Why Democrats are pushing a series of bills doomed to fail

[Gibberish]

Democrats have put three hot-button issues atop their agenda this week – 'don't ask, don't tell,' immigration reform, and campaign finance reform. They likely won't pass a thing on any of them. But they aren't too worried by that.

"The only plausible answer is that this is symbolic politics aimed at sending messages to voters rather than legislating,” says Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at Princeton University in New Jersey.

Why Democrats are pushing a series of bills doomed to fail - CSMonitor.com

This is exactly why Democrats are pushing these bills they know full well won't pass. It's horrible horrible politics, a waste of time and tax payers money and they should all lose their positions because of it.

I'm tired of politicians from both sides of the aisles carrying more about holding onto their position of power rather then doing their job, or the best they can do, and letting the votes decide their fate based on that. If you, as a politician, did everything you thought was right and work as hard as you could and the voters still voted you out, you weren't the right person for the job. Just accept it and move on.

 

[MaggieD]

Why Democrats are pushing a series of bills doomed to fail - CSMonitor.com Just accept it and move on.

Well, that'll never happen. Don'tcha' get it? These senators and representatives are power whores. They may come to their positions as Mr. Smith goes to Washington, but after they've been in their chairs for a while, they turn into Nancy Pelosi. These people will do anything to stay in power. It's an addiction.

 

[The Uncola]

Why Democrats are pushing a series of bills doomed to fail - CSMonitor.com

This is exactly why Democrats are pushing these bills they know full well won't pass. It's horrible horrible politics, a waste of time and tax payers money and they should all lose their positions because of it.

I'm tired of politicians from both sides of the aisles carrying more about holding onto their position of power rather then doing their job, or the best they can do, and letting the votes decide their fate based on that. If you, as a politician, did everything you thought was right and work as hard as you could and the voters still voted you out, you weren't the right person for the job. Just accept it and move on.

Alrighty then, how's 'bout you righties quit using a procedural grand stand for your particular brand of politicking and bring these issues to a vote?


Hmmmm?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservative.

 

[Gibberish]

Alrighty then, how's 'bout you righties quit using a procedural grand stand for your particular brand of politicking and bring these issues to a vote?


Hmmmm?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservative.

I'm a "rightie" now? Ok...

Democrats used the "procedural grand stand" last time they were the minority that you are calling republicians out for now. Does that make it right? No. But it does point out the this type of "politicking" is status quo for which ever political party happens to not be in the majority party. Since they don't have the votes they need to get the voters to weigh in with their hopefully now tailored opinions.

Be careful who you call a hypocrite.

 

[The Uncola]

I'm a "rightie" now? Ok...

Democrats used the "procedural grand stand" last time they were the minority that you are calling republicians out for now. Does that make it right? No. But it does point out the this type of "politicking" is status quo for which ever political party happens to not be in the majority party. Since they don't have the votes they need to get the voters to weigh in with their hopefully now tailored opinions.

Be careful who you call a hypocrite.

Nonsense. Regressives have set all time records for using filibusters to stop legislation. Save your spiel for the true believers, back here on Planet Earth we've watched with our own eyes and heard it with our own ears.

 

[RightinNYC]

Why Democrats are pushing a series of bills doomed to fail - CSMonitor.com

This is exactly why Democrats are pushing these bills they know full well won't pass. It's horrible horrible politics, a waste of time and tax payers money and they should all lose their positions because of it.

I'm tired of politicians from both sides of the aisles carrying more about holding onto their position of power rather then doing their job, or the best they can do, and letting the votes decide their fate based on that. If you, as a politician, did everything you thought was right and work as hard as you could and the voters still voted you out, you weren't the right person for the job. Just accept it and move on.

Bringing up legislation to force tough votes despite knowing that it will fail is a time honored tradition. It's annoying, but not that out of line.

Nonsense. Regressives have set all time records for using filibusters to stop legislation. Save your spiel for the true believers, back here on Planet Earth we've watched with our own eyes and heard it with our own ears.

As has been pointed out several times before, those statistics are meaningless in a vacuum. The activity in the OP is a perfect example of why.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...urb-insurers-rate-hikes-2.html#post1058583292

You can't draw conclusions like this based on something as simple as the number of cloture votes.

In addition, it's pointless to use the number of cloture votes in an attempt to draw any conclusions about the changing perception/use of the filibuster over time. First, the number of votes needed for cloture was 67 until 1975 when it was reduced to 60. Second, the reason the number has fluctuated so wildly in recent years is because whether or not something counts as a technical filibuster depends on whether a Senator brings something up for a procedural vote. Since 99% of the time everyone knows how the vote will turn out, Senators don't make cloture motions that they know will be doomed to failure unless they're doing so for political reasons.

Think about it - if you were part of the majority and wanted to paint the minority as "obstructionist" in order to score political points, what would you do? You'd take a few dozen bills that you know would never win a cloture vote and bring cloture motions on all of them. They all fail, and BOOM! You've got a ready-made headline: "Obstructionist Minority Filibusters Record Number of Bills."

The purpose of the filibuster is to prevent Congress from enacting controversial bills via slight majorities in both houses. The purpose remains the same whether it's used once or a thousand times. Obama et al. had no problem with it when they were the ones benefiting.

Eyes and ears are useless if you don't use the other organ in the head to consider what those sights and sounds mean.