing so then would look like the Democrats were trying to consolidate power.
3. Democrats are now the minority and if they advocate for filibuster, the GOP just may go with it, and if not, the GOP would look like they don't believe in their need to end filibuster during their (most likely brief) period of power.
4. Any legislation passed through Congress that might have been filibustered and reaching Obama's desk will be vetoed, so Obama has the Senate's back. If a law passed with 56-44 with 44 Democratic senators voting no, Obama can kill it with a veto and when the legislation returns to Congress, it will die in the Senate because now, it will require a larger number to pass.
5. And when the Democrats return to Senate power in 2016, filibuster would be dead, and regardless of who will be in the White House, the GOP can't use the filibuster to stall important legislation.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Do you think most of America really knows about and understands the cloture rule?
And, if they do, do you think most Americans approve of gridlock?
And should whether something makes Democrats look bad really be a standard for allowing gridlock for 6 years more than it had to exist?
As for the Republicans, they understand majority control in the Senate is cyclical. If they vote for it now, they would have voted for it six years ago.
Given gerrymandering and how much incumbents are favored in elections, it's highly unlikely that control of Congress will revert to Democrats in 20116,
The strategy behind this timing seems to have much more to do with fast tracking TPP through the Senate than anything else.
adieu
(1,009 posts)Senatorial races. What will happen is that, in their desperation to try and deflate Obama, the GOP will pass more and more ridiculous laws. By not having a filibuster to rein them in, the public will see how crazy they are. Those legislation will not die in committees but will be shown to the country and the world. Obama can then white knight himself as the sole person to stop the crazy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Obama during the next two years. At this point, they are concerned with their own agendas and with the 2016 Presidential. If anything, Obama now needs to be concerned with thwarting them, via the veto.
It was their 56th Repeal Obamacare legislation. And 4 or 5 different abortion-related legislation.
merrily
(45,251 posts)repeals are DC kabuki. They know with 100% certainty that Democrats in the Senate will block repeal. I think some Republican Senators have even voted against repeal.
I don't know why you think anti-choice legislation is about Obama. They've opposed Roe v. Wade since it was decided. They've enact as much anti-choice legislative in every state legislature they can manage .
Both the feints at repeal and the anti-choice legislation is about their base.
While they were in the minority, in even once house, they were going to do their best to prevent a Democratic administration from accomplishing anything for which voters, especially their base, would be grateful. (Kennedy said he did the same when Nixon wanted his help in passing health care legislation.) Thwarting not only Obama but House and Senate Democrats was their goal, so that people would think again about the victories they'd given Democrats in 2006 and 2008.
However, now that they have such strong majorities in both houses (as well as in many states), they have to do their best to ensure they lose as little ground as they can manage. And also to try to ensure that one of their guys has a shot at the White House in 2016, which would put them in a position similar to the one Democrats enjoyed in 2009. Obama, meanwhile, will never run for office again, unless he pulls a John Quincy Adams, which I really don't see happening. Obama per se is no political threat to them. Their remarkable success in the elections of 2010 and 2014 proved tha and, as I said, he will not be running for office again. So, yes, I really believe that:
IMO, the GOP will not focus on Obama during the next two years. At this point, they are concerned with their own agendas and with the 2016 Presidential. If anything, Obama now needs to be concerned with thwarting them, via the veto.
That is my opinion. You may have a different one, but I don't think my analysis is far-fetched.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)"Any legislation passed through Congress that might have been filibustered and reaching Obama's desk will be vetoed, so Obama has the Senate's back."
And this includes the TPP, Social Security reform and who knows what legislation they'll come up with that increases Wall Street's ability to screw the middle class?
Obama's Presidency simply doesn't warrant this kind of faith.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)And it's not Obama's job to do. It doesn't matter when he says it. It is up to the Senate.
merrily
(45,251 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... which traditionally our constitution and rules around it want a super majority to be in place before passing sweeping legislation like the TPP would be that would really change our system in so many fundamental ways that would be hard to undo.
So, arguably, the filibuster in the case of Fast Track Authority, is a 40% minority's way of saying that at least we should have a 60% majority of support for a treaty bill like the TPP, when our constitution in effect wants 67% support for it by congress if Fast Track Authority isn't passed, not even looking at what gets vetoed or doesn't get vetoed.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)whose side is he on? In my opinion he's on the side of the 1% and the multinational corporations, and the timng of these remarks is one more piece of supporting evidence.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)looking out 23 months.
I predict that Pres.Obama's
greatest accomplishment during that time
will be the veto of the KeystoneXL pipeline.
unless he helps get rid
of the filibuster, which in my opinion,
would be helpful for gov't operation
trof
(54,274 posts)Never happen.
Both sides have too much to lose.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Would be just so...Third Way.
Time to empower that frustrated GOP majority,
so they won't be mad at the Democrats.
Gosh, we can't risk that.
INdemo
(7,024 posts)Democrats had control? Republicans would like this and then when Democrats took control again they would want to change it back
ck4829
(37,761 posts)If you want to block movement of a bill, just keep talking, that will separate the real politicians from those who got in only because of money or connections.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)In the meantime as long as the Republicans are in charge, the last thing they want is a talking filibuster. That empowers the Democrats that much more, whether they are in the minority or the majority, as a talking filibuster would enable a Democratic Minority to appeal to a majority of Americans that sympathize with them, but a talking filibuster for Republicans as a minority would force them to try to verbally rationalize their crappy blockages when not many Americans would support them.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)the filibuster as much as he wants for whatever reasons.
1) He cannot make the rules of the Senate
2) If the Senate decides to do it,it will not happen during
his Presidency, because the rules can only be changed right
after a new congress has been elected- as far as I know.
Thus it is too late now to change it with less than 60 votes.
Should a Repug get the White House in 2016, then we may
see the filibuster disappear, if they have 51 or 52(R)
senators.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)The problem, as it has been for quite some time, is that filibusters are no longer real.
If a senator wants to filibuster, he should have that right, but he should also be required to stand and talk.
unblock
(56,198 posts)the headline is extremely misleading on this point.
obama was talking about *limiting* the use of the filibuster, changing it so that its usage would go back to what it once was, a tool for the minority to use in exceptional circumstances when they felt very strongly about something.
the thing he calls for the "elimination" of is *routine use* of the filibuster, not *all use* of it.