First impeachment is off the table, now filibuster too?

Do you call this governing? First impeachment is off the table, now filibuster too? From a recent New York Times editorial, In Search of a Congress:

“We support the filibuster as the only way to ensure a minority in the Senate can be heard. When the cloture votes failed this week, the Democrats should have let the Republicans filibuster. Democratic leaders think that’s too risky, since Congress could look like it’s not doing anything. But it’s not doing a lot now.”

It’s not like they actually brought a piece of legislation to a vote. I totally agree with the Times that the Democrats should call the Republican bluff. I would love a filibuster on the subject of this so-called war on terror. I’ll bet it wouldn’t last a week. The majority is against this war, the people are against this war.

Can you really imagine all the bushdog Democrats and all the lapdog Republicans spouting their lame support for the war, for days on end. Only four votes out of fortyfour need to switch to force a vote and really start to wind down this war. If the Democratic leadership in the Senate does not allow filibuster, then logically they plan to allow this war to continue without end, and they plan to ignore/defy the will of the people.

This so-called leadership will say that filibuster is too risky, a waste of time, there will be a veto anyway. What they’re really saying, is that they would rather defy the will of the people then defy this poor excuse for a president and his corrupt administration.

Democrats in Congress are so risk averse, they can’t even see the possibility of real rewards. A bit of wishful thinking perhaps. Can you imagine if these Democrats actually helped bring a war to an end, restore Habeus Corpus, restore the rule of law, restore the balance of power, restore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Can you imagine the goodwill of the people towards the Congress? Well, maybe not, but it would be a hell of a good start.


4 Responses to First impeachment is off the table, now filibuster too?

  1. Alma Evans says:

    Make the Pugs stand up and fillibuster everytime. Expose them for who they are, do not protect their faces.

  2. kip says:

    The primary objective is to end the Iraq War for Oil. Politicians reach their goals by compromise. That’s just how it works, whether we like it or not. Our best shot at accomplishing anything was the Webb Amendment. We just don’t have the stinking votes. Therefore whatever we do will be considered a failure. Bush has put us in a no-win situation. Bad for democrats, even worse for America.

  3. A.Citizen says:

    Funny, I didn’t see the Republicans compromising on anything here.

    Just the Democrats….

    Or at least those who call themselves such. The winds of change are building and soon, very soon will be blowing everyone who did not try to stop this war….

    Out the door.

  4. mano says:

    Couldn’t agree more. Since when do we let the mere threat of a fillibuster control? The dems set the rules that 60 votes were needed? Why not just lay down in advance cuz that’s what they did.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: