January 3, 2011
-
Coffee Party Supports Partisan Rule Change; Claims to be a Bipartisan Organization
The Coffee Party–A top-down Team Obama run astroturf organization, despite their claims to the country–is at it again. From the email:Support Senate Filibuster Reform. On Wed. January 5th, the first day of the new session of Congress, the U.S. Senate will vote on a crucial change to cloture rules allowing a simple majority of 51 votes – instead of the current 60 – to close debate and allow the Senate to vote on legislation. Ending the constant threat of filibuster would go a long way toward easing the hyper-partisan gridlock we witnessed in the past two years.You can see a similar call to action on the Coffee Party’s blog here.This is nothing more than a very thinly-veiled Democratic Party–sponsored lobbying. Democrats have only a the thinnest majorities in the Senate: 51 – 47, with two members of the chamber (Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders) independents that caucus with Democrats. Because the Democrats lost their veto-proof majority in Congress, they want to continue their iron grip on the Senate instead of seeking true bipartisanship by including Republicans at the negotiating table.
While the Senate is free to change the rules of the chamber any time it pleases, this is exactly the kind of partisan behavior that the Coffee Party claims to oppose. The Coffee Party ought to be ashamed of itself and issue an immediately apology for playing to the Democrats tune on this issue. If the Coffee Party were an organization built on principle and character as they claim to be, supporting this rule change should never have been a topic of discussion.
The audacity of the Coffee Party to claim that the past two years were run by corporate interests is also laughable. While trying to blame Republicans as being lackeys of corporate America (which continues to suffer as a direct result of President Obama’s policies) without naming names, the Coffee Party has conveniently forgotten that it was Democrats that had a super majority in both houses and did not need a single Republican vote to pass any legislation. The fact of the matter is that the country is in the shape it is in because of a Democrat controlled White House coupled with a Democrat controlled Congress with two Leftists appointed to the bench of the Supreme Court.
As President George Washington told Thomas Jefferson, the Senate is where the storm in the teacup of the House goes to cool off. The Founding Fathers designed Congress to gridlock so that no legislation could be hastily enacted by any one special interest. The rule change that the Coffee Party is supporting would fundamentally change the Founding Father’s plan and would allow Democrats to continue their partisan efforts in the Senate.
Please call your senator today and tell them not to cave to the phony demands of the Democrat-facade astroturf called the Coffee Party.
Comments (19)
I’ve never even heard of the coffee party.
@nidan - Exactly.
The Coffee Party started sometime last year in response to the Tea Party. They tried to make it appear that they are an non-partisan organization, but their forums and comments were heavily monitored and censored. The Coffee Party was briefly in the news when they debuted and Michelle Malkin ran an expose on the group. Annabelle Park the group’s leader has worked Democrat operations before and has close ties to the White House, though when asked she denied the charge.
Thought to be relegated to the dustbin of history, not having received correspondence from organization, I had a rude awakening when my email notification went off upon receipt of their email. Doing my civic duty, I have passed the information on to readers like you so that you can stay informed about those who lobby our nation’s legislature.
@ProfessorTom - These extreme groups usually only workout when the party they support is out of power. Move-on dot org was powerful durring the Bush years, but is now… dying.
I suspect that’s what’ll happen to the Tea-party when the next republican takes the White House.
It’s a two-edged sword. Sure, right now enacting this would benefit the Democrats but it’s easy to envision a time when the Republicans will control the Senate again and we’ll have a complete role-reversal. Such a proposal is short-sighted, to say the least.
I understand the need for debate over pieces of legislation, particularly far-reaching ones, but there comes a time when debating for debating’s sake harms more than it helps. How can voters really vote for candidates when other representatives willingly block policies that other representatives may have been voted into office for? Some gridlock is good, but the near-constant partisan blocking of legislation is what is contributing towards increasing apathy amongst the public. “Why bother?” would be the popular sentiment.
It’s almost as bad as continually adding amendments and earmarks to critical bills to slip things through that makes a mockery of the legislative process.
I could go on, but I’ll stop there for now. XP
Thanks for the heads up.
)
@nidan - I like your optimistic thinking, but whether the Republicans take back the White House depends on who runs for office, who wins the primary and who wins the party nomination. If the Republicans run another weak candidate like McCain, I predict four more years of Obama, no matter how much Our Dear Leader might be hated by the general gender.
@ProfessorTom - If McCain wins the nomination again (And assuming that nothing too dramatic happens in the next two years.) He could easily beat Obama. But Palin is probably going to get the nomination, and she has very little chance of beating O.
That said, the next president (Barring unfortunate circumstances, elevating the Vice President) is likely to be a Republican.
PS: My thinking is not optimistic, I do a lot of work as a political Analyst for my local party. I’m probably more cynical, than anything else.
@cmdr_keen - How can voters really vote for candidates when other representatives willingly block policies that other representatives may have been voted into office for?
The reason that votes will vote for a candidate that has opposed polices that others were elected to see through is simple: the people voting for the candidate are against the polices that the candidate himself has opposed on the floor of his respected chamber and the voters are sending him back to Congress to continue the fight.
Furthermore, as a student of history and a recent poly-sci graduate, you ought to be ashamed of yourself having written a thing like that when discussing the Senate. The Senate was NEVER designed to be elected by popular vote; that is why the House is called the House of Representatives (words mean things.)
Some gridlock is good, but the near-constant partisan blocking of legislation is what is contributing towards increasing apathy amongst the public.
I firmly believe that the government that governs best governs least. The less legislation passed, the better. With each new legislative act, the more rights people are forced to give up. Government should NEVER move to to enact the will of a mob. Government’s proper role is to protect the rights of the people that gives the government its power–the governed. As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it in the Declaration of Independence, That to secure these rights [Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Writing in Federalist 51, James Madison said it thusly: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
The reason that people say “why bother” today is that their power has been stripped form them by virtue of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments and an expansionist view of the Constitution. Politics are no longer local because of this usurpation of power.
It’s almost as bad as continually adding amendments and earmarks to critical bills to slip things through that makes a mockery of the legislative process.
I don’t see it that way. Amendments and earmarks are exactly what make the legislative process work. Is it perfect? No. Do Amendments and earmark either kill bills that are otherwise positive for the people? Yes. Do amendments and earmarks mean that legislators will have to vote to enact something they disagree with in order to get something that they have worked hard for? Of course it does. This is, by definition the compromise that the Coffee Party pays lip service to and pretends to support but instead is actively working against.
I could go on
Please do. It is conversations like these where people get to the meat of the situation and workable solutions are discovered.
@mommachatter - I take it as a compliment. If this is how you heard about this issue, then I have not blogged in vain. Thank you for the high compliment.
@nidan - Since you do political analysis, I’m curious to know why you think that Palin can’t beat O. The Left is as scared of her as they are for a reason. Granted, I think I’d prefer someone like Herman Cain or Alan West for President, but I’ll vote for Palin should she run. I hope that I don’t have to make a hard decision in the 2012 primary.
Also, I’d be curious to know who you think is going to make a run for president besides Palin. The word in circles that would know is that it will either be Huckabee or Romney.
@ProfessorTom - The left is not scared of her. In fact the Obama people want her to get the nomination.
I would agree with the Huckabee, or Romney opinion. But there may be a surprise candidate. Problem with that idea, is no surprise candidate stands up to Palin’s name recognition.
@nidan - If the Left isn’t scared of Palin, why continue to attack her so? The damage is already done. This seems like a waste of effort to me.
I speculate that Herman Cain could pull it off. If his speech at the RNC goes viral–which it did–he can build on his radio persona. True, his show isn’t as big as Limbaugh’s, but being in Atlanta, it could turn the trick.
@ProfessorTom - I’ll have to give the Cain idea some more thought. I don’t know that much about him. It’s an interesting idea though.
Palin hasn’t been as trashed by the left as much as the right makes out. She’s just seen by independants as the Teaparty candidate. That’s a perception that works greatly in Obama’s favor. It was a similar perception that made Hillary Clinton frightened to take on Bush in 2004.
Besides; Political hacks have a tendency to over do things anyway.
@nidan - Are you calling Palin a hack?
@ProfessorTom - In general most politicians are, but in the above comment I was refering to extreme pundits.
@nidan - Roger that.
@ProfessorTom - Mild correction, I think maybe I should’ve said “In general most politicians tend to be” Because they also seem to be reserved when they don’t need to take a position on an issue. Pundits…. Like to shove their opinion down everyone’s throat.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08051501tamron28-75.asp