We just need 51 Senate votes, with or without reconciliation, to pass universal healthcare and other badly needed progressive legislation.
Even 50 votes will be enough with Vice-President Biden casting the tie breaking vote.
Don't let anyone b.s. you by claiming 60 votes are needed to pass a healthcare bill without reconciliation because the Republicans might threaten, or heaven forbid, might engaged in an actual Senate floor filibuster against the bill.
Let them! How long do you think they will obstruct the Senate by filibustering against a public option favored by a big majority of the people. The longer they filibuster the more they isolate themselves as anti-healthcare obstructionists.
All filibusters end. Make them get their cots out on the Senate floor, no phone in phantom filibusters will be allowed by the Democratic party. In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.
We don't need the Republicans and even most so-called "Blue Dog" Democratic Senators will have to oppose a Senate filibuster against healthcare with a strong public option.
We'll get the 60 votes to end Senate debate, have no fear of that, and than the Senate can vote to pass the bill with a simple majority.
And of course, we can always keep the so-called "nuclear option" in our back pocket ready to deploy if necessary to stop any filibuster dead in its tracks!
One might think that only Republicans are permitted to use that option to hear some people whine.
Unless you have a bunch of whimps in the Senate, I think not. And if they are really that eager to wave the white towel of surrender at the slightest sign of opposition, how do they expect to prevent the Republicans from regaining control of the House, Senate and White House in 2012? That's exactly what will happen if the Democrats can't produce with their big majority in both houses of Congress and control of the White House.
If they don't pass universal healthcare with a public option now and if they don't stop this economic crisis from becoming a full scale economic depression, the Democrats are toast in 2012 .... they will go the way of Herbert Hoover and the Republican party of 1932.
It's now or never for President Obama and the Democratic Party. It won't get any better.
And let's end the nonsense about fake Republican filibusters:
--------------------------------------------
Time to End the Filibuster By Making It Real
By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
U.S. News and World Report
March 2, 2009
Is it time to eliminate the filibuster? Definitely not. But David RePass, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Connecticut, has an interesting suggestion in today's New York Times along those lines but distinctly short of it.
RePass bemoans the fact that the filibuster has given the senate's minority party a functional veto over legislation in that chamber by requiring at least 60 votes to pass something. But, he points out, real filibusters never actually happen these days: the modern "filibuster" is more threat than action.
Which is where RePass' solution comes in:
... fixing the problem would not require any change in Senate rules. The phantom filibuster could be done away with overnight by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. All he needs to do is call the minority's bluff by bringing a challenged measure to the floor and letting the debate begin.
In other words, don't get rid of the filibuster. Instead make it real: Force Republicans to actually get up and tie up Senate business and explain why they're doing it. If the GOP (or the Democrats, in time, when they are back in the minority), want to filibuster they should be able to—but they should have to actually do it.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/03 /...
----------------------
The tyranny of the minority
By PETER FENN
March 19, 2009
Peter Fenn is founder of Fenn & King Communications, a Democratic political consulting firm. He worked on the Senate Intelligence Committee and was a top aide to then-Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho).
President Barack Obama has it right — there is a lot to change about Washington. The problem is, not much will get changed unless we confront the runaway filibuster in the U.S. Senate.
I remember, as a Senate page in the 1960s, the great debates on civil rights that would go on night after night. The rows of uncomfortable beds rolled in made Army barracks look luxurious. As a new Senate staffer in 1975, I also remember the heated debate over the effort to change the vote on cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 votes, to shut off debate. Most of us thought that was a good thing, changing the Senate’s Rule 22, which was adopted in 1917. We believed it would be easier to stop obstructionists from paralyzing the Senate.
Thirty years later, boy, were we wrong. I joke that you need 60 votes to rename a post office. The “phantom filibuster,” as University of Connecticut professor emeritus David RePass calls the mere threat of a filibuster, has tied the Senate in knots.
There are really three alternatives. The first is to confront the filibuster as it was intended: to demand continuous debate on an issue, causing a major confrontation with the minority. This would tie up the Senate and provoke a political standoff. The second is to invoke the so-called nuclear option and end the filibuster altogether. The third is to further lower the number of votes needed — say, to 55 instead of 60. This option still leaves the Senate with the problem of a continuous supermajority to pass legislation.
As long as one party or faction feels compelled to constantly require 60 votes to pass anything, the short-term option may be to call its bluff and bring in those lovely cots to sleep in just off the Senate floor. The lawmakers can all look like Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Or they can look like obstructionists who are impeding real change for the nation.
Please read the complete article at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20178.html -----------------------------------
Op-Ed Contributor
Make My Filibuster
By DAVID E. RePASS
David E. RePass is an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Connecticut.
New York Times
March 1, 2009
PRESIDENT OBAMA has decided to spend his political capital now, pushing through an ambitious agenda of health care, education and energy reform. If the Democrats in the Senate want to help him accomplish his goals, they should work to eliminate one of the greatest threats facing effective governance — the phantom filibuster.
Most Americans think of the filibuster (if they think of it at all) through the lens of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” — a minority in the Senate deeply disagrees with a measure, takes to the floor and argues passionately round the clock to prevent it from passing. These filibusters are relatively rare because they take so much time and effort.
In recent years, however, the Senate has become so averse to the filibuster that if fewer than 60 senators support a controversial measure, it usually won’t come up for discussion at all. The mere threat of a filibuster has become a filibuster, a phantom filibuster. Instead of needing a sufficient number of dedicated senators to hold the floor for many days and nights, all it takes to block movement on a bill is for 41 senators to raise their little fingers in opposition.
The phantom filibuster is clearly unconstitutional. The founders required a supermajority in only five situations: veto overrides and votes on treaties, constitutional amendments, convictions of impeached officials and expulsions of members of the House or Senate. The Constitution certainly does not call for a supermajority before debate on any controversial measure can begin.
And fixing the problem would not require any change in Senate rules. The phantom filibuster could be done away with overnight by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. All he needs to do is call the minority’s bluff by bringing a challenged measure to the floor and letting the debate begin.
Some argue that this procedure would mire the Senate in one filibuster after another. But avoiding delay by not bringing measures to the floor makes no sense. For fear of not getting much done, almost nothing is done at all. And what does get done is so compromised and toothless to make it filibuster-proof that it fails to solve problems.
It also happens to make a great deal of political sense for the Democrats to force the Republicans to take the Senate floor and show voters that they oppose Mr. Obama’s initiatives. If the Republicans want to publicly block a popular president who is trying to resolve major problems, let them do it. And if the Republicans feel that the basic principles they believe in are worth standing up for, let them exercise their minority rights with an actual filibuster.
Please read the complete article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/opinion/02RePass.html ...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
