I hate to rain on your parade but 60 democratic senators guarentees nothing.

[LynneSin]

Sure, it'll look freaking AMAZING to hit such a great number and I for one will celebrate. But there seems to be alot of posts that just assume 60 Democrats = NO MORE FILIBUSTERS.

Well, not to spoil your parade but 60 Democrats means we've elected 58 democratic senators and were able to get 2 non-democrats to align with us. And although Bernie Sanders defines liberalism, Joe Lieberman hardly does - but we would have to count both of those folks too.

THEN we have to hope that anytime the republicans filibuster, mainly for judicial nominations, that all 60 senators including Joe Lieberman AND such moderate democrats like Ben Nelson(NE), Bill Nelson(FL), Mark Pryor(AR) stick with the filibuster. And oh, dont' forget that lovely 'Gang of 14' group that helped breakup the filibuster on some of the most offensive Bush nominations - that also included Byrd, Salazar, Inouye, Landrieu. Hell, I don't even trust my own senator, DLC-happy Tom Carper and unfortunately I think another DLCer is going to be picked to replace Joe Biden (Carney).

So 60 is a great bragging number but Harry Reid and Joe Biden are NOT like Trent Lott/Mitch McConnell and Dick Cheney - the republicans were heavy handed with forcing senators to vote the republican way or punish them. Sure that sounds like something we'd love to have with democrats but personally I want my senators to represent ME (ie - my state and our state's needs), not the heavy hand of leadership in the party.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. I can live with the lack of a guarantee

all of your points are valid, but when the stars align we can make the asshats sit down and shut up.

[LynneSin]

3. Hey, I want 60 senators purely as bragging rights that we did that..

but it's just foolish to claim we're 'filibuster' proof. Some of these folks are also the same ones that want us to unload Joe Lieberman WHICH then would put us at 59

[Zynx]

2. I don't want to be a dick in your mashed potatoes, but it does have the effect of scaring

Republicans to death. Maybe some of them will play ball if they see 9 seats fall in one election.

[LynneSin]

4. Now THAT is something to get excited over

and please, get your dick out of my mashed potatoes

:cry:

[grannie4peace]

5. sweet!!!!!!!

[Breeze54]

6. 60 is a MAJORITY and BETTER than we've had in TWELVE YEARS!!!!!

Fuckin' A + ... it's grand!!!! :D

It means we can FLIP the BIRD to the rethug's filibusters!!!!!

:woohoo:

Grow up! Expand your mind. :loveya:

[Breeze54]

7. BTW? What's wrong with this.....

" .... dont' forget that lovely 'Gang of 14' group that helped breakup

the filibuster on some of the most offensive Bush nominations"

:woohoo: :woohoo:

:toast:

[LynneSin]

16. Many of those judges got on the bench thanks to the 'Gang of 14'

will they be there for us when Kyl and his ilk start filibustering President Obama's nominations?

[Uben]

8. Go ahead and rain

You forget that it just takes a moderate republican or two to override any filibuster as it is now, and that is certainly a possibility given the current staus of the republican party. I feel good with what we have now, but picking up AK and GA or Minn would be icing on the cake.

Lieberman is a suck-up. He will go along with the party in power, it's what he does. Whatever it takes to get what he wants, he will do. I suspect we will see him caucusing with the dems heavily, now. The republicans have nothing to offer him.

Sanders is a pretty much given.

There are no guarantees on anything in congress, but 60 is the magic number and having those votes, or even the appearance of those votes, is intimidating to repubs.

[KharmaTrain]

9. The New Realities...

Rarely does a party have the lock-step numbers we've seen with the Repugnicans. There have always been "moderates" or "yellow dogs" or "blue dogs" or Gangs of 7 or whatever that are part of the ebb and flow of both Houses. You're right, 60 votes don't mean a thing...to have absolute control, you need 67 and then why not go for more to ensure the weak-kneed in the caucus don't sell out. But that's utopian. It rarely happens and it's not the role of the Senate.

I think it was Franklin who described the House as a place where issues boil and the Senate where they cool before they're acted on. Bipartisanship has always been encouraged and the most succesful Senators rate their tenure by how many bipartisan bills they've signed onto.

Here's the problem with fillibusters. It's a great tool when you're protecting the Executive. Many bills were never brought up last year not for the fear of the fillibuster as much as the sure veto...and knowing there wasn't 67 votes to over ride it. The organizational rules made virtually every bill a 60 voter...and instead of confronting, Reid tried to always take the "traditional Senate route" of least resistance.

Now the rules have changed. We now longer are on the defense...Democrats control the Executive...and with it the agenda for the next four years. A President Obama can carry a lot of weight behind a popular bill that will force moderate repugnicans...especially those facing re-election races in blue states in 2010 to think hard before they jump off a cliff with the wingnuts. They can fillibuster all they want, but when they see their ratings tanking, the phones and email flooding and the pressure applied, I don't see them having the resolve. Remember, when Newt tried to shut down the government on Clinton, it only made Clinton stronger. Are these asshats so stupid as to try that trick again?

[Le Taz Hot]

29. Excellent analyis.

n/t

[Aslanspal]

10. I disagree we will get SOMETHING!

May have some compromise but we will put it together and get something, may not be perfect for all involved but over all "Change has come".

[tom_paine]

11. All good points, Lynne. But let them have the filibuster

if they over-use it, the Democrats can excoriate them in the M$M and rip them to shreads as having cause the economic problems and then stupidly standing inthe way of us cleaning up the mess they made.

The wild cards here are the usual ones.

#1) The Democratic Congressional Leadership: Did They Grow a Spine or Are They the Same Old Weak Toadies.

I don't want to rush to judgement here. Hell, the 111th Congress hasn't even been seated yet, but if they come groveling back to the disgusting JoeMentum and give him his chairmanships, it is the worst possible sign that little or nothing has changed, at least in Congress.

#2) The M$M. Will they, out of "fairness" revert to Clinton Mode, which they never really have left since 1992, or will they give the Democrats a bit less of the short shrift since we are so overwhelmingly in control of things.

If the M$M even only behaves as they have in this election (90% Bushie Talking Points and Frame, but this time we actually got a 10% break fro some brief, half-hearted truthtelling and actual lie debunking. Somhow I can't see them keeping it up much longer. The Bush Party-Loyal Sub-Media will soon be back to determining what stories they cover and for how long.

I have been wrong about other things, maybe I'll be wrong about this, too.

Because in order to get the truth out to the American People, ALL the Democrats need is even a 10% break from M$M Bushie Framing and the white light of TRUTH will blast through as it did this election when the M$M devoted a mere 10% to actually doing their job (still 90% Bushie Frames Sympathy and Regurgitated Laundered Bushie Talking Points).

We can hope...

[LynneSin]

17. They are working with Joe because Barack wants to take the high road on this

and as much as this kinda disgusts us - we should appreciate that Obama has bigger battles to worry about then "what to do with Lieberman"

[tom_paine]

22. Well, I did my duty. many calls to D Senators today. NO ON HOLY JOE!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. Thanks Lynn. I've said the same thing several times.

How often did we go nuts here when those Blue Dogs voted along with the Repukes?

[Gman]

13. While 60 may not guarantee anything

it makes a whole lot of things much more possible than they were 2 years ago.

[LynneSin]

19. Personally I'd rather say 59, because I still won't count Lieberman but...

it's a lovely bragging number and something that the Republicans FAILED to manage in their years of 'glory' these past 14 years.

[Mike Daniels]

14. How many of those would be blue dog Dems?

You would have to factor that the blue dogs aren't necessarily going to always agree with the party on certain issues either.

[gristy]

15. I don't need no stinking guarantee

Nor do I expect one.

[kentuck]

18. Agree

Wholeheartedly.

[bigtree]

20. well, at the start, there's the ability to set the agenda, decide which bills advance

That happens in committee too. The majority party gets to chair the committees with a balance favoring the majority. Much more . . .

[LynneSin]

25. Trust me - we have a ton of advantages with our 59 senators. And we should call it that - 59

because 60 means we're ok with Lieberman. And we can't have both - we can't bitch about Lieberman still being associated with our party AND brag about having 60 in numbers.

[Le Taz Hot]

21. Thank you.

The 60-Democrat zeitgeist over which the MSM is currently ruminating ignores the dynamics stated in your OP. I would like to add that, on certain legislation, Snowe & Collins MAY be counted on to vote with the Democrats. Further, there are now some "red-dog Republicans" out there who also are less willing to goose-step to the Republican party line. Additionally, the GOP's ability to strong-arm their members was decidedly weakened in the last two elections.

It's going to be an interesting two years.

Good post.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. You're Basing Your Opinion On Worthless Technicality. Why Not Base It On Facts Instead?

What I mean by that is; go seek out all legislation defeated by filibuster in our current congress. What you'll find is that almost every single one of them, regardless of how many dems voted against or how many repubs voted for, would now have enough yes votes to pass. That's what matters. Facts matter. Look at the facts. When looking at the ACTUAL numbers for the legislation we've tried pushing through but had defeated due to not having enough cloture votes, you'll find that reaching the 60 would now give us enough on the yes side to pass just about every single one of them. Those are the facts. Technicality only goes so far. A technical argument of "bbbbbut not all 60 will vote with us all the time blah blah blah" only goes so far. What matters is HOW MANY VOTES SHORT WERE WE the last time the bill was attempted. Take that along with our pickups, and you'll see that it is all but guaranteed that most would be successful now.

[LynneSin]

24. Yes, we have enough "YES" votes out there that stuff will pass

even if we have a few defectors

But we don't have enough "YES" votes if Kyl and other republicans start filibustering. And trust me, we're going to see that right away with John Paul Stevens due to retire from the Supreme Court.

It only takes 40 to stop the process, the filibuster was designed to allow the minority to have a voice if they felt the majority was abusing power. I know there is much more to filibustering than just that but to me Mitch McConnell is a spiteful old bastard who will use the filibuster as much as he can just to be spiteful.

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. There is also the "nuclear option", Lynne. Exceptional circumstances

may demand exceptional measures, to get the country back on track.

All circumstances were exceptional to George, and that has contributed to this economic nightmare, though you don't want to follow his path with an endless stream of Executive Orders

[Joe Chi Minh]

31. Well spoken.

[leftofthedial]

26. so now the congressional "democrats" will have cover for not doing anything

(other than perhaps going along with the occasional repuke agenda item).

their hands are tied until they get a 100% supermajority. See? The way the Senate rules work, we just can't do anything.

[LynneSin]

27. I think think alot of work can and will get done

and we need to call out republicans when they abuse filibustering especially if it's halting real progress that can help Americans.

[leftofthedial]

28. is it okay to call out "democrats" who pursue bad policy

or who refuse to pursue good policy?

[LynneSin]

30. how about 'all of the above'

:D

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[depakid]

34. The Delaware Senators have done quite the job on several occasions

supposedly representing Delaware interests- while tossing the broader public interest under the bus... not to single them out, Carper's no worse than some of the others you cited.

Party unity and discipline has been a problem with Dems as long as I can remember- and the lack of it is, perhaps more than any other factor, is why we've gotten into this mess. Dems who not only went alone with, but promoted the Republican deregulatory agenda are every bit as responsible- and in my mind even more responsible for the current financial meltdown.

One expects this behavior from Republican ideologues; that's what they do. It's "thier role." On the other hand, Democrats traditionally have been less inclined to sign on to the worst of the corruption and ineptitude. Not so over the past 16 years.

[backscatter712]

35. At the same time, not quite making 60 doesn't guarantee we'll be gridlocked.

For one thing, we've got Obama. If the most unpopular and hated President in this country's history could bully things like FISA through, surely, Obama can use that same bully pulpit for good - pressuring Democrat and Republican alike to get something useful done for a change.

For another thing, I don't think the GOP's gonna be marching in lockstep like they were when they had power. It's circular-firing-squad time for them right now, and it'll probably continue to be that way for some time. After Bush leaves, there will no longer be a clear leader for the Republicans, and everyone from Sarah Palin to Mitt Romney to Mitch McConnell will be pushing to be the alpha dog. And one of the ways they'll undermine each other is to fail to support each other's bills, they'll welsh on filibustering, and some of them will calculate that they'll get more mileage and more votes by following Obama than by sticking with their own party's crap.

Also, from 2006 until now, we had to get NINE GOP Senators to go our way, AND keep the Democrats voting along party lines (a task like herding cats) AND keep Lieberman from flipping to the other side just to break a filibuster. Not easy when the legislation is controversial. Now, assuming Begich wins, we'll have 56 Democrats, plus Sanders (who's hard liberal and reliably votes our way) plus Lieberman, maybe a couple more. That means that assuming we can get the Democrats to vote along party lines (which will be easier if Obama's doing his job correctly), we only need two Republicans plus Lieberman, or three Republicans if Lieberman balks. Much easier. We can more easily entice them with tasty earmarks, work some moderate compromise (the real thing, not GOP-you-do-things-our-way-and-we'll-call-it-compromise) into the bill, and we'll be able to hit 60 votes without too much hassle! We can also get some Republicans to save face by quietly not-supporting a filibuster, but publicly voting against one of our bills - which means our legislation still passes.

Granted, getting 59 or 60 votes on our side makes our job that much easier, but don't think we'll be completely dysfunctional if we don't quite make it to 60. We'll do a hell of a lot better than we're doing now.

[McCamy Taylor]

36. Obama needs a Humphrey to make things happen in Congress.

[old mark]

37. LS, I have had quite a lot of rain on my parade, and a little more

won't hurt.
BUT I want all the Democrats and as few republicans as I can get, and I want to treat the minority party like shit.

Because they are.

mark

[LynneSin]

38. Amen to that!

*** giggles ***

But when it comes to counting the eggs in our basket I would rather stick with the ones I know will hatch and not that stinking rotton one that yes, it is an egg, but a rotton one!

[old mark]

39. LS ; I believe we have a few of the rotten ones

who will not start to really stink till Obama needs them.


mark