Tony Auth by Tony Auth

Tony Auth

Comments (13) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, almost 3 years ago

    Does escalate things. But how many times should you turn the other cheek. The elephant is a lot like a bully who is shocked, shocked, when the other kid actually kicks him in the shins.

  2. pirate227

    pirate227 said, almost 3 years ago

    About time! Get some!

  3. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    Excellent ’toon, may be over-rating the level of maturity however.

  4. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 3 years ago

    So if perchance the republicans should obtain control of the senate in 2014, will you still be so joyous that the filibuster rule is gone?

  5. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, almost 3 years ago


    The painless filibuster rule is like “the rules of civilized warfare”: they last only as long as neither side abuses them.

    The GOP filibustered more appointments in 5 years than had been filibustered in the 220 years before that, combined. They did not even pretend it had to do with the qualifications of the nominee: it was to force the administration to give way in other things. Their use of the filibuster was like someone using the red cross to camoflage military targets. Eventually the other side will start ignoring the red cross and the real hospitals on both sides will suffer as a consequence. It is an escalation in the partisan conflict, but the abusers of the filibuster are as much to blame as those who made the change. Yes, this is a sad thing for the nation, but it is a symptom, not a cause.

    Of course, if the GOP are not hypocrites, if they are sincere in thinking it a bad thing that the rule was changes, they can change it back if they take control in 2014. But I don’t think they will. They weren’t against the change, both sides knew finally that it was going to come, fair play is dead, each side just tried to avoid being the one to effect the change.

    And by the way, Richard Nixon, back in the 1950s, was the first one to suggest this, though I don’t think he recommended it at the time: just suggested that it might be necessary some time.

  6. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, almost 3 years ago

    At least the filibuster can still be used to prevent extremist appointments to the Supreme Court.

  7. wbr

    wbr said, almost 3 years ago

    so the democrats want wwe rules // this will become better tv

  8. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, almost 3 years ago

    “Odd yow you love the Democrats using Filibuster for 8 years to block Bush 43 Appointees, you said it was needed”

    Where did I say that? Where did I suggest that? You really have to stop imagining thing and putting things in other people’s mouths.

    Anyway, the unprecedented number of filibusters in recent years was the result of the abuse of the rule: the rule was to enable the minority party to block extreme nominees. The GOP has been using it instead to blackmail the administration: “We will block every nominee, no matter who, until our demands are met in this other area.” Often they had no objection to nominee, they were simply using him as a pawn. When a loophole in the law is abused to the extent that it does more harm than good, it will sometimes be closed, even when it exists for a good reason. This is one such case.

    Personally, I would have preferred the old rule be left in place, but only if were used as it was from 1790 to 2000. Recent use has been qualitatively different. Beginning in a small way with the Democrats in the reign of GII, and soaring under the present administration.

    Anyway the rule change only effects the painless “virtual” filibuster. If a member wants to filibuster the old-fashioned way, holding the floor and blocking all business, he still can.

  9. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, almost 3 years ago

    You really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you.

    Of all the appointments filibustered in the entire history of the United States, just about half been done since Obama took office. Your comments make as much sense as noting that for 200 years A and B were permitted to strike one another, and for 200 years they occasionally slapped one another. Now A has started using a hammer, and B has made a rule against hitting, and you crow, B can dish it out, but can’t take it.

    You mention 10 appointments being held up in Bush’s time: I think there were more than that, but in any case 82 appointments have been blocked since Obama took office. Often without even the excuse that the nominee was “too liberal”: this was done simply to obstruct, or gain some other advantage. Many fewer than that lead the Republicans nearly to change the rule a few years ago.

    Let’s put it another way. Democrats have never dished it out the way Republicans have in the last few years, not even close. And if the Democrats can’t take it, we have no reason to think that Republicans can take it any better: they’ve never had to. Not even close.

    And by the way: the new rule only applies to some appointments, not to legislation or to nominations for the Supreme Court.

    Here’s something from a year ago:
    And more recently:

  10. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, almost 3 years ago

    “The last straw came when Republicans announced their intention to filibuster all of Obama’s nominees to the DC circuit court simply because they didn’t want a Democratic president to be able to fill any more vacancies. At that point, even moderate Democrats had finally had enough. For all practical purposes, Republicans had declared war on Obama’s very legitimacy as president, forbidding him from carrying out a core constitutional duty. Begging and pleading and cutting deals was no longer on the table. Eliminating the filibuster for judicial and executive branch nominees was the only option left, and on Thursday that’s what Democrats finally did.”

  11. 1BiGl3dFo0tS

    1BiGl3dFo0tS GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    So, your bullies got a smack in the face and you immediately begin whining about it. Tough. If you cannot accept that the blocking of 82 nominations for Obama against 86 for all prior Presidents equals unfair and ridiculous opposition, you are not of a balance mental state.

  12. 1BiGl3dFo0tS

    1BiGl3dFo0tS GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago


    Pardon the typo: “balanced mental state.”

  13. bubertl

    bubertl said, almost 3 years ago

    Thank you for spelling it out. The Republicans talked about the nuclear option, but never did it.

  14. Refresh Comments.