Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Refresh my memory please

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Casandra Donating Member (270 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 05:42 PM
Original message
Refresh my memory please
Wasn't there a big flap when the Repugs threatened to use the 'Nuclear Option'to discourage any Filabustering?... I seem to remember 14 Senators who got together and took that option off the table (so to speak) Okay...then...WHY??

Why can't the Dems do the same thing and let (especially) Mitch McConnel know that any attempt to block their legislation will result in the Nuclear Option being used on them. I keep wondering what ever happened to that option. Haven't heard a word about it, and will all these threats flying from the Repugs about filabustering this and that..etc..Instead of backing down, threaten them!! Just like they did to us!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Malidictus Maximus Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. With a narrow majority and a Republican President
I doubt it would do much good. It would fire up the Republican base bigtime while we do not have anywhere near a veto-proof majority. IMHO it would be risk without enough reward. At this point in time, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. The media weren't clear, but the inference I drew is that
the 'nuclear option' would only affect judges and like appointments. There are no amendments possible, the only reason to talk is to discuss the nominee. At the end the congress either votes 'yes' or 'no', but the measure stays unchanged and nothing more than talking can result from debate.

Ratifying nominations is different from passing legislation.

At least that's how I took it. I would have objected to the nuclear option, and still would object to it; but I'd be incensed at limiting rights to debate for legislation--'filling the tree' comes close, and is, I think, more than borderline unethical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. Democrats still believe in bipartisanship
Silly, I know, but they still can't quite believe that they will never be able to return to the genteel days before Newt when there was a spirit of bipartisanship, and they keep comporting themselves like they can bring it back.

Then they are shocked when an angry base castigates them for being wussies.
They honestly are in a little bubble inside the beltway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC