Why not invoke the Senate "nuclear option" and tell Lieberman to f*ck off?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

We all know what they are going to do - obstruct, obstruct obstruct... and then blame the Dems for "not being able to accomplish anything."

The Boehner letter pretty much spells it out.

Why not do it right away so we can govern for the next two years and stand on our record in the 2010 mid-terms?

[jwirr]

1. Because if I am not mistaken and franken loses then joe will once

again be needed to stop a fillibuster. Damn.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. the senate nuclear option means changing the Senate rules to require....

.... only a simple majority for cloture.

It's what the rethugs threatened to do back in 2005? when they had a majority but couldn't break our filibusters.

I know there would be a political back-lash price to pay but would it be worse than not getting ANYTHING done?

[KharmaTrain]

2. Boner Can't Do Shit

The House votes on almost every bill by a majority vote. He's 70 seats shy of that. All he can do is throw his usual shitfits. That's fine with me...it was these antics that hurt the GOOP in the past, keep digging, Boner, keep digging!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

6. I understand that. i took his letter as more of a party position .....

....that would carry over to the senate where they CAN obstruct everything with a filibuster.

[KharmaTrain]

10. I Wouldn't Bank On That...

There are a bunch of GOOP Senators...Snowe, Voinovich and even Specter who will be stuck in the middle on many issues. McConnel's gonna have his hand's full keeping his caucus together.

[Bunny]

12. I agree. Specter is up for re-election in 2010.

If his health holds up and he decides to run for re-election, he'll probably win again. But he needs to stay more middle-of-the-road in order to do so. I don't see him getting all obstructionist.

[R. P. McMurphy]

3. Please explain what the "nuclear option" is and how it works.

I must be missing something.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

7. The repubs threatened it in 2005......

Apparently, a simple majority of the senate can change the rules of the senate to require only a simple majority for cloture versus a 60 vote majority.

It would be a shitty thing to do and could cause a public opinion back-lash - but so would accomplishing nothing.

[BanTheGOP]

8. There was a HUGE and GLARING DIFFERENCE...

...in that the country would not have taken it from the REPUBLICANS!

I vote for hitting the nuke button. I say, STAND on our record! The country has proven in DROVES that we want a progressive, socialist democracy, and we need to ensure that the people get what they want.

I would even go SO far as to say if Reid and the dems DON'T push the nuke button, they will be undermining the will of the people.

This will be ESPECIALLY critical as Obama has over 100 federal judicial spots to fill with young progressives, and we don't need the dog and pony show.

[indepat]

5. Thankfully John McCain will not be joining possibly every other Republican senator in

trying to obstruct every significant Obama initiative. :P

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. After the campaign he just ran, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw Rush Limbaugh.

[indepat]

21. And no one could throw Pig Boy too far

:P

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. The "Nuclear Option" was just about Bush's judicial nominations

If I remember correctly, Bush and Frist got so worked up over the Dems blocking some of Bush's extremist judicial nominees that Frist threatened to shut down future filibusters until the so-called "Gang of 14" got together and "compromised" by agreeing to allow up-or-down votes on judicial nominees. I didn't think it was a sane idea then and I don't want us to use it either. If the "gang of 14" hadn't sold us out we could've kept some particularly bad nominees from getting through and it probably would've ended up being a PR disaster for the GOP. However, some of the "Blue Dogs" managed to save them the embarrassment of the public seeing how tyrannical they were about to become.
Unfortunately, we're going to still have to deal with people like Lott and McConnell in the new Congress but this time but they'll have to deal with Obama/Biden this time.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. You Are Correct. It Doesn't Apply At All To Regular Legislation.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. Never? Are you saying it can't be used regarding regular votes/legislation?

I understand the appointments issue is what brought up the debate but I'm trying to determine if it can be used elsewhere.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. I suppose somebody could try to change the rules of the Senate

However, I don't think that it would be good idea even if we could. Towards the end of the campaign, the Repugs were running on the fear of Democrats running all three branches of government (which probably helped keep us below 60 seats) and I don't really think we should do something like this which would only help validate their fears about the Democrats shoving things down the country's throat. People want change and if they want what we are trying to get through bad enough and/or we can sell it well enough we'll get it through, particularly if we can win over some Republicans (which I'm sure we probably could). However, I don't think that trying to change the rules of the Senate, which may be technically possible, is the best way to accomplish it. We will almost certainly need to figure out some way to perform some "behavioral modification" on Lott, McConnell, et. al if they suddenly get "nostalgic" for perpetual gridlock and obstructionism however.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. I'm not 100% sold on the idea. I wanted to see what others thought about the idea.

I agree we run the risk of looking like wild eyed liberals trying to rule by decree - but on the other hand, they are going to paint us like that anyway. We might as well get something done.

The question may be moot if we can get some moderate rethugs to come on board.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. If anybody can bring in some moderate Republicans on board

it will be Obama. I don't think Lott, McConnell et. al are going to get away with obstructing everything under the sun this time, at least not without Obama/Biden calling them out on it. Obama and the party in general need to reach across the aisle and work with anybody and everybody willing to work towards the betterment of our country and basically isolate/marginalize the "dead enders" who are more interested in obstructing simply for partisan gain. I wonder if Obama and/or Biden can maybe try to get McCain to lend a helping hand (and see if he really meant what he said in his concession speech - and how "mavericky" he really is)? :shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Self Delete

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. This Link Will Be A Better Resource Than Anything I Could Say.

It pertains to the judicial filibuster debate from years past, but much of it applies to what you're asking. The issue is very complex and the answers not very easy. It's a good read.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/Senate%20Rules%20on%20Filibuster.html

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. Thanks for that. I need to read it a couple times.