ADVERTISEMENT

Senate Dems block defense bill for third time

The Tradition

HB King
Apr 23, 2002
128,187
102,746
113
Democrats blocked a defense spending bill for a third time on Thursday as they pushed for a deal on how to move funding legislation through the Senate.

Senators voted 51-44 in a procedural vote on taking up the $579 billion House-passed bill. Sixty votes were needed to move forward.




Democrats previously blocked the legislation in June and September while demanding a budget accord. Sen. Joe Donnelly (Ind.) was the only Democrat to vote for the legislation on Thursday.
Top Democrats this week sent strong signals that they would block the legislation over concerns that moving a stand-alone defense bill would allow Republicans to renege on a two-year budget agreement.

Republicans denied any intention to go back on the budget deal and slammed Democrats as obstructionist.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said earlier this week that the Senate "could pass a defense bill and then they could say, 'Well, we'll do a [continuing resolution] on the rest of it,' violating the 50-50 deal. We need to negotiate an omnibus all at once and all together."

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) added Thursday that Democrats deciding to block the bill had little to do with the substance, calling the work on it "extraordinary."

"Now it's going to be a procedural vote, which we would anticipate is not going to allow this bill to move forward. It is not a reflection on the substance of the bill, at all," he added.

But the tactics got vocal pushback from Republicans, who suggested they are frustrated that Democrats continue to block the legislation despite the budget agreement that passed last week.

"I'm saying don't go there because you're going to set in motion an irreversible course in this Senate, and I'm going to lead it," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said, adding that "we have the majority and you don't. So if you want to play that kind of game, we can play that game too."

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/259250-dems-block-defense-spending-bill-for-third-time
 
Why?

This is perfect!
I generally feel the filibuster is undemocratic and the Senate has the right and duty to actually call the question and record a vote. A talking filibuster would be an appropriate compromise for those who disagree.
 
"I'm saying don't go there because you're going to set in motion an irreversible course in this Senate, and I'm going to lead it," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said, adding that "we have the majority and you don't. So if you want to play that kind of game, we can play that game too."

That right there is hysterically funny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
The part about it that irritates me is that the failure to pass legislation will be blamed on the Republicans. Just like the faux "government shutdowns" under Clinton and Bush 43.

It's a simple formula: If the Democrats don't get their way, it's the fault of the Republicans.
 
No it's not. Could be the fault of the voters.

Damn voters.
I struggle to think how that's a distinction, the voters are voting R or D. Can you think of any instance where one political party wanted something, but didn't get it where it wasn't the fault of the other political party? Almost by definition that can't happen in America.
 
I struggle to think how that's a distinction, the voters are voting R or D. Can you think of any instance where one political party wanted something, but didn't get it where it wasn't the fault of the other political party? Almost by definition that can't happen in America.

There are plenty of instances where a party didn't get something that the majority party wanted because voters didn't want it.

For example, coal states are pretty blue, but the representatives from coal states don't vote with their party on coal regulations. That's because those dems have to go back home one day.
 
I struggle to think how that's a distinction, the voters are voting R or D. Can you think of any instance where one political party wanted something, but didn't get it where it wasn't the fault of the other political party? Almost by definition that can't happen in America.
But -- as you probably know -- I was not just talking about the Democrats. I was talking about the media. If the Congress passes something the president can't/won't accept, it's treated differently depending upon which party holds which branch of government. Remember when Gingrich shut down the government under Clinton? Same thing, exactly, happened a few years later, when Dems controlled the Congress, and this time it was Bush who shut down the government.

What really frosts my cake is that nothing of significance actually gets shut down and nobody loses their job or even their paycheck. The latter can be delayed a bit, but the employees get all their money.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT