Cloudy / 54° F
Sweder should provide sources
Published 10:04am Wednesday, August 31, 2011With regard to the letter submitted by Liz Sweder (Aug. 23, 2011, Daily Journal), I would like her to provide sources for her following statements: “Many conservative Republicans do not support public education;” and “they are more interested in enriching themselves through unbridled and unregulated competition than …;” and ” … want to decrease school funding and cut taxes so they will have more money for their own personal use.”
Ms. Sweder, there are many, many Democratic multi-millionaires just as there are many, many Republican multi-millionaires — did you know that? And cutting taxes has been proved through the centuries to promote economic well-being and I fail to understand from where you received this (false) information regarding personal use? There are other items in your letter that I take issue with, these two are what have really bothered me.
“There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.” — John Adams 1826
(In about 2 1/2 years our country has gone from an $8 trillion debt to more than $14-1/2 trillion dollars. Many presidents and Congresses contributed to the first figure and the second number was reached by a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress.)
Sue Barasch
Fergus Falls
Sue, I believe that you have not been informed of a basic law of American politics. Only conservatives and Republicans are required to back up their statements with reliable and verifiable sources. If you are a Democrat, or any of their subsets such as Liberal, Progressive, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Radical, your statements are engraved in concrete on the ideological prison walls in which they want to confine all non-believers.
P.S. If a conservative/Republican does provide sources, Dems/Libs/Progressives/Marxists/socialists/commies,rad will be quick to reply that your sources are biased, untrue,unreliable, taken out of context, inflammatory,racist, bigoted, homophobic, ignorant, stupid, or boiler plate propaganda.
Don’t hold your breath until you get a verifiable citation to support the tendentious remarks you quote.
That’s unusual Bill, are you telling Sue that she’s wrong to ask for verifiable sources? I have doubts that the post script is true either, since conservatives/republicans/fascists/religious dictators/radical doctrinaires don’t seem to feel the need to provide sources. Why? Because their propaganda and dogma states that, “if they believe it, it must be true.” That’s why we’ve had those conversations about the title of the newspaper section. It is the “opinion” section, but you don’t generally have any opinions, you have mere beliefs (it’s the difference between having sources and not having them – the links to the definitions have already been provided). So here’s your challenge Bill, if I’ve said (and it hasn’t been very often, since conservatives don’t provide sources) that something was “biased, untrue, unreliable, taken out of context, inflammatory, racist, bigoted, homophobic, ignorant, stupid, or boiler plate propaganda” and it wasn’t the case, then you should be able to find at least ONE example. So I’ll make it easy for you, and give you a sentence to use. If you can’t find one example, then you should quit making false claims. So, obviously, any response that doesn’t include an example is garbage.
P. Wolff. I have better things to do than to spend hours on end researching all your anti-religious, and anti-capitalist, and pro socialist, Marxist utterances here over the past several months. Anyone who reads these blog postings will know from a collective remembrance of what you have written here that anything anyone says in support of religious beliefs, restraint in government overreach, marriage and family as traditionally defined for hundreds of centuries, will have you waiting ready to pounce with gibberish philiosophy and pseudo logic to paint one and all who are not your ideological twins as one, many, or all of the descriptive labels I limned out in the statement above. You will no doubt fasten in on one or two words I have written here and have a grand time demonstrating why I have no right or business writing in the same venue as one so gifted at obfuscation as you. But, so what? In my off line conversations with people who read here or ocasionally offer opinions, many note that you seem to be appointed or self annointed to squelch all commentary not praiseworthy of your leftist ideology. And who are you to tell me I cannot express my beliefs/opinions/sentiments here because you seem to be assuming the role of censor of this site? Define for me and others what form of writing will measure up to your standards. But don’t expect that I will follow your rules, as I don’t see your name at the masthead of this site, ergo, your beliefs and opinions withstanding, I will exercise the free speech which you seem determined to modify or squelch entirely. As for instance, your dictum that any response to you which does not include an example is garbage. That statement in itself is demeaning and pretty close to garbage. We have to meet YOUR standards to offer opinions here?
Here we go again. Bill Schulz wallowing in self pity, “everybody’s picking on me”, “no one lets me speak” “all the lefties want me to be censored” waa, waa, waa.
Nobody from the left has ever tried to shut you up or down Bill, no one has ever tried to censor you. That’s just your overworked imagination and desire to be picked on for your beliefs so you can be a poster boy for leftists abuse at your next tea baggers meeting. Then all your reactionary fellow travelers can come over and pat you on the back and utter encouraging words “Oh thank you Bill, thank you thank you thank you, Thanks for standing up to that fortress of leftist,socialist demands that you provide some small sliver of fact to go along with that bacon fat you expect everyone to swallow.
You are losing and P. Wolf is winning. Were it not so you and Camilla Ryan wouldn’t be so upset.
What is he winning? Who are the judges? What is the prize? How can a phantom writer win anything, when he hides behind a pseudonym? You two won’t even come out in the open to have a cup of free coffee, but you talk of winning something. Maybe the Manure Spreader of the Year trophy, AJ.
I know, I know, you just don’t get it, but let me explain Bill. You claimed that I had wrongly attacked conservatives. I said, show me where I’ve done any of the things you’ve accused me of doing (that doesn’t take “hours on end researching” because all the posts are on this site, and we’re just coming up on two months of posting for me). Additionally, you’re still creating straw men by misrepresenting my positions, for example, I’m not interested in supporting or detracting from religious beliefs, my position has always been that your religion is not a reason for me to do, or refrain from, certain actions. But to return to the point, rather than confront the issue itself and actually find some evidence that what you’ve said is true, you run screaming that “everyone’s out to get you”. You don’t seem to be able to address any issue/question directly – it’s almost always some convoluted conspiracy that has nothing to do with the question/issue being talked about but will include as many implications as possible that “the evil left” is conspiring in some way, shape or form.
My guess is that what upsets you the most is that I’m not willing to engage in the standard mud-slinging that seems to have become “normal” conversations about politics. Using hyperbolic rhetoric, buzz words and slogans isn’t a response to questions about facts. I realize that facts and reason aren’t useful to “die-hard” conservatives because they can’t be used to support irrational positions, but that, it seems to me, is more of a reflection on the inadequacy of the conservative’s position than it is a “conspiracy to silence you”. You should exercise your right to free speech, and I’ll continue to exercise the same right when I make comments about false speech. So, if you mean that MY standard is the expectation that what someone says be true, then Yes, I do think you should meet those standards to offer an opinion (look up the definition again, if you’ve forgotten). Of course, I don’t think of them as MY standards, I think of them as requirements for communication that I happen to share with the vast majority of people in the world.
It’s interesting that Ms. Barasch is willing to castigate Ms. Sweder for not providing sources, and then fail to do exactly the same thing. It appears to be the typical conservative mantra of “do as I say, not as I do”. Of course, as I’ve said before, being a hypocrite doesn’t make you wrong, so we’ll have to look at the claims themselves. For example, “And cutting taxes has been proved through the centuries to promote economic well-being.” Where are the sources? Alternatively, what does “economic well-being” mean? If we’re talking about growth, “Every time we’ve cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown.” – Rep. Joe Walsh, and Representative Walsh reflects your feelings, then you should know that politifact has rated that claim as FALSE. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/19/joe-walsh/rep-joe-walsh-said-every-time-weve-cut-taxes-reven/
However, maybe we’re talking about the general state of the economy? If so, then consider what Russ Beaton, Professor of Economics at Willamette University, has to say, “Never have so many been fooled for so long by an idea so totally lacking in economic logic, facts and theory. I am speaking of the religiously held and seldom questioned premise that (are you ready?): TAX CUTS STIMULATE THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.” http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html
As for the growth in national debt, we’ve had this discussion already (back on July 27th in the “Congress, not president…” letter to the editor, but I’ll include that here for you.
“January 20, 1993 (end of George H.W. Bush and beginning of Clinton): $4.188 trillion
January 19, 2001 (end of Clinton and beginning of George W. Bush): $5.728 trillion
January 20, 2009 (end of George W. Bush and beginning of Obama): $10.627 trillion
April 29, 2011 (closing date of the chart): $14.288 trillion
This allows us to determine how much the debt rose under each president:
Under Clinton: Increase of $1.54 trillion, or 37 percent
Under George W. Bush: Increase of $4.899 trillion, or 86 percent
Under Obama: Increase of $3.661 trillion, or 34 percent
At first look, their analysis seems fair enough. And so much so, Pelosi’s Flickr account subsequently made a correction. But this is hardly a correct evaluation of who jacked up how much debt. First and foremost, when Barack Obama assumed office on January 20, 2009, the US was under the budget of fiscal year 2009, which started on October 1, 2008. This budget was signed into law by President Bush, not President Obama. So President Obama can hardly be held responsible for that. So the numbers we should be using are FY numbers, not January numbers. Luckily, the US Department of Treasury has data available just by that, fiscal year. Using those numbers, we have the following:
Debt at the beginning of George W. Bush’s first fiscal year (FY 2002): $5,807 trillion
Debt at the end of George W. Bush’s last fiscal year (FY 2009): $11,910 trillion
Total increase in debt because of George Bush’s budgets: 105%
Debt at the end of FY 2010: $13.562 trillion
Current US debt: $14.3 trillion
Total increase in debt under Obama’s budgets: 20%”
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/06/debt-figures-how-politifact-got-it.html
Percentages can be deceiving, especially when comparing Presidents who served 8 years, vs Obama’s <3 years (2 FYs).
Using your numbers:
George W Bush – Ending deficit $11,910 Trillion, Beginning deficit $5.807 Trillion – Increase of $6.103 Trillion in 8 fiscal years – average of .763 Trillion/year.
Obama – End of first FY – 13.562 Trillion
Beginning deficit $11.910 – Increase of $1.652 Trillion in 1 fiscal year – average of $1.652 Trillion/year, more than double of George W's pace.
Even if we did not spend another penny between now and the end of FY2010 (end of September 2011), the current number is $14.3 Trillion – and using Obama's beginning FY deficit of $11,910, the incremental amount is $2.390 Trillion in 2 years, an average of $1.195 Trillion/year, still a 56% higher pace than George W.
Some people might claim that "only" a 20% increase in Obama's budgets in just under 2 years is a good thing, but he is on pace to totally eclipse his predecessors in the spending department.
Fair enough, and I agree that percentages (unless well defined) can be deceiving. For example, it’s fairly well known that the more time you stretch things out over, the smaller the percentage. For example, there are a number of baseball players who hit in the .400-.500 range over the first few weeks of the season (when each at-bat counts for more). However, by the end of the season they’re usually batting .270-.310.
Hey, Bill. Forget trying to reply P.Wolfie. It’s obvious this guy is a radical hack sent here to attack anyone the Dems want to silence. It is great that you stick to your guns to ward off his malarkey, but you will get a lot more mileage just making your own comments and ignoring his red herrings. Let the other leftist visitors giggle and yuk it up that wolf throws a lot of garbage in the game and then laughs at anyone who tries to sweep up the mess. But why follow along behind this horses behind with a broom, the garbage dump wont ever end. Better to have your say and ignore his insults. His admirers will never be persuaded by your arguments. They are all doctrinaire radicals and insensitive , heck, indifferent to anyone who hasn’t been converted to their radical view of the world. UP THE REPUBLIC!
Camilla: I’m still not getting why you think that demanding proof to back up statements is radical and out of the question. P. Wolf is not trying to silence Bill, unless of course Bill cannot provide evidence to back up claims he makes.
And to Bill: You do not have to spend hours of researching P. Wolfs statements because he typically provides the proof right in his comments. All it requires is a click and BAM, you are directed to the evidence. He is not trying to silence your free speech, he is trying to get you to back your free speech up with credible sources. It is a standard practice in a debate and is required in research papers and the sort, so why is it so much to ask for? Oh wait, I forgot. Schools are socialist now right? Yeah that has got to be the reason research papers require proof… *sigh*
He’s already tried that, and we’ve determined that Bill’s resolve in that instance lasted less than 2 weeks.
P. Wolf, there is an old saw which goes” Figures lie, and liars figure”. Another is that there are two kinds of falsehoods, those of commission, and those of omission.
In your lengthy recital of a leftist site (politifact, no doubt accurate and unquestionably authoritative in YOUR eyes, though this is not an opinion shared by many outside of the radical left and terminally gullible) you OMITTED the information that the last two years of G.W. Bush’s administration were not really HIS budget as much as the bust the bank budgets of the new Democrat majority elected in 2006 in both the House and the Senate. While Bush signed those budgets, it was a consequence of his being squeezed by the Dems to pass their exoirbitant spending plans or they would withhold funds for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Barack Obama, still a US Senator, voted for the new spending, so I hold him and his party responsible for the last two Bush years (calendar yrs. 2007-08, Fiscal years 2008-09). When you add in the growth in both budget and deficits in those years, the rise in deficits and percentages you quote become quite different from what you cite. In those instances, Barack Obama and the Democratic party own much more of the deficit than you would have us believe with your omission of those years. Go figure.
I will also state that while we know G.W. Bush to be a republican, he was not what most would call a conservative. Many of us gnashed our molars, had to cram our knuckles in our clenched teeth when he would assent to the outlandishly wild spending schemes of the socialist party and a few dimwitted RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) . Bush was generally conservative in social and moral matters (to the outrage of the socialists), but his willingness to compromise and go along with the left on unreasonable spending gave many of us fits of anguish.
You may have noticed that after only two years of the Dali Obama, however, there was an expression of such fury among the electorate that we brought about perhaps the most extreme mid presidential shifts in congressional party makeup in the history of the nation. We not only put the boot to many Dems, we challenged RINOS in national races and in the races for governorships and State legislative compositions. And we aren’t finished with that mssion yet. The Tea Party activists will have a prominent and vigorous role across the land in the 2012 campaigns, just as your party are organizing, planning, recruiting and training activists and volunteers. We don’t expect to have an easy time of it, but we know that this upcoming election has existential consequences for the future of our constitutionally formed and governed union. Most of us now realize that when we are urged to compromise in order to get along, we are actually being urged to get along with and aid in the destruction of our system of personal liberties and freedoms. We no longer accept excuses from the people we have elected for those times they cave in to the urgings of the Democrat controlled media, and compromise once again. I know of many RINOS at all levels of government who will be facing challengers for nomination from conservative Republicans.
And I have little doubt that between now and then you will be here repeating the latest spin from the White House and Gorgy Schwartz, now known as George Soros. And wagging a scolding finger when I or other conservatives repeat the speaking points of our side. Have fun.
You need to work on your character development Bill, they’re too generic and flat to hold up the fiction that you’re writing, it’s a good thing it’s a short story because you won’t be able to develop it into a full-length tale without believable characters. But hey, I get it Bill, you’re once again illustrating the content of your post – very clever. So you “figured” that Obama is accountable for more of the debt (and we all know what that means, given your “old saw”). I understand now why “accountability” has become a buzz-word for the right, you can hold people accountable without actually establishing that they are responsible for whatever issue/question is the “outrage du jour”.
With regards to the analysis on debt, I didn’t omit your fanciful beliefs, those who did the analysis obviously were unaware of your personal status as the current Nostradamus with unmatched historical credentials whose personal edicts could just as well be carved in stone from the start, since they are unerringly true (even in cases where all the evidence suggests that the opposite is true – but like Dick Cheney saying that, “deficits don’t matter” – we have Bill to tell us that “evidence doesn’t matter”).
Wolf, your personal attacks on me in response to my exposure of your attempts to fudge the figures show me that I have revealed the true figures, and you have no credible way to refute the figures and the fact that it was the super majorities of Democrat members of Congress which contributed mightily to the burgeoning deficit.
Typical of a socialist, to resort to throwing personal
insults when the facts I present cannot be legitimately refuted. Are you going to find another leftist source to quote as support for your questionable “facts”?
Let’s not forget that the letter on which we are commenting is one which demands of a known liberal activist that she provide sources for her assertions. Generally you make the same demand of everyone who posts an opinion which you don’t want to be viewed here. Why the double standard? You offer to us that your intentions and efforts are noble in nature, a search for the truth, which we mere mortal conservatives are, in your superior opinion , incapable of recognizing or expressing. So, why have you not joined with Sue Barasch in her demands of Liz Sweder that proofs be offered?
Methinks ther is the odor of hypocrisy in your utterances here.
I think we’re dealing with the application of the principle, “He who smelt it, dealt it.”
Let’s not forget about the topic of the letter, and the comments under it, particularly the first one. To quote W. Shulz, “rad will be quick to reply that your sources are biased, untrue,unreliable, taken out of context, inflammatory,racist, bigoted, homophobic, ignorant, stupid, or boiler plate propaganda.” Isn’t that what you do Bill? Case in point, from one of your posts above, “(politifact, no doubt accurate and unquestionably authoritative in YOUR eyes, though this is not an opinion shared by many outside of the radical left and terminally gullible)” – see…it’s not hard to find an example. But at least we know where the odor is emanating from now.
On August 16th you wrote, “those who post here deal mainly in the areas of conjecture, beliefs, and only occasionally with scintallae of understanding.” Or to interpret, you said that those who post here (at least the ones you can speak for –conservatives?) don’t generally know what they are talking about. But if you want me to make it abundantly clear to everyone again, here it goes. You claim that, “the fact that it was the super majorities of Democrat members of Congress which contributed mightily to the burgeoning deficit.” That’s not a FACT because it’s FALSE. “The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of President George W. Bush.” After 1 death and 2 resignations the total in the Senate was: 49 Democrats, 2 Independents and 49 Republicans (NOT even close to a super majority). The House of Representatives was as follows: 235 Democrats and 198 Republicans with 2 vacancies (again, NOT a super majority, but the 110th Congress started with 233 Democrats and 202 Republicans). So this is obviously one of those cases where you only want to deal with conjecture, right?
I don’t have the time or the inclination to definitively prove that most of what you write is false, but I think that those who read the comments only have to be reminded occasionally that they should take what you write with a grain of salt.
Phaedrus, I realize now that I inadvertently wrote “super majorities” when I meant only Democratic majorities. My typo/error. That does not change the fact that your Dems had the majority in both chambers. You claim only 49 Dems and two independents, ergo no majority. Pure phony demagoguery, as you know one of the “independents” is Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a man who proudly proclaims himself a Marxian socialist, and caucuses along with the Dems. I regularly receive his online anti-American rants from his blog. The other “independent” is Joe Lieberman, D/Ind from Connecticut, who also caucuses and votes along with the Dems. Consequence; Republicans outvoted 51 to 49 during those years of 2007/08. Further missing in this latest “omission” of yours is the device of the filibuster in the Senate which effectively requires a 60/40 or greater majority to even bring a bill to the floor for dicsussion, debate, and a vote. While the GOP sometimes used the filibuster to prevent some of the more diabolical elements of Dem legislation from enactment, it (filibuster) was used time after time by the Dems to block GOP defense spending from votes and allotment unless the GOP caved in to huge and wasteful spending programs passed by the Dems. You of course look for one word among thousands to attack and thereby “prove” the falsity of the entire statement(e.g, “super” majority). The fact remains that the Dems had the control of appropriations bills in both the House and Senate during the time under discussion, and they contributed hugely to the growth of the deficit during G.W. Bush’s terms. Get your facts straight and tell ALL the details of the congressional makeup before you accuse me of lying. FYI, a number of old dinosaur RINOS voted along with the Dems from time to time, but generally only after the Dems had a majority locked up In those cases where the RINOS then voted with the Dems, generally because of fear of not being reelected in swing districts, we conservatives kept scorecards. And we removed many of the weak and disloyal members in the 2010 house cleaning elections. We still have more of that work ahead of us.
You have a habit that when I write something which disagrees with or exposes or challenges your radical leftist positions , I cannot be right (or truthful in your analysis) unless I provide hefty volumes of citations to “prove” what is abundantly clear and apparent to most people. Then you cite some leftist tripe propaganda to “prove” your point. Is it the Tides or moveon.org which funds and staffs your latest source, politifact? I forget which as there are so many socialist front websites, so incestuously intertwined and all dedicated to the purpose of spreading misinformation, falsities, myths, solely to achieve the end purpose of the radical revolution which brings about the athiestic one world dictatorship , which of course, they describe to each other as the “cause” to create a socialist workers paradise on earth. I read them frequently. Know thine enemies. etc.
And while you cite my statement about the level of understanding of many on this blog, you have cynically moved to exploit some of the lack of understanding of the legislative process to attempt to deceive the readers that the Dems did NOT have control of both houses. Call it misinformation or omission, you built a case against me founded on a claim you knew was incomplete(the FACT that the Dems did have a majority) . You and I watch the process and either understand the many nuances of conressional actions, or make ourselves acquainted with the whys and wherefores of events. And , while I know that most of the people reading here do not have that much interest or concern in the minutiae of such matters, YOU DO, and you attempted to gloss over facts to paint me as a liar.
To an old country boy like myself, the principle you refer to is , “The fox is the finder, the tale lies behind ‘er”.
I, personally, don’t think that you’re a liar in the sense of intentionally trying to fool people because I think you actually believe what you write. However, given your oft professed disdain for anything resembling research, I think you just go with whatever it is you think you remember about the events (although I think the hyperbole is intentional). For example, let’s look at one of your latest claims. “While the GOP sometimes used the filibuster to prevent some of the more diabolical elements of Dem legislation from enactment, it (filibuster) was used time after time by the Dems to block GOP defense spending from votes and allotment unless the GOP caved in to huge and wasteful spending programs passed by the Dems.”
Now consider the fact that The 110th Senate set an all-time record for cloture motions (the vote required to end a filibuster) (142), and that the filibuster is generally used by the minority party, and you get a very different picture from the one you’re painting. There were 167 working days in the first session and 119 working days in the second session, for a total of 286 days. So Republicans were using the filibuster every other working day. That hardly seems like “sometimes” using it. Thanks for bringing that up, I think it makes my case stronger.
I never made the claim that the Democrats didn’t have functional control of both houses of Congress – I just presented the numbers, and the reason for that is to show people that the impression that you wanted to create (that Bush’s deficit the last two years was all the Democrat’s fault because they had such large majorities – and that’s clearly wrong – no matter how much radical right-wing propaganda you throw at it). Wasn’t Cheney the one to proclaim that “Deficits don’t matter.”?
But aren’t you now doing what you don’t want others to do? You keep telling me that the reason you never provide sources is because they would be called, “biased, untrue, unreliable, taken out of context, inflammatory, racist, bigoted, homophobic, ignorant, stupid, or boiler plate propaganda.” (There’s that smell again.) I’ll get you started, Politifact is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, and this is their claim, “The Annenberg Foundation strives to promote charitable activities through which large-scale solutions to systemic problems are pursued.” It is housed in an Ivy League school, the Communications Department at the University of Pennsylvania – you know, one of those places where those terrible educated people come from (that’s sure to inspire another rant about the Marxists there, I’m sure).
For me, this kind of says it all, “In those cases where the RINOS then voted with the Dems, generally because of fear of not being reelected in swing districts, we conservatives kept scorecards.” You mean there are Republicans who actually voted the way their constituents wanted them to vote (or they wouldn’t be reelected)? That’s terrible! What are they thinking, representing the people who elected them? That’s crazy! Don’t they know that party purity is more important than the people they represent? I can see why you’d want to get rid of them.
I actually look up my facts, just to make sure I have them straight, and that’s probably why your habit is to try an obscure the issue with rhetorical flourish – so what other tangent do you want to pursue to obscure the issue this time? Or do you want to just dedicate a post to rephrasing the out-of-touch radical conservative dogma?
Wolf, if you get into the minutiae of all those cloture calls, you will discover (if you haven’t already and are just glossing over facts to paint a distorted picture of things) that many cloture calls were when the GOP majority attempted to ask for further debate on a specific Democratic bill, or to offer amendments, and the Dem majority called for cloture on the GOP motions. In some cases there were multiple cloture calls by the Dems for multiple attempts by the GOP to amend a Dem bill.
When you claim that the filibuster is “generally” used by the minority (GOP in the cases under discussion) you do the same thing you accuse me of doing to present a false picture; you use a term like generally which has many meanings to many people. Does generally mean 51%, 80%, more than three times a century? An examination of the records you cite show that in some cases the GOP offered several amendments to the same resolution on the same day, Harry Reid manufactured a cloture call to prevent either discussion of the amendment or a vote on the amendment. Filibustering every other day? Not! Reid often used cloture calls to protect Dems from having to take a public, recorded position (vote) on matters of concern to the public. So, if you are being fair and above board with your figures, what I have delineated here merits mention, lest an uninformed reader wrongly conclude that only minority parties use cloture, or that the GOP used cloture in an undiscriminate manner solely to gum up the legislative works. The Dems are long time practitioners of the filibuster.
And what was the number of cloture calls earlier in the Bush admin while Tommy Daschle was Senate minority leader, and then Senate majority leader? If you choose to parse every word written here by anyone who is not of your radical ideology, and claim that you do as a seeker of truth, then parse all such claims of your own such as your cloture count in the last post.
I said “generally” because I couldn’t think of a time when a majority would need a filibuster, but I wasn’t positive. You seem to be saying that there is, but I don’t see that in the following definition. So you should find some sources.
“Cloture — a process for limiting debate on a measure — is the Senate’s only weapon against the filibuster. The details have changed several times since its creation a century ago, but here’s the rule as it stands today: cloture is invoked when three-fifths of all sworn-in senators vote for the cloture motion. The Senate nearly always has 100 members, putting the magic number at 60.
In other words, the cloture vote is the stand-off between a filibustering minority and an annoyed majority. If at least 60 senators vote Yea, the filibuster ends. If fewer than 60 vote Yea, the filibuster continues. In both cases, the side that “loses” has no further weapons to fight with.”http://filibusted.us/learn
106th congress (Clinton’s last two years) = 58
107th congress (Bush’s first two) = 61 (Daschle years)
108th congress (Bush)= 49
109th congress (Bush)= 54
110th congress (Bush’s last two years)= 142
So, to answer your question, there were less than 1/2 as many instances of such a vote during Daschle’s service.
The Brookings Institute (a conservative source) had the following to say about the 110th congress.
“The 110th Senate set an all-time record for cloture motions (142). This is exactly twice many as were filed in the 109th. Of course, the Democrats blame the Republicans penchant for filibustering and the Republicans blame the Democrats for itching to stifle debate. The authors of the report make two interesting (at least to me) observations. The first is that there may be a direct link in the increase in cloture/filibuster activity and the increasing reluctance to use conference committees to settle House and Senate differences. They note than very few measures that Republican supported in conference were filibustered. Second, the authors note the increasing incorporation of 60-vote thresholds in the unanimous consent agreements under which legislation is brought to the Senate floor. Consequently, 60 votes are required even absent the explicit threat of filibuster.”
I’m not sure why their numbers are different for the 109th congress (they apparently, have the total for the 109th congress as 71). That doesn’t seem to support your story, so, as mentioned above, you should back your story up.