Isn't the Republican position on the filibuster hypocritical?

Question

During the past few years, Republican members of the Senate have accused the Democratic minority in the Senate of being "obstructionist" and threatening the "nuclear option" of negating the filibuster via rules changes if the Democrats used their power of filibuster. Now the Democrats have the majority and last month, when the minimum wage increase bill came to the Senate floor, the Republican response... was to filibuster.

Isn't this a bit hypocritical?

I don't deny them the right of filibuster, and I do personally think that perhaps some tax relief for small businesses is in order (whether that's what the Republicans do or not)... but my focus is on the rhetoric. If using the filibuster as a minority party is so "obstructionist" and wrong, why was it one of the first actions taken by the Republican minority in this Senate?

Is their rhetoric entirely disconnected from their reality or is there some loophole in everything Republicans say that says they don't have to abide?

C = JD: It's "payback"?!? The democrats struck a compromise at the height of the Republican rhetoric. Ignoring the fact that "payback" doesn't justify dishonor, how does that even qualify as "payback"?!?

Badjanssen: We're not talking about the democrats nor even whether the filibuster is OK. I already covered that. We're talking about Republican rhetoric not matching Republican conduct. Pointing at the democrats is just an attempt at deflection.

Theearlybird: Go read the details on what really happened. Then, do a little research and instead of buying the talking points from the right, use your head.

So the predominant conservative view, judging by the answers, is that it's OK for the Republicans to do things that they deem "obstructionist" as long as they can come up with a reason why it's OK for them to do that, whether that reason is "because we didn't get our way with the bill" or for revenge?

And to follow up further, it's OK for conservatices to be hypocrites as long as it fits with your political agenda?

theearlybird: You don't seem to have gotten my point. I understand exactly what happened with the minimum wage bill. It doesn't matter how much of the debate you read or how much you agree with why they did it.

Again, it's not that they used the filibuster that's the problem. The problem is that Republican rhetoric during the previous 6 years has been so vitriolic against the use of Senate minority tools to block the passage of a bill.

Answer 1

Ummmm--hypocritical, yes. But there's also a loophole in the GOP rhetoric (sort of). they'e made it clear over the last few years tat the rules--especially when it comes to accountabiity--don't apply to them--they never accept responsibility for anything. Based on that "logic" it makes sense that they would feel free to indulge in the very same tactics they raile against their opponents for using.

Answer 2

The same is true of the Democrats, just look at the issue of the line item veto. It was suggested during the Regan administration and passed during the Clinton one, as soon as it was used it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

This filibuster attitude by the Democrats in George W Bush's first term resulted in the "super majority" attitude that if you can't get 60 votes then you can't pass a bill. A filibuster only lasts as long as you can talk or have 2/3 of the senate vote for cloture.

The Democrats wanted minority rights, so now they can't stand it when it comes back to bite them in the rear.

Answer 3

Talk about hypocritical, the Democrats forgot to let everyone know that it was the Republicans who wanted the minimum wage increase in fact under the Republican bill the minimum wage would rise from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 in three 70-cent steps starting in January 2007.(sound familiar!!?) The way I look at it,since it was originally the Republicans bill, why shouldn't they want the same thing they had originally wanted,cut the estate tax and extend a host of temporary tax cuts... Why are the Dem's fighting it and taking Credit for the minimum wage proposal.. I guess hypocrisy is alive and well in Washington....period..

Answer 4

Actually, the minimum wage thing had nothing to do with a filibuster. It had to do with being able to add amendments, which the Democrats were not going to allow.

And why would Republicans be the hypocrites? Wouldn't the Democrats be just as big of hypocrites for not allowing a filibuster, when they themselves threatened one?

EDIT: Actually, I read a lot of the transcript for the minimum wage debate. Perhaps you should take your own advice. Cheers, mate.

Answer 5

There is a difference between votes on policy & votes on appointments. They never threatened to change the rules on anything other than confirmation votes. They aren't trying to block action on 1 resolution, they just want to have debate on a companion resolution. It's the Democrats who are afraid of the 2nd resolution.

Answer 6

Yes, it certainly is when one considers how much they whined when the Democrats fillabustered some of their idiotic agenda.

What goes around comes around. Now the shoe is on the other foot. No more smug little smirks from Bush, Cheney or Lott.

Answer 7

isnt the democrats refusing to allow a vote on a reasonable bill hypocritical...??? all politicians make the slow system work for them when they are in power and when theyre not...this is just the process,,,let them complain....

Answer 8

I THINK THAT TURNABOUT IS FAIR PLAY. IT SEEMS THAT THE DEMOCRATS & THEIR SUPPORTERS CAN'T TAKE IT NOW THAT THE HAND IS ON THE OTHER FOOT AS FRANK DREBIN WOULD SAY.

Answer 9

All politics are hypocritical.

Answer 10

justagrandma hit it right on the head.