Filibuster away!

So, I'm in sixth grade, and I'm a finalist in the school spelling bee. And the moderator hits me with my final word. "Filibuster." I had never heard that word before, and had no idea what it meant, but there was something ominous about it. Something eerie. Something Evil. I couldn't spell it, and it led to a series of Spelling bee losses throughout my school career. (Ask me sometime about the time I "misspelled" Musicians.)

I still only gather the meaning of the word. According to Wikipedia, "A filibuster, or "speaking or talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby one attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal by extending a debate on that proposal."

I hate filibusters. And I'll tell you why. It goes beyond spelling bees. See, I'm an idealist and a rejector of political tactics. The way I see it, congresspeople should debate and discuss the merits of a particular piece of legislation, with the goal being the actual goal of a debate... to show both sides of an issue, and seek a compromise.

If the legislature is good, then debate with me to your hearts content. The merit of the bill will shine through and I can counter any argument you throw at it. If there IS a legitimate concern regarding the bill, bring it up, and we can amend it. That's how government SHOULD work. And as William Penn said, "If men be good, government cannot be bad."

A filibuster, to me, is a cop out. It shows me that you don't have a legitimate complaint against a bill, and your debate tactics aren't convincing anyone, so you'll read the entire Harry Potter series until time runs out and the bill dies. It's a really Dick-ish thing to do, and I tend to oppose any congressperson who does it.

Now, I can celebrate the election of Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate, because the better candidate won. No, not because he's a Republican, and no, not because he opposes the Obama Heath care Plan, but because he ran the better campaign and showed a better sense of commitment and competence than Martha Coakley did. Coakley probably figured she was a shoe in, and did very little real campaigning. Brown, on the other hand was a pit bull who went out and pleaded his case to the public, and the public responded.

There are some out there, however, who are celebrating it because it's a Republican victory, and after Democrats kicked their hineys in the past few elections, it signals a swing back for them. But mostly, it's because losing this seat eliminates the Democrats' "Filibuster-proof majority." There's some rule, that if 60% of the Senate says "Sit Down, John," then a Filibuster can't happen. But now, it's not 60, it's 59. BWAH-HA-HA. So now the dicks, I mean Republicans, can read their grandmother's recipes for every style of pie, and stop the Health care Plan from passing.

Since the "valid" "arguments" and "concerns" of the opposition didn't sway most of the congress or the people, this is now the only way the will of a majority of the people can be disregarded and defeated.

They imply that Obama is "forcing" his plan upon us. And yet, their plan is to filibuster the bill, forcing the majority of congress, representing the majority of Americans, to accomplish their goal. It is those who feel that this is a good thing who favor forcing their will upon the unwilling.

The Democrats have conceded and compromised the heck out of this bill. They dumped the public option, which most Americans support. They changed the bill to allow for a lot of what the bill's opposition claimed was their problem with it. THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO! They have a majority of Congress and the Presidency. If it comes to a vote, they win. It might be my naivete talking, but I believe the bill's supporters have been interested in genuine debate and compromise, and those having a "59-41" party just want to impose THEIR will when, in fact, they are out voted.