There is nothing "hysterical" about blaming Republicans when the president goes out on the stump, at taxpayer expense, and bashes congress. I pointed out and documented this in post #44.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=232404

This is picking a fight, not trying to cooperate and find common ground.

You have yet to do any research to counter post #44.

Freedom of speech and all aside, we are talking about the lack of activity in congress. Whether or not Bush bashes congress or not doesn't excuse our elected officials from doing nothing all year. Your smoke and mirrors are not going to change the fact that congress has gotten little to nothing done this year.


Rep my party? What the hell does that mean? I have blamed them all long. It is interesting that this thread has gone from pointing out that congress has gotten little done this year to another Bush bashing session and blame the republicans and virtually everyone has given the democrats a pass on this. I need a roll of duct tape before my head explodes!

You, scubatim, are failing to recognize that because of the paper thin majority in the United States Senate, the lack of 60 votes to stop a filibuster and the necessity of getting two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto, we have gridlock in Washington.

You still aren’t providing anything to back up your claims.

I did mention an increase in the minimum wage and you called that “nothing.”

Ok, I don't know how much clearer I can make this, but I will try one more time. I hope everyone is paying close attention because this will be the last time I point this out.

THE REPUBLICANS ARE USING THE LEGAL MEANS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO SLOW SOME (13 ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION PROVEDED BY ANOTHER POSTER) LEGISLATION. PRESIDENT BUSH HAS SIGNED ALL BUT 9 BILLS INTO LAW THIS YEAR (ROUGHLY 94% OF ALL BILLS BECAME LAW) THE DEMOCRATS ARE RETURNING SOME BILLS WITH LITTLE CHANGE TO THE PRESIDENT THAT THEY KNOW WILL BE VETOED FOR A SECOND TIME (see SCHIP) EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO OVERRIDE THE VETO. BUSH HAS FINALLY SOUND HIS FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, WHICH IS SLOWING THINGS DOWN. ALL THREE ARE TO BLAME. ALL THREE AREAS HAVE SOME BLAME TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR. BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES IN CONGRESS ARE DOING THEIR PART TO SLOW PROGRESS DOWN FOR POLITICAL GAIN. EACH SIDE THINKS THEIR ACTIONS WILL GARNER MORE VOTES NEXT YEAR. NEITHER SIDE IS DOING THIS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF AMERICA, BUT FOR BETTERMENT OF THEIR POLITICAL CAREER. THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE TERM LIMITS IN CONGRESS.

If you want the sources for my claims, go back through the thread and find them. I did my homework once, I won't do it again for you.

And yes, feel good laws such as the minimum wage hike which hurts small business more than it helps society, I think is nothing, but that is for another thread.

Have you read the survival guide about all capital letters being considered shouting on the internet.



http://www.americasdebate.com/?page=rules



You did your homework to show That congress hasn’t done much. I’ll grant that. You haven’t, however, refuted anything Lesly, nighttimer or I have presented to indicated why they haven’t done much.


You asked for something congress had done. I mentioned being able to break the gridlock to pass the minimum wage bill, which Bush signed. You asked for something, you got something and ignored it the first time. I didn’t provide any commentary on whether or not it was good legislation. You are right on this point. The question of whether or not the minimum wage law was a good thing is for another debate.

Yep, I knew that, but that is the third or fourth time I posted that information. It seems that it had to be in all caps and in bold to get the point accross. Maybe people will read it this time.....


Why would I do homework to refute something that I have not said is wrong? At what point have I said that the facts shared by you or Lesly were wrong? Why would I have to refute those points if I haven't said that they are wrong. This is exactly what I have been saying all along. I blame the republicans as well as the democrats. You and Lesly have only pointed to the things the republicans have done wrong and dragged the president into it, but have yet to assign any blame with the democrats. Then you come back and expect me to defend the republicans and refute your information. I don't know what I am supposed to refute, it seems to me that the two of you are defending the democrats and only want to blame republicans. This is why I have had to put my last post in all caps.


I did respond to your big minimum wage victory. I don't know how to link specific posts, so I will tell you that in post number 4 of this thread you will find this quote from me:

You may have overlooked that part of the post, so I decided to bring it to your attention.

Why are my posts getting lumped with others' posts? Not that I've been paying close attention to other posts (sorry BoF), but I damn well know I've only mentioned Bush in passing, as an example, and haven't dragged him into anything. Haven't said one damn thing about vetoes, which is pretty much all he can do to block legislation. If you want to prove I have besmirched your knight in shining armor go back and quote me directly, bub. C'mon. I double triple dare you.

And for the third time I have assigned blame to the Democrats. Sorry if I can't get specific right now and respond to your last post addressed to me. Got stuff to do, but are you gonna keep forgetting everything I say in the meantime? Yeesh.

Not the GOP in general with me, just bush really and his crowd. I don’t mean to be so blunt on the point but that’s my stance with everything basically. I still remember the footage with the school kids, the blank stare which became a blank check for whatever anymore. What is shocking to me is people that would basically deny any responsibility of anything to bush, even when its shown how much he and his cronies have lied about major issues, ones even leading up to a war. I find it even more funny that a president could like about something like sex, people would demand and impeachment and then these same people would basically hail a hero for the same behavior that has lead to the deaths of so many people. I mean at that point you have to develop a sense of humor because anything rational does not work anymore, you have just stepped into the twilight zone.

I was talking about your post #12.

You grudgingly mentioned minimum wage in post #4, but you didn’t respond to my bringing it up until post #12. Your response then was “So, nothing then.”



Post # 12

I’ve come to the conclusion, scubatim, that you aren’t really interested in debating much of anything. You seem more interested in affirmation. You correctly demonstrate that congress hasn’t done much. Several of us have stated, in one way or another, that both parties share part of the blame. The only thing left to address is why so little has been done. Much of that involves gridlock – something that at times is inherent when different parties control different branches of government.

If all you want us to do is shout - all caps, of course – ”scubatim is right, congress hasn’t done much,” then, we don’t have very much left to debate.

Rep= represent?

Of course the Dems have a "pass" on this- it is quite frankly republican stonewalling that has forced this situation- it is plain as day.

Now, let's revist this in 2009, and if the dems have a veto proof majority and a dem prez, and still are performing in the same manner- I will be the first one to call them bad names, mmkay? But at this point, sure, dems get a full "pass".

I appologize if you feel that I have some how tainted your precious name by grouping you with BoF, but I was responding to him grouping you up with him and nighttimer. Maybe you should pay closer attention before responding, but you debate how you want. I like how you take a single part of a sentence to rip me apart. Very thorough


Really, you have assigned blame to the democrats? I found this:

But that comes accross more as a statement that points out that they should have continued to introduce legislation that they knew would have been vetoed without the votes to over ride. Help me understand. It really appears that you think the democrats should continue playing politics with out tax dollars instead of leading congress. Like I said, help me understand.

Oh, yeah. Here is a productive quote from Lesly:

No blame assigned here, just attacking Aquilla.

Another post from Lesly:

Here you justify democratic filibuster, but I don't see where you blame anyone.

Here is another Lesly quote blaming the republicans, but not the democrats:

Again, here is where I was told to do some leg work to defend the republicans, when I was blaming them all along! It appears some people don't read posts, they just attack the opposition blindly.




Plain as day to you, but I don't see that by resubmitting bills that have few changes in them to the president so he can veto them again without the votes to over ride is a political game, not being productive. The democrats don't get a pass in all of this.


Ok, so if you want to stick with the simple explination of gridlock, what can everyone involved do to fix this gridlock?

Why do they re-submit these bills dude? The main one is the Iraqi war funds- the GW regime accepts no compromise here, and so, the dems get a pass here- they were essentially elected and swept into power to end this war- everything else is a bit part in this entire debate. Yes, they should keep re-submitting these bills, just as they are, so we all can assign blame to the repubs for not figuring out how lame a boss they have.

Until they get the power they need to do what they need to do- they will continue to get a "pass" and appropriately as well. Right now, they are a squeeker minority, and they can only highlight what they want to do by re-submitting the bills over and over- to allow the public to figure out who is to blame.

And I blame them for the lack of productivity because compromise at this point is simply defined as allowing the democrats to decide the law. Now that the violence in Iraq is falling, the democrats position is becoming less popular.

What about the other bills that I pointed out ie: SCHIP?

So the Democrats were "swept into power" to end the war were they? But, they don't have power to do that? Really? Who is holding a gun to their head to force them to fund the war? They could cut off funding tomorrow and there is nothing the President or the Republicans in Congress could do about that. After all, dude, since you claim they were elected to stop the war, that would be a pretty smart thing for them to do wouldn't it dude?

So, why haven't they done that?


Aquilla

SCHIP doesn’t provide much of an argument for you.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/18/schip/index.html

While, the U. S. House of Representqtives was unable to override Bush’s veto, the attempt did have considerable support.

Shortly after the house failed to override Bush veto on the SCHIP bill, Senators Orin Hatch of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, both Republicans, issued joint statements on Senator Hatch’s webpage.

Sen. [Orrin] Hatch’s comment:


Sen. [Chuck] Grassley’s comment:


http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseActi...Release_id=1933

Now a new version has passed congress with bipartisan support, but apparently not enough to override a Bush veto.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6678.html


Given the information above on SCHIP, where else does responsibility for gridlock – obstruction - lie other than Bush’s veto?

This post is not to debate the merits of SCHIP. We did that here. You are a day late and a dollar short.

Ok, let's not talk about SCHIP, let's talk about gridlock in the context of SCHIP since nobody on the left hand side wants to talk about Ole Mr Nosehair and his merry band of investigators......
From Politico we have the following.....




The problem with the Democrats' so-called "two way street" is that both lanes have to go their way.


Aquilla

Aquilla, the problem with your information is that it is dated before Bush actually vetoed the SCHIP bill. My information came in the aftermath of that veto and included words from two prominent Republicans.

As the late Justin Wilson used to say, feel free to “continue yourself” about Rep. Henry Waxman, derogatory name and all. Again you can do better than the “Nosehair” bit. I know you can.

BTW: There are some of us who think Bush wants all traffic going in his direction.

At long last, a question worth answering! Finally!!!

You wanna break the gridlock in Washington? Here's my suggestion: First, let's send Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner all together in a room with some bottled water, Red Bull, a sixpack of beer , a good California wine, a couple of liters of Diet Coke and a couple of pizzas and lock 'em in there until they work out an action plan they all can agree upon (we'll allow them bathroom breaks and a change of underwear, but that's it).

When they finally emerge, unshaven and slightly pungent, they will step before the microphones and cameras of an awaiting press corps and announce they have come up with a new Contract for America (I didn't like the original Contract for America, but as a public relations tactic it was utterly brilliant!). There will only be ten items in the contract. Five proposed by the Democrats and five proposed by the Republicans. They will sit down with President Bush, negotiate their differences and bring the finished product to the Senate and House for an up-or-down vote. No amendments. No lobbyists. No pork.

What would the ten proposals be? Beats the hell out of me, but my definition of a good deal is when neither side gets everything they want but everybody gets something that they want.

Oh, and any Senator or Representative that has been in Congress longer than 20 years must resign or retire. Career professional politicians are a blight upon a democracy and the Founding Fathers never intended governmental service to be a lifetime gig. Let 'em come back to the real world and scuffle for awhile. Everybody won't be hired to be a K-Street lobbyist.

That's my suggestion on how to unlock the gridlock.

President Bush had already indicated that he'd veto that bill and rather than attempt to reach a compromise with him (he is the President after all), the Democrats in Congress instead went ahead and rammed it through Congress. They knew he'd veto it, they knew why and they went ahead anyway. Some "two way" street. As far as Hatch and Grassley's statements are concerned, so what? The GOP is after all the party of the "big tent".






Oh, I can do much better with Porky Waxman, just haven't gotten a round to it yet. When I do, you'll be among the first to know.

Aquilla

Day late and a dollar short? Haha. You got me there! I am not debating the merits of the SCHIP. Bringing that bill back to life knowing that it will get the veto and not having the votes is a political game and a waste of money and time.

So what you are saying now is that the majority of the gridlock is in the veto pen on the president's desk? I thought it was the republicans in congress? The SCHIP doesn't provide much argument? Seriously? I think it is exactly what I am talking about. Congress knows that the SCHIP bill is going to get the veto, and they also know that they don't have the votes to over-ride that veto. Why waste the time and tax dollars to put together a bill that is dead before it is even written? I don't care which republican senators or representatives you can find quotes from. Yeah for you. That doesn't sway my opinion on the bill or the fact that it is being reintroduced to the president as a dead bill. That is a waste of time and money. Why not focus time and effort on issues that are equally important such as immigration, the war on terror, tax reform, education etc.?


nighttimer, I just tasted my breakfast for the second time; you and I agree for the most part on something. I feel all creepy!

Seriously, this quote illustrates your point exactly:

Another solution, a more long term solution would be to get rid of this two party system. No one would have a majority and everyone would have to compromise with everyone. By limiting the number of years people can serve their country at this level and allowing more than two points of view, our government could be much more productive and efficient.

I don’t have much time today, but I may post a couple of times.


It seems there is some bipartisan cooperation among congressional Democrats and Republicans. Although it is a cliché, Bush is the “fly-in-the-ointment." Just because he still has about fourteen months in office, doesn’t make him any less arrogant, pigheaded or still the my-way-or-the-highway president we've come to love. Bush says he wants to compromise, but how serious is he about moving off his position. I think congress should keep tweaking the bill until they get the votes to override Bush. Seeing that now less frequent smirk on his face or swagger in his walk decreased even more would be worth the price of admission. With each veto, Bush gets to be the bad guy. I want Bush humiliated. He’s long overdue.


How do we get rid of the two party system? We can do that anytime enough people vote for a third party candidate. During my lifetime we’ve had a
number of third party candidates. Here’s a partial list:

1. Strom Thurmond, 1948 – remember he’s the guy whose 100th birthday bash got Trent Lott’s sorry butt in trouble.
2. George Wallace, 1968
3. John Anderson, 1980
4. H. Ross Perot, 1992 and 1996
5. Ralph Nader, 2000 and 2004

There has also been a Libertarian Party member run in nearly every election. In a Democratic form of government, the only way we can do away with the two party system is for people to vote for third party candidates.

Another possibility would be a constitutional amendment setting up a British type parliamentary system. Woodrow Wilson favored this, as do I.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/portrait/wp_wilson.html

That way, third parties would have a voice. Unless the prime minister had a majority of his/her own party, they would have rely on forming a coalition with another party.

Do I think this would work? Yes! Do I think it will happen any time soon, if ever? No!

...and an excellent suggestion it is, sir! In fact, I'd say that's what they should do at the beginning of every year. But they're more interesting in scoring political points than in actually making progress (*they* being everyone in Congress). Most Americans really don't care, I don't think, whose idea something was...they just want to know if it will work, and if it will help them. Politicians, on the other hand, are concerned almost exclusively with whose idea something is, and would rather burn at the stake than admit that the other side might have an idea worth pursuing. Scoring political points is viewed as far more important than actually doing something. That's why we have the gridlock...both sides are too busy throwing stones at each other to have time to sit down at the table and work things out. We should demand better.

Voting is the solution, however one roadblock is knowledge. I used to think that third parties were the wackos that wanted to overthrow the government. After some research, I found that not only was I wrong, but that I am more alligned with Libertarians with many issues, but also Republicans on others. I guess if you were to have a more accurate lable for my political beliefs, it would be very conservative libertarian. But for the purpose of being able to participate in all aspects of the election process, I am declared as a republican. Libertarians don't have caucuses in Iowa, and have a hard time even getting on the ballot.

But I digress. The lack of knowledge is both the fault of individuals and media. Why is it that in virtually every election in recent history, there has been third party nominees, but only two people at the debates? I am not claiming that the media is liberally biased, so jump off that train before it starts rolling. When the media holds debates, they invite those that spend the most money for ads. Unless anyone can bring evidence otherwise, my only logical conclusion of why we still have a two candidates at most debates for the general elections is money. If we wanted to be fair and have open, honest debates and elections, everyone would get a fair shake to answer questions pertaining to the most current issues of the country. This pretty much shows the world that the White House is for sale every four years. Of course without expanding laws, how do we do this?

I think we agree that one of the biggest issues with the lack of activity in congress is that we only have two groups jockying for political power. One way or another, we need to expand the number of political parties in congress, as well as limit the number of years one can serve in each house of congress. Right now we have a bunch of people wasting tax dollars acting like children.

Obviously, that would take a constitutional amendment. I wouldn’t mind seeing presidents elected for one six year term, but that along with other ideas being floated - like the line-item veto - would have to be via amendment.

The six year term would take reelection politics out of presidential campaigns. I do not favor the line-item veto because it would shift the power from the congress to the executive.

BTW: Before anybody brings it up, I was just as opposed to the line-item veto under Bill Clinton as I am now.

I think we might be moving towards a different thread on the direction this discussion is going with the line-item veto issue and others that need to change. If you know of an existing thread on proposed ammendments, please point me in that direction.

Before the Constitution laid out term limits for presidency, George Washington declared that he didn't want to run for a third term because the office was not to be a monarchy-type position, or a life long service. I think this same theory should be applied to the houses of congress.

Regardless of what Washington said, we didn't get around to limiting presidential terms until Amendment XXII was ratified in February, 1951. Likewise, term limits on members of congress would have to be done by amendment.

I agree, I was just pointing out the fact that one of our Founding Fathers did not believe in career politics as far as the presidency is concerned. We later ensured that through the amendment process.

I got the link for this post from a Politico article Zack posted.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/

It seems it is Bush, not the Democratic congress, who is refusing to compromise. Could this be why so little is getting done? My-way-or-the-high-way Bush is still around.

This thread could just as accurately have been entitled, “Obstructionist Bush.”

Where exactly does this process end, then? This is an example, to me, of exactly what is wrong with how Congress works. One party is content to sit there and put forward legislation solely for the purpose of blaming the other side for obstructing it. Assuming this works, they eventually get more power.... and then the other side starts doing the very same thing. End result? Nothing of importance ever gets done. This is why nothing has been done to address the HUGE issues facing our country (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc). Both sides are content to go down with the ship, so long as they can blare out the other's party blame in the matter on the way down. I'd prefer they work on plugging the leaks, but as long as enough people are satisfied to let them play the blame game, the ship will indeed go down, with each side screaming the other caused it.

Is this the productivity that we expect from our elected officials?

More importantly, what the hell has the 110th congress gotten done this year?



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20071220-1.html


Although he claims not to have a "zero sum" view of life, the totality of Bush's press conference says something different. It's the same old -my-way-or-the-highway crap. I'll be glad when he hits the highway back to Crawford.

It is just as important to answer the why of this question as the what. Much of the problem of nothing getting done involves a pigheaded president. His own words at a press conference this morning (12-20-2007) convict him.

Edited to add:


It seems that this lame duck president is determined to be relevant, even if it's in a negative way.

Meanwhile the Dems came in promising reform and just passed a bill with over 9,000 earmarks slid into it and at the last minuet.

Only Bush kept them from busting the budget and they only grudgingly and at the last minuet gave 23 million a reprieve (for one year) from the AMT.

If they get the White house you can be sure they will NOT do this next year because, as we know, TAX TAX TAX must go with SPEND SPEND SPEND.

The only question is how they will convince the new millions that they will shaft with this tax that they are “rich” and have to PAY PAY PAY.

Funny how all that "budget-busting" wasn't a problem until the Dems were elected to a majority, isn't it, Tim? C'mon, be honest here, the only reason he found the "veto pen" is because "his" guys no longer run congress. He had no problem with the amount of pork they jammed through, as long as they had control of congress, but once they lost it, they're a bunch of budget busters. What hypocrisy.

And while, "tax and spend" may not necessarily be a good thing, it beats the hell out of "borrow and spend", which we have been doing for the last 6 years, any day of the week.

Funny too, how you blame the AMT mess on the Democrats. What the hell have the Republicans, who if I recall correctly had control of Congress for about 12 years done about it? Oh, yeah, that's right. They did nothing about it, ewxcept use it as a talking point in the last few months. Even more hypocrisy.

You really ought to give up while your behind.

I deon't think you meant to call me out since I am not the one that you quoted, but allow me to chime in anyway. You claim hypocrisy, right? Let's look at hypocrisy a minute. Dems are moaning about the filibuster, but it was ok for them to do it last year. The republicans gave the dems a dose of their own medicine, however now that the dems are on the recieving end, the republicans are evil.

Now, let's look at the promises (reason to expect something; especially : ground for expectation of success, improvement, or excellence)M.W; transparancy, reform, fiscal responsibility, hard work, etc. What of these promises? Does our elected officials know what the word promise means? If you can't keep a promise, don't make them. The democrats spent all of 2006 bashing the republicans, making huge promises for change. Looking back at 2007, I don't see any changes at all. What really has been done that has improved this country? What changes took place? If I were a democrat, I would be insulted that those that I elected did not follow through with anything they promised. I know, they raised the minimum wage-a feel good law that raised prices at small businesses and gave high school students a raise. The increase in the minimum wage did not increase the buying power of any families, but high school kids got the pay raise, and the small business owner gets another hit in the pocket by the party that claims to be on their side. Hypocrisy.

Is this the productivity that we expect from our elected officials?

Actually, when Americans vote for congressman from one party and an executive from another, I think we can expect this kind of productivity. The slim democratic or republican majorities and executive victories of the past decade plus can actually be construed as a mandate to be unproductive.

The democratic leadership was given a bare leadership in Congress mostly because of the failings of the Bush administration, not because of a national consensus rallying behind Democratic policies.

More importantly, what the hell has the 110th congress gotten done this year?

The 110th Congress has gotten very little done. The only things that can be done are the things that are agreed upon by members of both parties beyond the threat of the newly active Bush veto pen. Both sides still seem intent on not letting the other side get any key victories. The major victory being that Bush did not have to budge one iota on the defense budget.

It seems to me that this Congress was elected to do little or nothing and that it has achieved this swimmingly.

Our system, BTW, is well crafted not to have dramatic change without consensus in our branches. Not changing radically is one of the greatest strengths (if also the most frustrating thing) about our government.

You bring up a great point. One of the best things about our system of government is the checks and balances as well as the multi-party system. I wish there were more parties, but that is for another discussion. If there was only one party, or only one party had a supermajority two courses of action would take place, both ending the same. If the executive branch was of the same party dominating the legislative branch, vast and sweeping change would take place without any opposition. If the executive branch were filled by the opposing party, vast sweeping change would take place, but in a longer timeline after the veto pen was used and the legislative branch over rode the veto.

This scenario is not necessarily impossible, but very unlikely. 2/3 of the Senate makes 66 Senators. 2/3 of the House is 287 members. Right now there are 232 Democrats, 201 Republicans, and 2 vacancies. In the Senate, there are 49 Democrats, 2 independants, and 48 Republicans. To change the make up for the Democrats, for instance, they would need nearly 20 more seats in the Senate and 55 in the House. To my knowledge, there has never been such a massive swing in history, and I don't know how it could be possible to get that swing. This is a good example as to why it is important to have a multi party system. I think it also illustrates why it would be beneficial to have more than two parties. Lieberman and Bernard are a hot commodity when it comes down to issues that are usually voted on along party lines. If there were three, four or even five parties represented, compromise would take on a whole different meaning than it does today.

Well, let's be a little more accurate and fair here, shall we Tim?

Democrats did not threaten a filibuster nealy as often as have the Republicans lately. Hell, the Repubs have even been "filibustering"their own bills, out of sheer force of habit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/washingt...amp;oref=slogin

In fact, the largest number of Democratic filibusters I could find happened in 2003 - 2004. However, the Senate minority is effectively holding the chamber hostage — give the GOP what it wants, or nothing will pass. It’s led to a Senate in which the Republicans have just about broken the two-year record for filibusters in less than one year.

And you talk about the hypocrisy of the Dems? As many filibusters by the Republicans in a single year, as the worst two years the Democrats ever had, and all we ever heard from the Republicans was how bad the Dems were, and that everything they sent out deserved a simple up or down vote.

Now, to be fair, Republicans aren’t literally talking bills to death. Then again, neither did the Democrats. A filibuster is threatened, the chamber holds a cloture vote, and by a "gentleman’s" agreement that’s been in place for nearly 20 yeas, the majority pulls the bill from consideration.

However, there's now a suggestion on the table for Dems to end the gentleman’s agreement, and force Republicans who want to block bills to literally take to the floor and start talking. I don’t doubt that the Senate leadership would consider this a radical move. I agree -i’ts an extreme move. But that's the point: Republicans have forced the Democrat's hand by commiting to extreme tactics of their own - blocking practically everything that moves.

It might be a little risky - most folks aren’t familiar with filibusters, Senate procedures, and the like. All they know is that Congress isn’t passing bills, which right now hurts the Dems as much or more as the Repubs. Then again, by forcing the minority to literally filibuster every bill, I think Republicans would start letting bills reach the floor for up-or-down votes, because otherwise, it would become quite apparent who the real obstructionists in congress are at this time. That could only hurt the Republicans - a lot - come election time.