"First my comment to not missing a filibuster on this was quite obvious specific to the budget. So dragging out filibusters on other topics is pointless."
As I said, the mere threat of a filibuster from the current crowd is as good as the real thing. As for bringing in the excess of filibusters initiated by the GOP, it merely reinforces the point that the whole process is out of control and rendering the Senate incapable of dealing with pressing problems.
"Second votes on cloture circumvent debate on a subject. Also they don't necessarily indicate a fillibuster was even in effect. Just that the party with power wants to move to a vote without any more discussion. So nice try but misleading."
The kind of "debate" the GOP indulges in is with the intention of preventing action on a bill. They have employed it excessively with the intention of preventing any of Obama's legislative proposals from coming to a simple majority vote and becoming law. You know that as well as I do. The same technique has been employed to prevent confirmation of judges to the point where Chief Justice John Roberts, no fan of President Obama, to call for action on judicial appointments to address a near crisis number of vacancies on the bench at the district level. They have done the same with executive branch appointments to the CFPB and the NLRB. This is not the way the system was intended to work. If that is misleading, I plead guilty.
"Third, the votes on cloture and fillibusters for that matter have been on the rise for decades. So it is no surprise there has been a record number of them."
The number of filibusters since Obama came into office is not an incremental record, but a record by far. Enough to make a reasonable case that the Republicans are trying to sabotage the Obama administration, at the expense of the American People. They have, after all, proclaimed that their number one prority is to make Obama a one term president. Apparently by any means possible.
"Also note that the fillibuster has become more common but less effective."
Given 17 district judgeships currently on hold after clearing the Senate Judicial Committee, 2 vacant seats on the NLRB, and the CFPB run by a recess appointment after the Republicans declared that they would oppose not only Elizabeth Warren, but ANY nominee, I'd say the technique is very effective from a Republican point of view.
"Fourth the dead on arrival is no problem. If you saw an imbecile leading you to ruination you would do all you can to stop it. Thats what I see."
Sad, Michael, sad. I truly feel sorry for you.
"But you are dead wrong on seeing his budget voted on. It was voted down 99-0 and 97-0 in the senate. Also in the house 414-0. Not real meaningful but to deny it was voted on is a lie."
As you said, not meaningful. The 414-0 vote was when it was introduced by a first term Republican as an amendment to another version already under consideration. Ditto the 97-0 vote. In both cases the Democrats were trying to avoid being put on record in a doomed bill as voting for cuts to entitlements, which would have given the Republicans all sorts of material to twist in sounds bites during the uncoming elections.
I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion, but it does make one wonder how they could have voted unanimously against the President in 2011. The Democrats have always had trouble achieving unanimity. They are just too diverse.
"Please stick to the truth from now on Tom."
"but to deny it was voted on is a lie."
"If you saw an imbecile leading you to ruination you would do all you can to stop it. Thats what I see.
It is difficult to carry on a civil conversation with a person who calls his interlocutor a liar and his President an imbecile. Not to mention frequently referring to anything he disagrees with as "crap" or "bs". This is my last response to anything you post, as I am getting sorely tempted to reply in kind, and we have had far too much of that in the forums of late. Across the entire country for that matter. It is a sad state of affairs.