If we take the Senate and the ReThugs threaten filibusters...we should make them filibuster FOR REAL

[Ken Burch]

Last time we had the majority, they would just say announce that they were going to filibuster and our leaders would mainly give in to them. This time, we should say "OK...you want to filibuster, get out on the floor and walk your talk".

Then we should hold viewing parties, possibly in large auditoriums at times to let people watch them stop things from getting done and signing up volunteers to get out there and campaign against these creeps next time they're up for re-election.

It's time to make them wear it, to make them actually take the blame in the eyes of the public if they're going to do nothing but obstruct. Let them get stuck on C-Span wasting time and being seen as the roadblock.

We should never be "gentlemanly" with the Senate GOP about this again.

[PdxSean]

1. Rude, but . . .

Though I think it's rude that you read my mind, I totally agree. Two cheers for democrats with spines!

[Jim Lane]

2. I disagree. Just abolish the filibuster entirely.

Yes, I know there'll be times when a simple majority in each chamber plus the President will combine to enact a bill I dislike. That doesn't change the undemocratic nature of the filibuster.

[Ken Burch]

4. I'm against the filibuster, but I don't think it can be abolished without a supermajority vote.

This is meant as a step until that happens.

[Jim Lane]

8. IIRC a majority can abolish the filibuster.

Senate rules provide that a proposed rules change can itself be filibustered. The argument, however, is that a new Senate is constituted every two years, and can adopt rules by majority vote. Opponents would argue that the previous rules were still in effect and allowed a filibuster of the change. The question might be referred to the Senate Parliamentarian -- who is chosen by the party with the majority.

[PoliticAverse]

6. The "talking filibuster" rarely succeeded, no real need to eliminate the filibuster entirely. n/t

[ColemanMaskell]

3. Ban the filibuster definitely

But I will say that one thing I didn't like in recent years was the tendency to give in just because of the threat of a filibuster. If they don't really have to do the actual filibustering, it encourages their threats and blustering. Of course they're going to keep threatening, if you back down to threats. That's the whole thing about threats. You have to stand up to them to stop them. And, to quote their own champion: What have you got to lose?

[Ken Burch]

5. I'm with you on banning the filibuster, but I don't think it can be done by simple majority.

My idea here would also be about building support for an ultimate ban.

[sotheyclaimDem]

7. But remember the filibuster is a two-way street

Eventually a Republican will be in the Presidency again, and a filibuster could be our only hope at stopping right-wing legislation.

[Ken Burch]

9. The whole time Bush was in with a GOP Senate, the Dem leadership NEVER fought him.

They always gave him everything he ever wanted.

There will never be a Senate Democratic leadership that is different than that.