3 thoughts on “The final vote on 2008’s budget bill (SB30).”

  1. Wouldn’t they have to actually be “obstructing” something to be considered “obstructionists?” The Dems had the votes, so them voting no wouldn’t stop anything.

    You might be able to call the US Senate Republicans obstructionists with good reason, but I don’t see how simply voting “no” makes the state GOP obstructionists in 2008.

  2. Why not cast the Republicans as obstructionists, because they—in equal numbers—are voting in a manner inconsistent with the wishes of the other half of the chamber? Also, I don’t see how one more “no” vote than Republicans cast in 2008 makes state Democrats obstructionists in 2012. Maybe that 20th Democrat—one more than Republicans had—could be labelled as an “obstructionist,” and the other 19 are in good shape?

    I’ll buy the “obstructionist” label if Democrats refuse to support the Republican budget, refuse to put forth their own budget proposal, and refuse to negotiate in good faith. If that’s happening, I’m not aware of it.

  3. You’re kidding, right? How can Senate Democrats POSSIBLY be acting in good faith when they’ve already announced that nothing will happen until they get their way on committee assignments? That fact alone is evidence of party-wide bad faith.

Comments are closed.