Discerning History: 'History of the Filibuster'

Source:Discerning History- talking about the rule that encourages hot air in Congress.

Source:The New Democrat

"Discover the interesting history of the filibuster, from Cato the Younger to Rand Paul, and see why it is an important part of the American system of government. 

UPDATE: On 11/21/2013 the Senate rules were changed to eliminate the requirement of a super majority for cloture on all appointments except to the Supreme Court. The silent filibuster can still be used on bills and Supreme Court appointments. Halligan's nomination was withdrawn in March, 2013. 

CORRECTION: When Senate Rule 22 was originally passed in 1917, a cloture vote required two-thirds of senators. This was only changed to three-fifths in 1975.

If you liked this film, please subscribe, share it with your friends, and check back next Thursday for our next video! 

From Discerning History 

You want to know why there's so much hot air in Washington? For one its in an area that gets about five months of summer. Sometimes more, hot, humid, endless, summers, at times, where people pray for rain. Which only makes the area hotter and more humid. But these summer showers all five- minutes of them do give us some temporary relief. Another reason for hot air is we are the seat of power for not only the United States but North America and the rest of the world.

We are an area of six-million people where people from all over the world come to express their five- minutes worth. And get to tell Congress exactly what they are thinking in order to get their help. And when they talk to senators, senators get to speak until they decide to shut up. Or there are sixty votes to tell Senator Hot Air and their allies, to "shut the hell up!" Or there's a Blizzard in South Florida, you know whatever comes first, it used to be worst.

Up until 1975, it took 67 votes to kill a filibuster, which meant that 34 Senators could defeat 66. If you're a sports fan, that probably makes as much sense as the team with twenty-one points beating the team with forty-two in a football game. 

I don't have a problem with the current sixty vote rule. I do believe in things like minority rights. So there's some type of check and balance in Congress both in the House and Senate. And that the Minority Leader, the Leader of the Minority Caucus and Ranking Members, the Leaders of the minority memberships of committees, should be more than just their caucus's chief spokesperson's. But that they shouldn't be able to rule the Senate like they are in charge.

Two problems with the Senate and there are problems with the House as well, but since this post is about the filibuster, which only happens in the Senate (Thank God!) I'm just going to focus on the Senate. Can you imagine a filibuster in the House, with 435 Representatives being able to talk until they run out of breath, or 261 votes are gathered to get them too, "shut the hell up! "You're not the only one with nonsense to say!" You think there's already too much hot air in Congress now, have a filibuster rule both in the Senate and House.

There would be so much hot air in the House, people could do their sun tanning on the House floor. No more weekend getaways to Florida or Southern California paid for by lobbyists because they could do that on the House floor. But the two main problems with the Senate have to do with two rules, one of them needs to be replaced. The other needs to be thrown away like the piece of trash that it is. The trash is the Motion to Proceed Rule, get this it currently takes 60 votes just to move to a bill in order to debate a bill.

The Motion to Proceed rule makes the the Leader of the Senate as weak as what the Vice President use to be, before the President gave them a real job. The Leader should just be able to call up any bill that they put on the Senate agenda, or 51, instead of 60 votes to move to any bill. Thats passed out of committee or that the Leader and Minority Leader call up together under Emergency Rule. And this way the Senate would look more like a PTA meeting, or the United Nations. Because things would actually get accomplished in the Senate.

The Senate rule that should be replaced is the Cloture Rule better known as the filibuster. You want to keep the filibuster, fine. But limit to only final passage of bills, not motion to proceed or presidential nominations, or on amendments. And make it real, meaning that senators would actually have to filibuster and hold the floor, speak on the floor about the bill at hand and have to speak and hold, until there are 60 votes to cut the senator off, or until the senator yields to floor.

Reforms like this an establishing a real Rules Committee in the Senate and make that bipartisan. And then we would actually see something strange in the Senate, senators working and producing. Instead of just showing up and getting a great tan from all of their own Hot Air.

PBS NewsHour: Shields & Brooks: Islamic State in Syria & Iraq

Source:The New Democrat

Of course Congress has to and needs to not only approve any new war America gets involved in Syria and Iraq. Because what President Obama and the National Security Council are considering is a new war and new operations as they involve Syria and Iraq. Air strikes in Syria for the first time in Syria at least from this President. And perhaps the possibility of us putting ground troops on the ground in Iraq especially Kurdistan to defeat the Islamic State terrorist group there. This should be the first debate that the House and Senate deals with when they come back in September.

Associated Press: Vice President Designate Nelson Rockefeller- Speaks To U.S. Senate Rules Committee (1974)

Source: Associated Press- Vice President Designate Nelson Rockefeller.

Source: The New Democrat

Nelson Rockefeller becoming the second appointed Vice President of the United States in less than a year in 1974. Right after Gerald Ford in late 1973 because of course having to do with President Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal that forced him to resign as President. But also having to deal with Vice President Spiro Agnew's resignation because of a tax and bribery case that he was under investigation from the State of Maryland and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Baltimore.

Source:AP Archive

CBS News: Nelson Rockefeller Swearing In Ceremony As Vice President (1974)

Source:CBS News- Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller (Republican, New York) being sworn in as Vice President of the United States, in 1974.

Source:The New Democrat

"Nelson Rockefeller swearing in ceremony as the 41st Vice President. Nelson Rockefeller swearing in ceremony and remarks" 

From the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library & Museum  

New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller being sworn in as Vice President of the United States, in December of 1974, at the U.S. Senate. After the House of Representative and Senate approved President Gerald R. Ford's nomination of Governor Rockefeller as Vice President, he was sworn in as Vice President at the Senate.

Source:CBS News- Governor Nelson Rockefeller (Republican, New York) being sworn in as Vice President of the United States, in 1974.

I'm not sure we've ever had a more qualified nominee for Vice President of the United States. And you might be thinking, "that is not saying much", (and perhaps with stronger language) but the fact is we've had very qualified Vice President's including the current one in Joe Biden. 

Vice President Biden's predecessor Dick Cheney whatever you think of him was a very qualified Vice President. And in a lot of cases served especially during the crisis of 9/11, served President Bush and the country very well. George H.W. Bush was a very qualified Vice President for President Reagan and you can go down the line.

Nelson Rockefeller was a very successful businessman running a couple of companies. Including Rockefeller Center in New York and the International Basic Economy Corporation. He was Assistant Secretary of State for American Affairs. Governor of New York for fourteen years from 1959-73. And all of these things happening before becoming Vice President of the United States. With the resume that Nelson Rockefeller had and that he and President Gerald Ford were fairly similar when it came to social and foreign policy, you would've think that President Ford would've used Vice President Rockefeller as his Chief Counsel and perhaps even Chief Operating Officer. But apparently that didn't happen.

The LBJ Library: President Lyndon Johnson & Governor Nelson Rockefeller (1/07/1966)

Source:LBJ Library- President Lyndon B Johnson (Democrat, Texas) talking to Governor Nelson Rockefeller (Republican, New York) in 1966.

Source:The New Democrat

"Telephone Conversation between President Johnson and Nelson Rockefeller. 

Citation No.: 9458

January 7, 1966

Time: 1:01 PM

Speakers: President Johnson and Nelson Rockefeller

General Topic: Business; Congressional Relations; Disasters; Federal Budget; Housing; Labor; Legislation; National Politics; Press Relations; Public Relations; Transportation; Urban Affairs; Veterans; Welfare

Topics: Rockefeller Asks LBJ To Declare NYC Disaster Area, Requests Small Business Loans, Veterans Loan Guarantees, OEO Help For Those Affected By Transit Strike; LBJ Suggests Other Methods Be Studied Before Issuing Disaster Declaration; Strike Negotiations; RFK" 

From the LBJ Library

Governor Nelson Rockefeller (Republican, New York) trying to get President Lyndon Johnson (Democrat, Texas) to give him some public assistance from the Federal level, to deal with some small business issues and problems that were going on in New York City. Perhaps having to deal with riots or other social unrest the city was going through in the mid and late 1960s. Which was a rough time for New York during this period with high crime and high poverty and other issues dealing with social unrest in a city of roughly eight-million people that was crucial to the whole State of New York.

Joe Pyne: Joe Pyne Interviews Jack Anderson- April, 6, 1969

Source:Richard Remembers Joe Pyne- investigative journalist Jack Anderson, talking to Joe Pyne in 1969.

Source:The New Democrat 

"JACK ANDERSON is the author of Washington Expose, and has some startling things to say about politics and politicians." is the description on the film can, courtesy of Hartwest Productions, Inc.  Dated April 6, 1969. Joe Pyne." 

From Richard Remebers Joe Pyne

Jack Anderson was a Washington columnist and a watchdog of Congress and wrote columns and did investigations with his partner Drew Pearson about what they saw as potential Congressional corruption. And I guess Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut was one of Mr. Anderson's victims. Senator Dodd was accused of political corruption, by using his own campaign funds for his personal use. As Joe Pyne said in the video Senator Dodd claimed poverty, but as Anderson said "the man lived like a millionaire". And the Senate agreed with that and censured the Senator in 1967.

Richard Remembers Joe Pyne: Joe Pyne Interviews Governor Lester Maddox (1968)

Source:Richard Remember Joe Pyne- Governor Lester Maddox (Democrat, Georgia) talking to Joe Pyne in 1968.

Source:The New Democrat 

"GOVERNOR LESTER MADDOX, Governor of Georgia, argues with Joe Pyne about the current state of the nation and his role; after about 25 minutes of acrimonious dialogue, Governor Maddox stalks off the set and refuses to return." is the description on the film can, courtesy of Hartwest Productions, Inc.  Filmed/broadcast date circa November 1968. Joe Pyne."  

From Richard Remembers Joe Pyne

Joe Pyne to the left of Lester Maddux in this interview. Which just goes to show you that there's a certain point for smart right-wingers as far as how they'll go even when it comes to how we treat criminals and convicted inmates when they say: "Enough is enough, these people are people to and deserve to be treated like human beings. Criminals and inmates sure, but that doesn't mean treating people even inmates like animals, but people in prison that deserve the respect of being treated like a human being".

Guy John: Governor Lester Maddox Says It's Not About Race

Source:The Daily Beast- Governor Lester Maddox (Democrat, Georgia)

"Gov. Lester Maddox explains that he does not serve those who feel he must serve them, whether white, black, red-headed, or bald."

Source:Guy John 

H.L. Mencken: "When someone says it's not about the money, it's about the money." When Governor Lester Maddox said it's not about race, referring to why he wouldn't let African-Americans have access to Caucasian own businesses in Georgia, of course it was about race. He saw African-Americans as second-class citizens in America, pure and simple.

Lester Maddux who unless I'm mistaken was Governor of Georgia at one point, but him saying that denying African-Americans service to his business "is not about race", reminds me of the famous bank robber Willy Sutton saying that robbing banks "is not about the money". Who are they trying to fool? 

Of course the racial discrimination that came about in the form of denying African-Americans service was about race. And it was also about skin-color as well. The Anglo-Saxon South lost the ability to treat Africans as property thanks to them losing the Civil War in the 1860s. Their response was that "if we can't treat them like property, we'll do the next best things. Separating the Africans from the Caucasians. And denying them the same quality of service that we give ourselves and for the ability for African-Americans to achieve any type of education in life that will allow for them to be successful in America". 

The Neo-Confederate South lost all of the civil rights battles and losing the ability to deny service to African-Americans, I guess was Lester Maddux's last straw.

The LBJ Library: President Lyndon Johnson's Meeting With Governor George C. Wallace (3/18/65)

Source:The New Democrat

President Lyndon Johnson talking about the need for Alabama Governor George C. Wallace's need to enforce the law in Alabama. And in this case the law was a Federal court order that said civil rights marchers in Alabama had a right to march and that Alabama was responsible for keeping the peace and keep order in Alabama. What Governor Wallace I believe was trying to tell the President was that keeping order during this march would be difficult. And what President Johnson was saying was that he would help him do that in anyway he can.

The LBJ Library: President Lyndon Johnson's Meeting With Governor George C. Wallace (3/18/65)

Source:The New Democrat

Lyndon Johnson vs. George C. Wallace was a mismatch at least when it came to persuasion. Because Governor Wallace was a master at propaganda and touting his own, well excuse my French, but bullshit. Even though I doubt he believed his own bullshit, but instead use it to hold power. But LBJ wasn't someone you bullshitted without any response and LBJ would cut people off if they knew they were simply wrong. And tell them "don't shit me! We both know better and tell them what is actually going on" and ask them "what you intend to do about it?"

What I believe happened here during this conversation between President Johnson and Governor Wallace at least according to the LBJ tapes, was the Governor trying to convince the President that he was limited in what he can do to see that everyone in Alabama can vote. Because he governed his own administration, but not all of the local governments in Alabama. And what the President said was "don't shit me George! We both know who has the power in Alabama and that person is you. Now are you going to enforce the civil rights laws down there or, am I going to do that for you?

Mike Gardner: The Today Show: George Wallace On The Eve of The 1972 Florida Primary

Source:The New Democrat

If George Wallace couldn't win in Florida in 1972, he wasn't going to win anywhere outside of Alabama. Because Florida looked like Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina culturally and politically in 1972. Not to pick on those three states, but only Florida has progressed somewhat economically and culturally to the point where you don't have to be with the Religious Right in order to do well in the state politically. So if Governor Wallace doesn't win Florida, he might of well just ended his presidential campaign then and there.

Mike Gardner: CBS Evening News: Ohio 1972 Presidential Democratic Primary

Source:The New Democrat

The Democratic Party didn't have a traditional frontrunner for president in 1972. They were out of the White House and even though Hubert Humphrey who was their nominee for president in 1968 was still running for president the Democratic Party was very divided between the progressive establishment that then in 1972 Senator Humphrey came from, the New Left in the party that I least call the McGovernites led by Senator George McGovern and the George Wallace Dixiecrats.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Leander Perez- 'The Wallace Crusade (1968)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- interviewing Judge Leander Perez.

Source:The New Democrat

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Wallace Movement. Episode 095, Recorded on April 15, 1968: Guest: Leander Perez."

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Wallace Crusade. Episode 088, Recorded on January 24, 1968 Guest: George C. (George Corley) Wallace." 

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- interviewing Governor George C. Wallace.

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Wallace Crusade. Episode 088, Recorded on January 24, 1968 Guest: George C. (George Corley) Wallace For more information about this program, see... 

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Governor George C. Wallace (Independent, Alabama)

From Rick Donald 

Bill Buckley was a true Conservative and he would've taken the more progressive or liberal stance against Wallace when it came to civil rights and segregation. Or least that it how it would seem. I even as a Liberal believe you can be a Conservative and still believe in commonsense American values like liberty, equality, equal rights and civil liberties. But that is me.

I never heard of Leander Perez from Louisiana before I saw this video. But apparently he was both Governor of Louisiana and a judge in Louisiana and this interview was done in 1968. And they were talking segregation and the civil rights laws. And the Governor telling Bill Buckley that he’s not a racist even though he says Negros (which is what African-Americans back then were called) are morally inferior to Caucasian-Americans. And Perez saying that he’s being honest and that is the truth, “why hide it”? With Buckley replying “so you are an honest bigot”.

Governor George C. Wallace was a Dixiecrat, a right-wing (at least on social cultural issues) Nationalist who was basically still fighting the Civil War and wanting to lead Confederates in that war. Not ready to perhaps even see African-Americans as people, let alone as Americans deserving of the same rights and protections, as well as responsibilities as European-Americans. Bill Buckley was a Conservative. And one of the conservative values is treating individuals as exactly that. And not treating people as members of groups. Worst or better simply because of their race.

The so-called Wallace Movement of the South of the 1960s and 1970s, was different. And more of a racially based nationalistic movement of Southern Caucasians, predominantly Protestant and perhaps even Anglo-Saxon. Who felt having African-Americans in their community was some type of an invasion. When the fact was and still is that Africans are just as American as Europeans and as such deserving of the same rights as European-Americans and every other race in America. The Wallace Movement simply saw African-Americans as inferior. And not deserving of the same rights and protections.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Leander Perez (1968)

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Judge Leander Perez (Democrat, Louisiana) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1968.

Source:The New Democrat

"Episode 095, Recorded on April 15, 1968

Guest: Leander Perez."

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

I never heard of Leander Perez from Louisiana before I saw this video. But apparently he was both Governor of Louisiana and a judge in Louisiana and this interview was done in 1968. And they were talking segregation and the civil rights laws. And the Governor telling Bill Buckley that he’s not a racist even though he says Negros (which is what African-Americans back then were called) are morally inferior to Caucasian-Americans. And Perez saying that he’s being honest and that is the truth, “why hide it”? With Buckley replying “so you are an honest bigot”.

This video is called The Wallace Movement, but very little if any mention at least in this short video of Governor George Wallace of Alabama. Who was a Dixiecrat, a right-wing (at least on social cultural issues) Nationalist who was basically still fighting the Civil War and wanting to lead Confederates in that war. Not ready to perhaps even see African-Americans as people, let alone as Americans deserving of the same rights and protections, as well as responsibilities as European-Americans. Bill Buckley was a Conservative. And one of the conservative values is treating individuals as exactly that. And not treating people as members of groups. Worst or better simply because of their race.

The so-called Wallace Movement of the South of the 1960s and 1970s, was different. And more of a racially based nationalistic movement of Southern Caucasians, predominantly Protestant and perhaps even Anglo-Saxon. Who felt having African-Americans in their community was some type of an invasion. When the fact was and still is that Africans are just as American as Europeans and as such deserving of the same rights as European-Americans and every other race in America. The Wallace Movement simply saw African-Americans as inferior. And not deserving of the same rights and protections.

The Fiscal Times: John Grgurich: U.S. Economy Grows Better Under Democratic Presidents: Is That Good Luck or Good Policy?

Source:The New Democrat

I know this is going to sound like a copout and trying not to take a hard stand and everything else, but the answer to why the American economy does better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents to put it simply, is both. Democratic presidents tend to have better economic policies which I'll get to later than Republicans. And when a Democrat is President a lot of times they become President just right before the economy is about to take off. Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton are perfect examples of that. Harry Truman would be another one and Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter are unfortunately the exceptions to that.

As far as policies Democratic presidents both liberal and progressive tend to want an economy that works for everyone. Sure Republican presidents I'm sure believe in the same thing. But Democrats put in the policies that make that economy come about. Which is why they focus so much on education, infrastructure, job training for low-income workers and unemployed workers whether they are educated or not, encouraging companies to invest in low-income areas.

Republicans tend to believe in what George H.W. Bush called when he ran for president in 1980 'Voodoo Economics', that some others call Trickle Down Economics. "You cut regulations and taxes for employers and individuals and the economic activity that will come from those business's and individuals that now have that extra money will now be invested in other business's and that economic activity will benefit everyone as a whole". That is the theory anyway, but the results have been at best mixed for thirty-five years or so ever since the policy was introduced in Congress by then Representative Jack Kemp and Senator Bill Roth.

As far as the lets say good luck, yes Democratic presidents have inherited economies that were just about to take off. Bill Clinton comes to mind in 1993 with the Cold War just ending and with the start of the Information Technology Revolution just getting under way around 1990-91 with all of the cell phones and laptop computers now online and of course the internet just getting under way. The Clinton White House had their own web site under way from the start and had email as well.

So yes Democratic presidents happen to of become President when the economy is just about to boom. But they've also have pushed policies that empowers all workers to be able to take advantage of economic booms. Economic booms do nothing for people without the skills to take advantage of them. Which is why education is always so critical for any economy to do well. And Democrats tend to push those polices more than Republicans.

PBS NewsHour: Judy Woodruff: 'Why Are We Still Fascinated by Richard Nixon?'

Source:PBS NewsHour- President Richard M. Nixon: 37th President of the United States.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Interest in the character and legacy of President Richard Nixon has endured 40 years since his resignation. Judy Woodruff joins Beverly Gage of Yale University, Timothy Naftali of New York University, Patrick Buchanan, author of "The Greatest Comeback" and Luke Nichter, author of "The Nixon Tapes," to discuss Nixon’s many facets and how his presidency changed American government." 

From PBS NewsHour

Is there a more fascinating politician than Richard Nixon, that is why we are still fascinated about this man. Because there is so much to him from both good and bad. And forty years later we are still trying to learn more about the man.

Every book that is written about him, or every movie that comes out about the man, or any new research and information that comes out about the man is seen by a lot of people and discussed everywhere. And not just in America, but around the world. Because of how consequential he was when it came to both American foreign and domestic policy and of course of the criminal operation inside of the White House and Watergate that along with the Nixon tapes brought down President Richard Nixon.

The Daily Beast: Jonathan Miller- For 2016: Take Martin O'Malley Seriously: A Liberal Democrat With Results

Source: The Daily Beast- Governor Martin O'Malley.

Source:The New Democrat

It is way too early right now to be talking about 2016 for president especially since we are still three months away from the 2014 mid-term elections that will decide who controls Congress next year, or will Congress be divided again and who will control the majority of state governorships and state legislatures. But I wouldn't be much of a political junky if I didn't look ahead to elections down the road. And this is one thing that makes politics so interesting is that politicians and potential politicians do the same thing which gives of good stuff to write about.

I'm a native Marylander or Free Stater for those of you not familiar with Maryland, as well as a Democrat who voted twice for Martin O'Malley for Governor of Maryland. And I'm as proud of those two votes as any votes that I've ever cast. For several reasons, but here's a few. He's a hell of a great Governor who governs one of it not the wealthiest states in the union as far as quality of life, per-capita income and wealth. So of course he has a lot going for him as well as location being in the Mid-Atlantic. But it still takes a good leader to make those things work, or the state can lose ground to other great states in the region like New Jersey or Virginia.

We have the best public schools in the nation and those rankings came during his administration. Maryland doesn't invest heavily in education, but we invest well and get solid results. During the Great Recession we always had an unemployment rate below the national average and never had serious debt or deficit issues unlike most of the rest of the country. If you want to look at the economy and freedom issues. Again with the great schools not just K-12 but we have a great state college system with Maryland University and others. We have great roads and other infrastructure as well.

The taxes both personal and on business are a little high compared with our competitors in the area. And I would like to see them come down especially since we now have legalized gambling and will probably legalize marijuana in the near future as well. But for the taxes we pay in this state and again a bit high the results that we get in return are pretty good. We are gaining business's and tourists everyday. Maryland is a state where you have good skiing in the winter, good beaches in the summer on the Atlantic. Where you can gamble, smoke and posses marijuana without going to jail for it. Where gays can get married and where you are never more than two hours away from doing anything.

I believe the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries will not just be about a mushy-middle Centrist who's afraid to take any solid positions on anything controversial in Hillary Clinton. Or a New Deal Progressive who will take the strongest positions possible perhaps even just to get to the Left of Hillary. I believe there is room for at least one more person who can run and say "I share the same Democratic and liberal values as you do. And I have a record of producing solid results. I'm not from Washington (even though I live next door to it) and I know how to govern". Who will still be fairly young in 2016 who can appeal to other gen-xers and Millennial's and that person could be Martin O'Malley.
Source:CNN

CNN: Political Ticker: Jeremy Diamond & Eric Weisbrod: 'Congress Defined As: Clueless, Useless, A Joke'

Source:The New Democrat

I'm not an expert on this, but when your profession or institution is ranked somewhere down where lawyers, used car salesman and conman are ranked when it comes to your popularity, commonsense tells you that it is time to reevaluate the job that you are doing and perhaps your profession. Congress right now and that includes both the House and Senate (for all you Progressives out there) has an approval rating somewhere around ten-percent. And since I'm in a generous mood I gave them the ten. Like to meet that ten-percent and see if any of them are not living in mental institutions or perhaps addicted to some type of drug.

The United States Congress makes the United Nations look effective. That is real hard to do because the United Nations a lot of times looks like nothing more than a debating society if that and not even a real good one. Where not much more than pre-rehearsed talking points are exchanged. With not a lot of individual creating thinking going on. Especially from people who are supposed to be diplomats and lawyers. Well that is Congress and both chambers. Instead of trying to pass legislation and working with each other to get something that the President can actually sign that would address the problem passed. They blame the other side for why nothing has been done.

Congress is so pathetic (again being generous) that they can't even pass the bills that they are required to by law and under the Constitution. The Federal budget is supposed to be passed by April. The Democratic Senate claims that they don't have to pass a budget. And they say something to the effect "you can't make us anyway!". One of their twelve-year old speechwriters probably gave them that Pulitizer caliber writing on that one. Congress is supposed to pass what thirteen appropriations bills by what September. They haven't passed one yet and at least the Republican House has passed a few.

Congress doesn't pass budgets and appropriations bills anymore because if they did that then Representatives and Senators might have time to actually read the bills. And then decide they can't vote for that because it is garbage legislation (again being generous) or it may hurt them in the next election. So what they do is lump a four-trillions dollar budget (big part of the problem right there) that includes all of the appropriations bills in what and what only Congress calls an omnibus bill. Which is a clever way is saying a large sack of garbage that nobody wants to put their hands through and see what is in it. Because they don't want to know.

Still wondering why Congress is so unpopular? If you are, perhaps you've just come home from a ten-year vacation in an Afghan cave with no access to any outside information. Or have been in a coma for the last 10-15 years. You would've had to, to be that clueless about the U.S. Congress assuming you are an American.

Andrew Sullivan: Neither Living Nor Dead

Source:The New Democrat

Before I give you my take on the U.S. Constitution, I'm going to give you takes from others further Left of me and from people who are to my Right and further Right.

Today's so-called Progressives who are really Social Democrats to be real and blunt about it see the U.S. Constitution in European democratic terms and want to and see America as their type of social democracy. Where government is more centralized with more power and more resources for the good of the people. And where most if not all all things done though government are through majoritarian means with majority rule. They probably see our constitutional amendment process as undemocratic because of what it takes to repeal or amend an amendment. As well as forcing all Americans regardless of generation and the times as having to live under the same Constitution and Rule of Law.

Conservatives and Libertarians see the Constitutional in its original form. (Or that is what they say) And anything that is not specifically laid out for government to do based on the words of Constitution, they see as unconstitutional when government tries to perform those functions. Neoconservatives or the Traditional Values Coalition lets say when it comes to personal choice and freedom say that anything that is not granted specifically with the exact words laid out in it for the people, those rights don't exist for the people. And that government can deny those actions for them. The same-sex-marriage debate is a perfect example of it.

I guess I'm somewhere in the middle on this which is where a Liberal would be between a Social Democrat on the Left and a Libertarian on the Right. All of the amendments and constitutional rights that we have as individuals with the constitutional amendments and Bill of Rights apply to all of us at any time. But when it comes to things for either the people or what can government can do I'm not what is called a strict-constructionist which is sort of a bogus term to begin with. And even people who call themselves that find ways to expand government power to meet their own political goals.

Just because same-sex-marriage doesn't exist in the Constitution, or marijuana, or gambling and perhaps even property rights and the Right to Privacy doesn't mean we don't have the right to practice those things as long as we aren't hurting innocent people with those practices. The Fourth Amendment clearly limits what government especially law enforcement can to when it comes to regulating individuals own lives. And the Fifth Amendment clearly limits what government can do to one's property. And can't simply decide to take it over or take it away simply because it wants to. The Equal Protection Clause clearly protect all classes of Americans equally and doesn't grant government the right to discriminate because it doesn't like one class of people.

I'm a Liberal Constitutionalist because I believe in the Constitution and more broadly liberal democracy. The rights that we have just from the words themselves will always be there unless they are repealed or amended through a super majority process. As it should be because we are a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. Not a social democracy and those things are different. And just because the Constitution doesn't specifically say an individual or government can do something, doesn't mean they can't. You have to look at the Constitution and see where those rights exist or not.

PBS NewsHour: Shields & Brooks on Finding a GOP Anti-Cruz, Middle East

Source:The New Democrat

Right now House Republicans can't get past their Tea Party base on anything. And that is led and known by the House Republican Leadership who don't have the balls (to put it bluntly) to take them on, on anything. Immigration is just one example so what it happens when it comes to something where they have to look like they are doing anything when it comes to public support, they do what the Tea Party wants them to do even if it is automatically dead on arrival in the Senate and has very little if any support outside of their Tea Party Neoconservative base.

As far as Israel and their conflict with Hamas. Israel is getting beat up by the leftist press in Europe and the far-left in America. But nowhere else including Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt because those big states both know the dangers of terrorism. Which means the ball has always been and is still in the court of Israel when it comes to resolving the situation there. And they essentially have a free hand to destroy Hamas especially if they get the opportunity.