Will the Republicans continue to obstruct, or will they actually work with the president this time around?

[Larry]

How many Dems voted against Obama's last two proposed budgets Larry? I'll give you a hint: every single one of them.

And what that has to do with the topic is . . . ?

In fact, your point (which I strongly suspect is untrue, and that's why you won't state it) is . . . ?

---------- Post added November-12th-2012 at 10:50 AM ----------

Reid is going to reduce the fillibuster so the repubs will also, or figure out a loophole.

I doubt it. The Dems cried too loudly when the Republicans threatened to do that.

Although, granted, it wouldn't be the first time a political party changed their opinion on the filibuster, based on whether they were the majority or the minority.

(Just look at the Republicans.)

[DogofWar1]

I doubt it. The Dems cried too loudly when the Republicans threatened to do that.

Although, granted, it wouldn't be the first time a political party changed their opinion on the filibuster, based on whether they were the majority or the minority.

(Just look at the Republicans.)

I don't think there are many people who wouldn't say the filibuster is broken as it is, the problem is how they fix it, and no one really agrees on that. Do away with it? Modify it to require fewer votes? Put a cap on the number of times it can be used in a Congress?

Something needs to happen, but until there's something resembling agreement on what to do probably nothing will happen. My hope is that some Republicans are willing to compromise and just make the filibuster difficult to use in general. Unfortunately, lock-step with the party line tends to be the way these guys vote, and the moderates find themselves magically out of office next time they come up for election.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And what that has to do with the topic is . . . ?

Absolutely nothing, but a diversion was needed because you just pointed out the reality of the GOP obstructionism that destroyed the ficticious narrative told by the Right that pretends that the GOP has been negotiating in good faith instead of feigning negotiations when in fact they just want to continually move the goal posts and in the end say, "Well we're still not going to vote for it even though you've proven our objections are wrong or absurd and that you've actually capitulated to our demands."

Now they'll respond with, "The Democrats never capitulated to any GOP demands or negotiations" as they try in vain to reconstruct the wall of their own ignorance to reality.

[Larry]

I don't think there are many people who wouldn't say the filibuster is broken as it is. . .

"Broken"? I guess I must be one of not many people.

(Darn. I just hate being one of the small group of people who are right.)

Yeah, there certainly are times when I fervently wish that the rules required the filibuster to be public. Mostly I feel that way when I see Republicans in here claiming that the Republicans haven't been doing it. Not once.

Although I have to confess that, if there were a proposal to change that rule, I'm not sure I'd even vote for that.

I can see the public good in a Senator being able to block a piece of legislation, without revealing that he's doing so.

No, I don't think I'd change the rules for a filibuster.

(Even if it were possible to change them, a little, without creating the precedent that it's all fine for the GOP, next time they get power, to change it some more. And it isn't possible to do that.)

Not even as fervently as I would like for the public to actually see what's already been going on, for years, anyway.

---------- Post added November-12th-2012 at 11:54 AM ----------

Is there a chink in the wall?

Yahoo: Kristol Open to Raising Rates on Wealthiest Americans

Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol said on Sunday that the Republican Party should stop defending “a bunch of millionaires” and let the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans.

“It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires,” he said on Fox News Sunday. “It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000.”

He continued: “Really, the Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood?”

(It's a really short article: Only four paragraphs. And I thought three of them had to be quoted. )

[bird_1972]

Its interesting you mention that.

I am in general an "open borders" guy. I think labor should have the right to move freely wherever it wants to go. Amnesty+open borders+reduction of welfare state would greatly help our country.

However I do have family in Texas, Houston in particular. Partisan Democrats. ALL opposed to amnesty/loosening the border at all. Its one place where "our sides" essentially flip flop

So you are true, dyed in the wool Libertarian then?

I'm told that is the future of the GOP (if there is ever a future) since the youth on the right seem to have more of that Libertarian streak to them - see: Ron Paul.

[DogofWar1]

Yeah, there certainly are times when I fervently wish that the rules required the filibuster to be public. Mostly I feel that way when I see Republicans in here claiming that the Republicans haven't been doing it. Not once.

Although I have to confess that, if there were a proposal to change that rule, I'm not sure I'd even vote for that.

I would say that the ability to keep filibusters largely private affairs is a manner in which filibusters are broken. Even a small change, requiring all filibusters to be done "Mr. Smith" style, might change things for the better. The current system is abused terribly (the # of cloture votes has jumped to levels that wouldn't have been dreamed of 50 years ago).

After all, if a popular piece of legislation is before the Senate, under the current system the bill just dies to the filibuster, with no real fanfare. If they had to stand up there and actually filibuster for hours, with play on C-Span, and probably on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX, they might reconsider their actions. It's one thing to kill a bill when you can be faceless and not held accountable directly to your constituents, but quite another when you have to go on the record with your position.

There are plenty of ways that the "check and balance" purpose of the filibuster could be maintained while the process is altered to result in less abuse. I also think you can change it in such a way that the precedent isn't set that it can be changed however the party in power wishes, mainly by working with Republicans to craft this new version of the filibuster, and ensuring the minority party still has an effective check on the majority's power. I think that's the key, alter it so it maintains the ability to be a check, but reduce abuse. That sets the precedent of "reduce abuse, but not checking ability," and reduces the majority's ability to claim moral high ground. After all, if they compromise a filibuster alteration in this upcoming Congress, and then the GOP wins the Senate in 2014 and changes things without any Democratic input, they really can't claim precedent or moral high ground.

Definitely not an easy tight rope to walk, but it can be done, and the current system, with the House in the hands of the GOP as well, is a recipe for, literally, nothing major getting done over the next two years if one side doesn't budge.

Thankfully, it sounds like Boehner is willing to compromise, and instead of shouting him down as they've done in the past, Republicans seem somewhat on board, even if it's only with gritted teeth.

---------- Post added November-12th-2012 at 01:17 PM ----------

Is there a chink in the wall?

Yahoo: Kristol Open to Raising Rates on Wealthiest Americans

(It's a really short article: Only four paragraphs. And I thought three of them had to be quoted. )

I think we'll see a lot of stuff like this in the coming weeks and months. It tends to happen when a harsh reality (the trickle down concept is largely dead; the GOP can't retake the Senate until 2014, and the White House until 2016, etc. etc.) smacks a party. The fact that Republicans didn't immediately shout down Boehner when he suggested working with the President is evidence that the wall might be weakening.

[brandymac27]

GOP senators say they would try to block Rice nomination

If President Barack Obama taps U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to take over for Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, her nomination will be met with stiff resistance by some Republican senators.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., each pledged to filibuster Rice's prospective nomination as secretary of state due to her public explanations for the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

Amid speculation that Obama might nominate Rice for the top diplomatic post to succeed Clinton, who has said she plans to step aide now that the president has won a second term, McCain said he would "do whatever to block the nomination that is within our power" at a press conference Wednesday on Capitol Hill.

"She is so disconnected from reality that I don’t trust her," Graham said.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/14/15165195-gop-senators-say-they-would-try-to-block-rice-nomination?chromedomain=nbcpolitics&lite

More at link...

[Larry]

GOP senators say they would try to block Rice nomination

I will observe that it's possible that there's a legitimate reason for this.

(No, I don't think that "she said the same thing that the CIA said, about Benghazi", is that reason. But that doesn't mean that there isn't one.)

[JimboDaMan]

I will observe that it's possible that there's a legitimate reason for this.

(No, I don't think that "she said the same thing that the CIA said, about Benghazi", is that reason. But that doesn't mean that there isn't one.)

That's the only reason I've heard given, have there been any other concerns stated by those in opposition?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I will observe that it's possible that there's a legitimate reason for this.

(No, I don't think that "she said the same thing that the CIA said, about Benghazi", is that reason. But that doesn't mean that there isn't one.)

What is the possible legitimate reason?

I think the real reason is they want Obama to appoint Kerry, so that Scott Brown can try to take back the MA senate seat.

[visionary]

What is the possible legitimate reason?

I think the real reason is they want Obama to appoint Kerry, so that Scott Brown can try to take back the MA senate seat.

That's certinaly a possibility. I think in Graham and McCain's case they just don't like her.

[Larry]

What is the possible legitimate reason?

I think the real reason is they want Obama to appoint Kerry, so that Scott Brown can try to take back the MA senate seat.

Oh, I think another possible reason is "We really want the Senate to start a grandstanding 'investigation' into this, so we can get as much political coverage as Republicans in the House are getting. But we don't have the votes to initiate one, in the Senate. So, we're gonna see if we can hijack the confirmation hearings, and turn them into the 'investigation' that we don't have the votes to do, legitimately".

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 01:54 PM ----------

That's certinaly a possibility. I think in Graham and McCain's case they just don't like her.

I know that the Senate if full of theatrics, but that's the 'vibe' I get, too. It just 'feels' more personal than political.

[visionary]

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 01:54 PM ----------

I know that the Senate if full of theatrics, but that's the 'vibe' I get, too. It just 'feels' more personal than political.

That's the way it comes off to me too. I don't quite get why, but they really seem to dislike her.

If it were more people coming out against her I'd think it was political.

[visionary]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/world/susan-e-rice-caught-up-in-furor-over-benghazi.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Diplomat on the Rise, Suddenly in Turbulence

Susan E. Rice was playing stand-in on the morning of Sept. 16 when she appeared on all five Sunday news programs, a few days after the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would have been the White House’s logical choice to discuss the chaotic events in the Middle East, but she was drained after a harrowing week, administration officials said. Even if she had not been consoling the families of those who died, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Mrs. Clinton typically steers clear of the Sunday shows.

So instead, Ms. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, delivered her now-infamous account of the episode. Reciting talking points supplied by intelligence agencies, she said that the Benghazi siege appeared to be a spontaneous protest rather than a premeditated terrorist attack. Within days, Republicans in Congress were calling for her head.

In her sure-footed ascent of the foreign-policy ladder, Ms. Rice has rarely shrunk from a fight. But now that she appears poised to claim the top rung — White House aides say she is President Obama’s favored candidate for secretary of state — this sharp-tongued, self-confident diplomat finds herself in the middle of a bitter feud in which she is largely a bystander.

“Susan had a reputation, fairly or not, as someone who could run a little hot and shoot from the hip,” said John Norris, a foreign-policy expert at the Center for American Progress. “If someone had told me that the biggest knock on her was going to be that she too slavishly followed the talking points on Benghazi, I would have been shocked.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-susan-rices-tarnished-resume/2012/11/16/55ec3382-3012-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_story.html

Susan Rice’s tarnished resume

President Obama had a rare “bring-it-on” moment when ABC News’s Jonathan Karl asked him about threats by Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham to block the confirmation of Susan Rice, should he nominate her for secretary of state.

“If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me,” Obama said Wednesday at his East Room news conference, defending his U.N. ambassador from charges that she misled the public about attacks on Americans in Libya.

“For them to go after the U.N. ambassador . . . and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous. And, you know, we’re after an election now.”

It was reminiscent of his put-down of McCain in early 2010, when at a health-care forum he reminded his former opponent: “The election’s over.”

Obama’s over-the-top defense of Rice was surprising, particularly in contrast to the president’s relative indifference in accepting the resignation of CIA chief David Petraeus, one of the most capable public servants. And it was disappointing, because McCain, even if wrong on the particulars, is right about Rice. She is ill-equipped to be the nation’s top diplomat for reasons that have little to do with Libya.

Even in a town that rewards sharp elbows and brusque personalities, Rice has managed to make an impressive array of enemies — on Capitol Hill, in Foggy Bottom and abroad. Particularly in comparison with the other person often mentioned for the job, Sen. John Kerry, she can be a most undiplomatic diplomat, and there likely aren’t enough Republican or Democratic votes in the Senate to confirm her.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

What is the obsession with Susan Rice?

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/world/susan-e-rice-caught-up-in-furor-over-benghazi.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-susan-rices-tarnished-resume/2012/11/16/55ec3382-3012-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_story.html

There are plenty of Susan Rice stories

She is similar to a John Bolton, complete anti diplomats and total idealouges.

If you are going to be the chief diplomat of this nation, you better, you know, act in a diplomatic manner

Hillary has done a great job of it and should go down in history as one of the best. Susan Rice would be a total 180 from Hillary and would set us back, similar to what a John Bolton as SoS would have been

I think people fail to remember the defense that John McCain did for Huma Abdein when Michele Bachman was spreading rumors of her Muslim Brotherhood ties. Huma has great relations with people all over DC, Susan Rice does not.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/07/john-mccain-comes-huma-abedins-defense/54740/

[Redskins Diehard]

There are plenty of Susan Rice stories

She is similar to a John Bolton, complete anti diplomats and total idealouges.

If you are going to be the chief diplomat of this nation, you better, you know, act in a diplomatic manner

Hillary has done a great job of it and should go down in history as one of the best. Susan Rice would be a total 180 from Hillary and would set us back, similar to what a John Bolton as SoS would have been

I think people fail to remember the defense that John McCain did for Huma Abdein when Michele Bachman was spreading rumors of her Muslim Brotherhood ties. Huma has great relations with people all over DC, Susan Rice does not.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/07/john-mccain-comes-huma-abedins-defense/54740/

I don't think Dana Milbank is one of those Republican mouthpieces...is he?

[visionary]

What is the obsession with Susan Rice?

What do you mean?

By the administration?

[SkinsHokieFan]

I don't think Dana Milbank is one of those Republican mouthpieces...is he?

I generally think the Washington Post and FOX News are the same source

Errr, woops, that was the Washington Times.

Wait a minute, you mean someone NOT a Republican is revealing the truth about Susan Rice? This thread made it seem like a witch hunt because R's won't work with the administration

[Thiebear]

Bring it on, has never worked for a President.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I generally think the Washington Post and FOX News are the same source

Errr, woops, that was the Washington Times.

Wait a minute, you mean someone NOT a Republican is revealing the truth about Susan Rice? This thread made it seem like a witch hunt because R's won't work with the administration

I'm sorry, but it is a witch hunt.

Let's review some of the facts. First, none of us were in the room with Petraeus when he testified. Out of that you had republicans saying he knew it was a terrorist attack, and you have democrats coming out and saying there were conflicting reports. Then Petraeus says that his talking points said it was a terrorist attack. But then those talking points go and get further reviewed by about 10 other intelligence agencies, and then they are given to the white house and then the white house creates unclassified talking points from them.

This is where it gets really "terrible" though. The white house has susan rice go on the news with these unclassified talking points and she shares them. That's it.

No one takes us into a war over these, or orders a covert mission, or anything else. The big terrible thing that susan rice did was read unclassified talking points that she had no reason to suspect were not correct on the news. She didn't ask for the UN to destroy Egypt, she didn't ask for the US to go to war, and she damn sure didn't do anything that put any other Americans in harms way.

This whole thing is ridiculous. The outrage is that for approximately five days, the White House didn't accurately share all of their intelligence with the American people. Holy ****! They must be the first administration to ever do that!

Its not like Susan Rice went to the UN with this bad information and said we needed a whole bunch of countries to attack another country. And then when the UN basically said to her that they didn't think the intelligence was strong enough, its not like Obama went ahead and went to war with Egypt where thousands of Americans were put in harms way. No, its nothing like that.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I'm sorry, but it is a witch hunt.

Susan Rice being blocked for SoS is simple.

1) She is a terrible diplomat. Giving the bird to Richard Holbroke in a meeting is the last thing I want in our SoS

2) Nobody likes her. If she is going to be our lead diplomat, being likeable is actually a key part of the job. Basically her people skills suck.

McCain loves Huma Abedin, Hillary's Chief of staff and made a brilliant and passionate defense of her when Michele Bachman went after her back in January.

Susan Rice simply has no allies on the Hill and its her doing.

Clearly you failed to read the conservative hack, Dana Milbank's, article

You want that type of person to be the lead diplomat?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Susan Rice being blocked for SoS is simple.

1) She is a terrible diplomat. Giving the bird to Richard Holbroke in a meeting is the last thing I want in our SoS

2) Nobody likes her. If she is going to be our lead diplomat, being likeable is actually a key part of the job. Basically her people skills suck.

McCain loves Huma Abedin, Hillary's Chief of staff and made a brilliant and passionate defense of her when Michele Bachman went after her back in January.

Susan Rice simply has no allies on the Hill and its her doing.

Clearly you failed to read the conservative hack, Dana Milbank's, article

You want that type of person to be the lead diplomat?

So, it has nothing to do with Benghazi? And Benghazi is a witch hunt?

[Thiebear]

Benghazi is a debacle, not a witch hunt.

People died and others saved them

She came out saying the opposite of the videos

That we're available in the first 17 minutes.

How about we get it sorted before we promote her.

The rest of her resume and finger says we should

Discuss it also

[deejaydana]

I'm sorry, but it is a witch hunt.

.

It may in fact be a witch hunt of sorts but how about her resume to date? It's far from stellar.