The Republicans Big Lie That Democrats Sell: Senate Democrats Need 60 Votes To Pass Legislation

[Better Believe It]

Democrats need 51 votes in the Senate, not 60.

If Senate Republicans filibuster in an effort to stop a stimulus bill and other legislation, let them!

Keep the Senate in session, let a few obstructionist Republicans filibuster day and night on the Senate floor against an economic recovery act and other laws until the public gets fed up with their antics and 60 votes are obtained for cloture.

But, Senator Reid and other conservative "Republican lite" Democrats are trying to convince us they need 60 votes in order to get legislation passed.

They will use this excuse to mask their unwillingness to fight real and threatened Republican filibusters and to justify endless concessions to Republican "demands".

So let the Republicans filibuster. Wait them out. All filibusters end. Don't use a filibuster as an excuse to withdraw legislation because "we can't get 60 votes for cloture". You'll never get those 60 votes when Republicans know you'll surrender and withdraw legislation at the first sign of a filibuster.

What's so hard to understand about this?

[Captain Hilts]

1. I agree. Make the Republicans do it. Call their bluff and/or make them look obstructionist. nt

[Blue_Tires]

19. +1

[CanonRay]

2. Actually, we only need 50

because Joe will vote to break a tie. Hahahahahaha

[Better Believe It]

5. You're Right! Vice-President Biden can vote to break a tie in the Senate!

[Jennicut]

6. But he won't be here for the vote, he is going to Germany.

So we need all 51, which we already have.

[leftynyc]

59. That's only if 100 vote

Which can't happen right now.

[anonymous171]

3. Obama and the dems are going to learn what Clinton learned: You can't make deals with these fuckers.

Bipartisanship is worthless when the opposing party wants you to fail.

[karynnj]

24. Clinton learned this when?

when he passed NAFTA, which they wanted; welfare reform, which they wanted; and the telecommunications act that they wanted? Did he want them to impeach him?

Where did he stand and fight - as you seem to think. He should have investigated Marc Rich as the BCCI report recommended, rather than pardoning him nearly 8 years after getting that report.

[anonymous171]

34. After all that, they still hated him.

After all of the capitulation the GOP still wanted Clinton gone. Clinton may not have learned, but the rest of us sure did.

[karynnj]

38. Their hatred was viseral, irrational and intense

Part of it seemed to be that they never accepted him as President. I have problems with many things Clinton did and his lack of integrity, but it is hard not to see his intelligence and see that he can be charming.

[ljm2002]

57. Of course they still hated him...

...bullies see capitulation as a sign of weakness, and they hate the weak. That is one reason why the cycle of abuse is so hard to break, because the abusee is frightened of the bully (usually with good reason), so they react by capitulating -- but they fail to realize that this just gives the abuser more reason to despise them.

[frylock]

36. will they?

i'm not going to hold my breath.

[rurallib]

4. Let 'em filibuster Reid. Make them show themselves in public.

According to my constitution it takes 51 votes to pass a bill in the senate.
Let America see their obstructionist tactics and empty policies.

[OwnedByFerrets]

7. The senate is one BIG CLUB. Must not ruffle the feathers of

your fellow club members.:puke: :puke:

[drm604]

8. Upordownvote! UpordownVote!

Where did I hear that before?

[villager]

9. Explains why Reid isn't rushing to fight for Franken, and agreed to the Judd Gregg "GOP seat swap"

He still has his "short of 60" excuse for not really doing jack shit about anything that way....

[karynnj]

52. Reid had no real say in who replaces Gregg

I know it was said he was ok with this - but the only two who really had a vote were Obama in picking Gregg and Lynch in making the appointment. With Franken, MN has been following its laws - and it should continue to do so.

[Better Believe It]

10. Did Senators Cave In And Give Up When Southern Dems Filibustered Against the 1964 Civil Right Act?

No.

The legislation wasn't withdrawn when faced with a 57 day filibuster by die-hard segregationists!

And that was when 67 votes were needed to invoke cloture!

The filibuster ended and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed 73-27.

[karynnj]

53. Different rules then

If today's rules were in place, there never would have been a filibuster as no more than 27 Senators would have voted for it. Then they could filibuster as long as they didn't stop.

[uponit7771]

11. We don't have a senate leader to do such, but o well, there's no support in getting rid

...of Reid or making him correct his behavior

[Better Believe It]

12. If true, it's up to Obama to lean on him and other Senators like LBJ did

[global1]

13. Bring In The Cots To The Senate Floor And Let Them Spew At The Mouth......

let the American public see these people for what they are - OBSTRUCTIONISTS. Let it be known who got us into this situation in the first place and who is willing to see this country go down the tubes. Call their bluff. Don't put up with this behavior for another minute. Show them 'who's the boss'. Bring them to their knees and make them submissive for the next 8 years.

[Better Believe It]

15. Bingo! Now that's what leaders do!

[debbierlus]

14. kick

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

16. Unfuckingbelievable isn't it. nt

[unblock]

17. filibusters don't work the way they used to, you don't talk day and night or block other business

back in the day, a filibuster was a dramatic move that brought all other senate business to a halt with filibustering speakers talking endlessly to avoid the matter coming to a vote.

nowadays, you can practically phone it in. other senate business can continue, and whenever they try to call a vote on the contentious bill, 41 or more people just vote against cloture and a vote on the bill itself is avoided. the senate goes back to other business.

this likely explains why the filibuster has boomed in frequency.

[Better Believe It]

20. The Democrats can require opponents to actually filibuster on the Senate floor

No call in votes against cloture!

The Democrats (they run the Senate, really .... they do if they so choose to) can set the rules on filibusters.

[onenote]

26. but they're not going to because doing so would backfire

The repubs would end up looking like the principled ones, willing to make a stand against particular provisions in the bill that will be depicted (in some cases accurately) as not all that necessary to the economic recovery program. The Democrats will then have to publicly cave on those provisions. Blame for "forcing" the filibuster will land on the back of the Democrats along with blame for shutting down other business by the Senate, such as the enactment of other legislation, confirmation of presidential appointements etc. The blame will fall on the Democrats because there is a way to address the same disptue -- the repubs opposition to the bill -- through a mechanism that doesn't shut down the rest of the Senate.

[Better Believe It]

35. "The blame will fall on Democrats" if Republicans filibuster???!!!!

The blame will fall on the Democrats because there is a way to address the same disptue -- the repubs opposition to the bill -- through a mechanism that doesn't shut down the rest of the Senate. "

That comment makes absolutely no sense to me!

The Republicans are free to demonstrate their opposition to the economic recovery bill BY VOTING AGAINST IT!!

That's the traditional mechanism that Republican are free to use without shutting down the Senate. They can vote on it up or down!

Democrats are not requiring Republicans to tie up the Senate with a real filibuster.

If Republicans wish to be cast as obstructionists who are putting their petty partisan politics before the "economic interests of the people and nation" let them filibuster!

[onenote]

40. You're naieve if you don't think this would be spun against the Democrats

for forcing a relatively rare actual filibuster over a bill that even the Democrats concede has specific provisions that may need to come out of the bill.

Sure the repubs could demonstrate their opposition to the bill by voting against it. But why should they. They want to maintain the public stance that they are in favor of having a bill, just a "better bill." There are things in the bill they are for and things that they are against. Voting against the bill opens them to ads that say they opposed something popular. HOlding up the bill to force compromises that they want doesn't do that.

[Better Believe It]

41. Really? Republicans would attack Democrats for doing something right? How shocking!

Well, we certainly can't have that!

"this would be spun against the Democrats"

No shit Dick Tracy!

Of course Republicans would try to spin anything effective that Democrats do. Did you think that I and other progessives are not aware of this? Thanks for that golden nugget of wisdom!

Well, those who have no principals and backbone worry and fret all the time about how Republicans might criticize Democrats who actually challenge their obstructionism and reactionary policies. Oh no! .... hide .... run for the hills .... hide under the bed .... the big bad scary Republicans are coming! And people like that want to lead this nation?

I suppose the "problem" of Republican spin could be eliminated with your approach .... make peace with the right-wingers and don't challenge the Republicans or get them mad .... capitulate to their policies and demands. They'll love ya for that! We can have a bi-partisan love-in! By the way, who do you think won the 2008 election?

It seems your not at all naieve about the politics of surrender in Washington. I'm just sorry you endorse it.

[uponit7771]

44. Message discipline would prevent this from happening, repeated - first - easy to understand terms

...would prevent reThugs from setting the story.

Unfortunately dems don't have the ....I don't know, ability to observe to recognize this.

[Better Believe It]

45. I agree with you Many Democrats are really poor propagandists

They don't want to cause trouble and sound like they are starting a class war!!

And they lack the passion, the heart and life experience, so it's difficult for them to speak with, rather than at, working people.

This is certainly the problem with Pelosi and Reid .... plus they are not really on our side!

They have to be pushed into doing things that just go against their grain and politics.

[Hokie]

58. I do not think you are correct

Rule 22 governs filibusters and cloture motions. I believe that to change the rules the Democrats would actually need 66 votes to break a filibuster on a proposal to change the rules. On normal cloture votes the motion must gain 3/5 of the sitting Senators to prevail. This means that the filibustering side doesn't even have to vote to be successful.

Rule 22 in effect allows for the passive filibuster. What the Democrats could do is to continue to sign cloture petitions and vote on them but I do not think a filibustering Senator has to actually hold the floor as in the old days. Maybe a Senate expert out there could comment.

I expect there to be a discussion about modifying the Senate rules if Republicans continue to employ the filibuster as often as they have since losing control of the Senate in 2006. THey have taken it way beyond what is was intended to be or how it has been used in the past.

[Better Believe It]

61. Read post #51 and check out the link on filibusters

I'd like to know your opinion on the "nuclear option" proposal. The Republicans used the mere threat of it in 2005 to get all of their appointments approved by Democrats in the Senate without any threat of a filibuster.

I've read elswhere that the Senator Reid has the power to require filibustering Senators to be actually present on the Senate floor for debate. I couldn't find anything in Senate Rule XXII that forbids Senator Reid from ending "call in" filibusters or requiring filibustering Senators to be on the floor during Senate debate.

[Hokie]

62. Thanks

I thought that only applied to nomination votes but it sounds like it could be used on anything. You know, I think the majority should find an occasion to do this before Obama starts making judicial appointments. The stimulus bill would be a good place to start.

[Hokie]

63. I would talk about it first

If the Republicans know that Reid is even thinking about doing this it might be enough to curtail their use of the filibuster. If the Democrats were really planning to employ this I only see two ways it could happen.

1. Do it quickly and without prior warning or discussion. They had better be prepared for the inevitable whining and gnashing of teeth.

2. Build a strong public case against the "obstructionist, do-nothing Republicans" and say that this has to be done for the good of the country.

I do not see the Senate leadership having the willingness to take such a bold step. I do not doubt that the epublicans would have used the "nuclear option" in 2005 had not the "gang of 14" acted. The republicans always believe in the sin now and spin later philosophy.

[Better Believe It]

64. Without boldness nothing will change

"I do not see the Senate leadership having the willingness to take such a bold step."

But as Obama has pointed out, boldness is exactly what is required during this crisis or we will certainly slide into a very long and deep economic depression.

If that happens and the economy has not improved in four years the Republicans will regain control of Congress and the White House 2012 by a landslide.

[Hokie]

65. I would not be surprised to see Obama force new leadership

I think Obama's focus is on the short term goals of getting this stimulus bill passed and the great titanic that is the US economy slowly turned. In the next few months I think we will see his long term plans. I am sure he is sizing up Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to see if he thinks they fit into the plans. We should get some inkling of where he plans to go in his speech in couple of weeks.

[sampsonblk]

21. Why? (nt)

[AlinPA]

31. Reid is weak.

[onenote]

47. is he weaker than Byrd or LBJ?

What people don't seem to get is that filibuster -- even the old fashioned talk all day kind -- generally succeed. They are more burdensome on those opposing the filibuster (who have to make sure there is a quorum present) than they are on those filibustering. And they generally succeed, even when you have a strong majority leader. Back in the 50s, Sen Byrd went so far as to have the senate sergeant at arms arrest senators and bring them to the floor to vote on a quorum call. He still failed to break the filibuster. In 1960, LBJ kept the Senate in continuous session for nine days -- but he still failed to break a filibuster against the 1960 Civil Rights Act and had to accept a watered down version.

Sure, some filibusters can blow up in the face of those conducting them even when (or particularly when) they're successful. The public can become disillusioned with the obstructionists. However, that result is more likely when there is a clear issue -- like passing a civil rights bill. However, and this is just a fact of life, it is likely that the message that the public will come away with if there is a filibuster over the economic stimulus package would be that the Democrats were being uncompromising -- that both sides wanted to pass a bill, but the Democrats wouldn't give in to certain demands by the repubs. So long as some examples of spending remain in the stimulus package that can, unfairly or not, be spun as not directly related to the recovery, the repubs could esaily win the message battle, even if they are being unreasonable on other demands.

[bvar22]

18. The Republicans NEVER had 60 votes during the Bush reign....

and they managed to ram through every fucking thing they wanted.

Soooooo, what's up with that, Democrats?

[Better Believe It]

22. The Democrats never filibustered so the Republicans never had to invoke cloture

They got whatever they wanted only needing 51 votes.

The Republicans played hardball when they controlled the Senate.

The Democrats folded.

Today the Republicans are playing hardball with the Democrats firmly in control of the Senate.

The Democrats are still folding.

[onenote]

32. Never? Then what were those 18 cloture votes in 2005?

Forty percent of which were defeated by the Democrats?

Or the 21 cloture motions in 2004, more than half of which were defeated.

[Better Believe It]

23. The Republicans have been using this tactic since at least 1994!

Senate Republicans Deal A Major Defeat to Labor
By CATHERINE S. MANEGOLD,
New York Times
July 13, 1994


Handing organized labor a major defeat, Senate Republicans today blocked passage of a bill that would have made it illegal for employers to hire permanent replacements for workers striking over wages and benefits. Republican threats to filibuster the bill, which passed the House comfortably last year, led Senate leaders to schedule today's vote over whether to cut off debate.

Since even the hint of a filibuster can move the Senate toward a cloture vote, which calls for a wider margin of victory than the passage of a bill does, the Republicans have found it an effective tactic in stalling or forcing changes in legislation that the party opposes but cannot defeat on a majority vote.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A962958260

No actual Republican filibuster took place, it never happened, and yet that legislation was withdrawn by Democrats when they called for a cloture vote which lost!

[Life Long Dem]

25. 200,000 bills to choose from - 1 is chosen, leaving how many?

:rofl:

Okay okay... I'm alright now...

The President holds sole responsibility addressing the nation's crisis.

[onenote]

27. Fun facts: cloture motions in 2005 v. 2009

2005: Senate voted on cloture motions 18 times and rejected them 7 times.

2009 (thus far): Senate has voted on cloture motions 3 times and as approved all of them.

Obviously, what these statistics don't take into account is that leadership often will not bring up a bill for a cloture vote if they know that cloture will be rejected. That was the case in 2005 and today.

[Better Believe It]

29. And how many times were cloture motions voted on to stop actual filibusters?

I think the number is probably somewhere between zero and none.

Perhaps someone can dig up hard information on that.

[onenote]

30. none because no one is going to stop senate business cold when there is another way

The public's reaction to filibuster's is highly combustible. Will it be thought of as the principled action of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? Or will it be thougt of as the actions of unrepetent neanderthals, as with the filibusters against Civil Rights legislation.

If public reaction, one way or the other, is clear, then a traditional filibuster would not take place in today's media saturated environment. ANd where its not clear, neither side will risk it when they have the cloture mechanism without shutting down the government as an option.

[Better Believe It]

33. The Republicans Only Have "another way" If Democrats Give Them That Way

[Ioo]

28. Reid is a UBER coward... all you have to do is threaten, and he rolls over.

He needs to go!

[MarjorieG]

37. Amendments diferent? Any way to resurrect the $25B in infrastructure?

[Better Believe It]

39. Yes there is.

Present a brand new bill that includes the 25 billion in infrastructure spending and all other amendments that passed. That's one possible way or propose up a "new" Democratic amendment that calls for 26 billion in infrastruture spending and only requires a simple majority vote like Republican amendments.

However, I do have a question.

Why do Republican amendments only require a simple majority vote and Democratic amendments require 60 votes in order to proceed to an actual vote on an amendment?

----------------------------

The vote was on adding $24 billion in infrastructure spending on things like highways, mass transit and improvements to water and sewer systems. Had the amendment passed, the Senate's version of the economic stimulus package would have topped $900 billion.

The procedural vote that would have allowed the Senate to waive the budget rules and move forward on the amendment failed.

Democrats needed just two more votes to proceed on the amendment. The provision failed, with a vote of 58 in favor and 39 opposed. A three-fifths majority was required on the motion.

The Senate on Tuesday approved an amendment introduced by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, striking the $246 million tax break for Hollywood production companies. The vote was 52 in favor, 45 opposed. A simple majority was needed on the amendment.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/stimulus/index.html

[onenote]

42. A detailed explanation of how filibusters and cloture work

For those that want a more complete understanding of this process:

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C%2APLW%3D%22P%20%20%0A

[Better Believe It]

43. Thanks for the link

This document might be a bit dated (march 28, 2003) and doesn't include changes such as "call-in" filibusters that apparently have been granted by Senator Reid.

I'd like to see something more current if it exists on the web.

[Occam Bandage]

54. The rules haven't changed since. You might want to actually read it;

given your complete failure to understand what a filibuster is.

[Uzybone]

46. I agree with this

I usually do not to see filibusters forced but this is a situation that calls for it. Let them filibuster an economic stimulus bill.

[Life Long Dem]

48. Obama is wearing them out.

Saw McCain once, and he looked drained. He was pushed to his limits and has lost all his will to fight on for that 3% of the package that they don't want!! Fight on McCain! :woohoo:

[Usrename]

49. Exactly. Make them stand in lock step with Rush Limpballs.

Make them do it publicly every day until they cave.

[Better Believe It]

50. Why are Democrats still spreading this b.s. about needing 60 votes in the Senate

in order to pass the stimulus bill?

Here's yet another report in todays media.

WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of moderate senators reached a deal Friday to cut about $100 billion from the $937 billion stimulus package, a development that could win enough GOP support to get the 60 votes needed to pass the bill, the group's Democratic leader said.

"The hope is we'll pick up two more Republicans, and if we're able to do that then I think we'll have sufficient numbers to get a vote and pass the alternative," Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., told reporters as he walked into a meeting with other Democrats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29050187

[Occam Bandage]

55. Because Democrats understand Senate rules better than you do? nt

[AtomicKitten]

60. shhhhh, don't spoil it for them n/t

[Better Believe It]

66. Sorry. I really didn't mean to undermine the myth!

:) :)

[Better Believe It]

51. And Democrats always have the so-called "nuclear option"

The Republicans are determined to see this President fail with the help of Republicans and some conservative Democrats in Congress.

They are pinning their hopes on the belief that the current inadquate stimulus package along with the timid actions of the Treasury Secretary will increase the possibility of a full scale economic depression and that not much more will be done to jolt the economy and save the banking system.

The Republicans believe they only need to accomplish a few more things to almost guarantee a real depression on Obama's watch. They think that all they have to do is vote against any new money for stimulus, additional funds to shore up the financial system and massive economic relief for millions that will prevent foreclosures.

They think they can accomplish this by engaging in a filibuster against all new economic measures. And they will challenge the Democrats to try and break any filibuster.

Based on past experience, they expect the Democratic majority in Congress to once again cave-in to Republican filibuster threats.

Well, the Democrats in Congress and President Obama will have to call the Republicans out on their filibuster threats.

They will have to mobilize the public in support of new legislation and not play the Republican "bi-partisanship" game the next time around.

If the Republicans actually organize a real on the Senate floor filibuster the Democrats have the following options.

1. Surrender to the filibuster and withdraw the legislation.

2. Agree to Republican demands and weaken legislation to the point of being ineffective.

3. Let the Republicans filibuster until the public tires of Republican obstructionism and 60 Senators finally agree to end debate and a majority vote for new economic legislation.

4. Use the so-called "nuclear option" in which the Senate will simply change the rules and require 51 votes to pass legislation to bypass any Republican filibuster.

So what really is the "nuclear option" which scared the crap out of Democratic Senators in 2005? Much good has been accomplished with partisanship.

-----------------------------

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

[ljm2002]

56. No kidding!

I almost threw something at the TV last night when I heard Chris Matthews on Hardball saying the bill had just "squeaked through the Senate by 1 vote".

WTF?

And the Dems, as you point out, just play along ineptly with this meme.

It is beyond infuriating, I am beginning to think they have some reason to want it this way.