Saturday, February 27, 2010

Why The Republican's Are Obstructionist (A Brief Opinion)

I wanted to write something in regards to something else on another website that had me thinking.  A commenter, in response to something I had written, asked how the Republican party was being obstructionist if they are a superminority in both houses of Congress, and that I, as well as other Democrats, should stop "whining" about the "powerless oposition."

First, I would like to point out that I am not a Democrat, but am a Republican, as I have been for over the past 10 years.  The reason why I believe the powerless Republican party to be obstructionist is mainly because of their desire for bipartisanship, but at the same time refuse to participate on any type of legislation with the Democrats, primarily health care reform.  While Democrats had held large "super"-majorities in both houses, there was a call for working across the aisle by President Obama, in an attempt to operate outside the Washington norm.  While the Democrats presented a bill, the Republicans refused to offer a counterpoint, and instead, they attacked the legislation as not being bipartisan, when they had prevented the legislation from ever getting that far.  Conservatives had then attacked Congressional policy, building up a belief in America that Democrats required a "super-majority" to pass any legislation, and in order to do so, would need either every Democratic senator to vote on the bill or to get other parties to consent, but the Republicans had also solidified their ranks in opposing any legislation.  Therefore, this "powerless oposition" successfully convinced the media and the public to believe that Democrats needed the sixty votes, and now with Scott Brown in office, the Republicans believe they have the power to filibuster, which would then obstruct the continuance of the legislative process, which I would safely assume they would try to prolong until midterm elections, so that Republicans may be able to gain seats in both chambers.  The Republicans have also attacked use of the procedure known as reconciliation, as a tool to get around the super-majority "requirement," and in essence bypassing the bipartisanship the GOP loves to simultaneously desire and avoid at all costs.


  1. Hi Kevin

    I'm rushing through to let you know that I've moved Politics Plus to

    You're in the new blogroll there. Would you please update me in yours?

  2. Not a problem... I'll take care of that now.

  3. Interesting take.

    Don't forget though: The Democrats only had 60 'seats' in the Senate from July 7th (when Franken was finially seated) to August 25th (when Kennedy died.) And even during those 7 weeks they didn't have 60 VOTES, as the ailing Sen. Kennedy had net been present for ANY votes for about a full year at that point.

    That why Brown's election didn't really change anything. The Dems NEVER had more than 59 actually VOTES in the Senate at any point so far. They've ALWAYS needed at leats ONE Republican to break ranks and vote for cloture. Coakley would have changed that, but Brown does not.

    Though, to his credit and the credit of four others, they DID go for the jobs bill. Maybe there's some hope! :)

  4. Forgot completely about Kennedy's sickness... That adds more to the theme that Republicans have been obstructionists!


Please share your thoughts and experiences in relation to this post. Remember to be respectful in your posting. Comments that that are deemed inappropriate will be deleted.