[kenberg]

Here is what I think should have happened, five stages listed in order:

The House passes it because the majority favors it.
The Senate passes it because the majority favors it.
Obama vetoes it because he opposes it and the Constitution allows him to exercise veto power.
The House and Senate leaders that realize they lack the votes to override the veto.
Leaders from the House and Senate meet with the President to try to come to a workable agreement.

Without the filibuster we would have long ago reached this fifth stage. Maybe the negotiations would then have been successful, maybe not, but there would have been far greater clarity. As it has gone, the Senate has not approved the bill nor has it rejected the bill. They, and DHS, and the country, are stuck. Again.

There is a strong consensus among columnists that Republicans will get the blame for this failure. Perhaps so, perhaps not. Me, I am not seeing anyone looking very good here. Again.

[y66]

Obama is looking good. The haters not so good.

But dude, seriously, marijuana is now legal in DC. Who cares if DHS is defunded?

[billw55]

I am not up to date on this one. Who is filibustering? And how could anyone else be blamed for the obstruction?

I have long felt the filibuster is silly.

[Winstonm]

We the People look silly for having elected ourselves into this mess.

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2015-February-26, 08:39, said:

Obama is looking good. The haters not so good.

But dude, seriously, marijuana is now legal in DC. Who cares if DHS is defunded?

I then would have to abandon my uniqueness of being the only person of my generation who has never smoked pot.

[Bbradley62]

 billw55, on 2015-February-26, 09:07, said:

I am not up to date on this one. Who is filibustering? And how could anyone else be blamed for the obstruction?

I have long felt the filibuster is silly.

Until yesterday, the Senate Democrats were filibustering. Four times in February, they successfully blocked the bill from coming up for a vote.

Someone else could be blamed if the Senate Democrats successfully argue that they are actually trying to save time because it would be more efficient to go directly to Kenberg's Step 5, knowing that the other steps are inevitable.

[kenberg]

 billw55, on 2015-February-26, 09:07, said:

I am not up to date on this one. Who is filibustering? And how could anyone else be blamed for the obstruction?

I have long felt the filibuster is silly.

The Dems, by filibuster or threat of filibuster, are preventing a vote. I think the filibuster can, at times, be a useful tool. Majorities can be oppressive, or passions can override reason, and the filibuster can be a good way to say "Stop, take a breath, let's think this over". But I don't think it should be used simply as a legislative tactic. I suspect a lot of people don't like seeing it used as a tactic, which leads to my skepticism about the republicans taking the hit on this one.

Now I also don't think much of combining the funding of DHS with the funding for the changes in immigration, although in fact the two issues are linked. My problem here is the the placement of these two issues together in one bill was not done because of the linkage of the two issues but rather simply to cause problems.

Here is what could have happened in my preferred sequence of events; After the Presidential veto, the leaders get together and find an agreeable way to address immigration. Republicans have been more than difficult on this, but having Obama just go eff yourselves I am doing this on my own doesn't sit well either. Maybe some sort of maturity would have emerged. But then I am a hopeless optimist.

[ArtK78]

 kenberg, on 2015-February-26, 09:29, said:

Here is what could have happened in my preferred sequence of events; After the Presidential veto, the leaders get together and find an agreeable way to address immigration. Republicans have been more than difficult on this, but having Obama just go eff yourselves I am doing this on my own doesn't sit well either. Maybe some sort of maturity would have emerged. But then I am a hopeless optimist.

When it proves to be the only way to get things accomplished in Washington, I am all for Obama doing what he has to do.

Other presidents have done it in the past, without causing much of a stir. But when Obama does it, the world is coming to an end.

[kenberg]

Presidents have acted forcefully and in fact we pay them to do so.
My thoughts are:
1. With he current bill it would have been better for the Dems to let it come to a vote, after it's passage and the Presidential veto, see what, if anything, can be worked out.
2. The Dems are being overly optimistic in thinking all the stuff will stick to the Reps, none sticking to them, if DHS funding gets cut off.

Item 2 is a prediction, and I may well find that I am all wrong. Or I could be right. We will see.