Obama isn't going to pass squat unless the filibuster is history

[Strawman]

We just saw that the Republicans are willing to push this economy over the brink in order to kill the UAW and advance the interests of their corporate masters back home in their right-to-work states. The Republican minority is extreme and sectional. They will stall progress in the Senate the same way their Dixiecrat forefathers did. Those Southern Senators managed to block Civil Rights legislation for one hundred years. One hundred years!

What makes you think that James Inhofe won't be able to be the pointman on a filibuster of Obama's environmental program the way Richard Shelby was on the auto bailout? Or that Mitch McConnell won't kill his health care proposal?

When the new Senate meets in January the standing rules should not be adopted. Before the standing rules are adopted by the new Senate majority rules. The Democratic majority should kill the filibuster once and for all. It has been the enemy of progress more than it has been the defender of it from rollback. It is harder to get progressive legislation passed than it is to defend it.

I'm sure this will never happen, but it ought to.

[HereSince1628]

1. No problem. The nation will still be at war. Obama will be the CIC

and he can rule by fiat just like the scrub.

Even John Yoo says that Obama will have unlimited freedom to make decisions about how to fight the war. Obama just needs to integrate the economy and the environment in his "war" plans and viola!!! Progress by fiat!

[spanone]

2. obama won't have to live with this congress.

[Strawman]

3. 40 votes in the Senate is all they need

And there are always a few useful idiots on our side who will defect for some reason or other.

These Republicans are not going to go along. These are hard core ideologues.

[scheming daemons]

7. For almost everything, he'll be able to find two or three Republicans...

Like Snowe, Collins.... even McCain on some issues.


The GOP will only have 41 or 42 members. All we'll need to do is peel off two or three on any issue to stop the filibuster.


Even with this bailout, there were a handful of Republicans that were willing to go along with the Dems.

[Strawman]

10. But we lost 3 Dems

Tester and Baucus because of some transit bailout and Lincoln because she is from the South and foreign car companies are based there. We will never get all 57 or 58 on board. There will always be a few defections.

[karynnj]

18. True - but the difference is we now need 10 Republicans even if we have all the Democrats

Then we will need 1 or 2 Republicans if we had all the Democrats. When we lose 3 Democrats, we will need 4 or 5 Republicans. (Instead of 13)

[Warpy]

4. It's a double edged sword

which is why the filibuster suspension needs to have a sunset clause attached to it, say 6 years.

Six years of being toothless might convince these backwards, America hating morons that retirement is a good idea.

[Sixty_cycle_humm]

5. Until the shoe is on the other foot

and the Repugs have the majority, then do you want it that way?

[Strawman]

6. What have we Democrats ever stopped with the filibuster?

John Roberts?

Sam Alito?

Do you think they would have the guts to repeal Social Security when they know damn well they'd be run out of town on a rail by the voters and we could reverse that move?

The filibuster is an anti-majoritarian device. Time for our democracy to grow up, take the training wheels off and let the people rule. Let the parties pass their agenda and be responsible for it to the voters like in every other democracy.

[Shiver]

8. Kerry attempted a fillibuster against Alito

Wasn't successful, obviously.

[karynnj]

17. He was successful filibustering ANWR in the first Bush term

The Alito filibuster COULD have been successful, except the leadership really didn't want it. The Democrats did a very poor job at the hearings - where the key prominent issue should have been the issues where he was far out of the mainstream - such as unitary President and his consistent bias against powerless people - not Princeton eating clubs and a woman's right to chose - any Bush nominee would be pro-life. There were compelling reasons not to confirm him - that could have worked well with Libertarians.

Here is a link to the CSPAN coverage of the last day before the cloture vote. Kerry gives an incredible speech at 2:41 and again at 6:07 when he spoke at the end to say that this was an irreversible decision. http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=190942-1&showVid=true

[librechik]

9. Reid must make the Pukkkes ACTUALLY filibuster. Eough of this handshake crap!

Reid represents us. He's not there to be friendly with the opposition. Just to represent us. Is that too much to ask?

Apparently yes.

[Strawman]

12. I agree

Make Shelby and Vitter pull a Strom Thurmond and talk non-stop.

And don't allow Vitter to wear his diapers. That's an unfair advantage!

[librechik]

20. tee hee n/t

[Bigmack]

13. Absolutely....

Call their bluff, and let them filibuster. Obama can speak, unlike Dumbya, and I'll bet he could make those Repukes look like the Neanderthals they are.

Let 'em sputter.

[ramapo]

16. My thoughts exactly

Bring back the old-fashioned filibuster. Get up there and talk and talk and talk.

[backscatter712]

27. Reid only pretends to represent us.

He "represents" us in the same way that Alan Colmes "represents" the left wing on Hannity & Colmes - they take a dive every single time. Their job is to be bitch-slapped, making themselves look like pantywaists, and making all liberals look the same by extension.

Don't make the mistake of thinking Reid's on our side. His lobbyists pay him very well to be playing the game the way he is...

[patrice]

11. 2010 is coming - SOON. nt

[nolabels]

22. I fear that Einstein (or whoever it was) about equal types of reactions

Only two more years of a down-turned economy maybe hoping for too much

A graph showing how bad 2008 has been
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4624174

[patrice]

28. I'm betting on enough cognitive evolution + recognition of the necessity of Issue Actions

to make some changes more possible.

The cognitive evolution I hope is on the horizon is recognition of how

ALL

of us have been played for

FOOLS

by posers manipulating false dichotomies for everything they are worth, up to and beyond the point of absurdity.

People only need a few prominent models showing them that in

MOST

situations, it is not a case of "it's either ___________ or it's _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _" Reality is ACTUALLY both and more besides. Maybe they will also recognize that we NEED Reality

IF

we are going to survive.

[Political Heretic]

14. Time for the NUCLEAR OPTION. :)~

Republicans were fine with it when they were in the majority, so they can't exactly oppose it now.

:)

[Strawman]

23. this would be different

They wanted t kill it only for Supreme Court nominees, which would have kept it around for everything else. That's kidn of the worst of both worlds.

I'm suggesting getting rid of it period.

[travelingtypist]

15. We need a new Democratic leader in the Senate.

I can't see the method to Reid's madness. We need somebody like Rahm Emmanual who knows
how to make people hurt.

Enough already.

[karynnj]

19. Are you suggesting he not be chief of staff, but Ill Senator and

the leader - or, given that you said "like" Emmanuel - who do you think fits that? I personally do not admire that quality.

[travelingtypist]

24. We need a head-buster.

A leader people are afraid of. The closest example I could think of
was Rahm.

I admired Harry Reid for a long time for standing up the the Nevada
mob and surviving having his car blown up. But he has done nothing for
me lately.

Enough.

[karynnj]

25. Who in the Senate today fits that description - you kind of have to be a Senator to

be the Senate Majority leader. I also do not think that is the way to heal the divide in the country. I think you need a better diplomat, who could craft legislation that can be acceptable to a large percent of the Senate - say 75 to 80%. I think a large part of why Obama won was promising just that.

[backscatter712]

30. I would have suggested Hillary Clinton,

except she's now going to be Secretary of State. Unlike Reid, she's got a pair. She knows how to crack skulls.

How about Russ Feingold? Patrick Leahy?

[karynnj]

37. Can you list a single time when HRC got a group of peers

to do something they were not intending to do? the only ferocity I saw was in the campaign at the end when she wouldn't accept that she lost. If she were as strong as you suggest, why did she take over a month after the last primary to return to the Senate? I doubt that Feingold would want the position. He seems more comfortable being the one last dissenter.

I think Leahy might be awesome, but I would suspect that he prefers being the Chair of the Judiciary committee.

[travelingtypist]

31. Heal the divide?

I guess I've been asleep for the past eight years. The dividers are still dividing,
unless you missed the bullshit they just pulled with the auto bailout.

Jon Tester seems to me like he'd be a head-buster if given a shot at it. I know for
a fact that Jeff Merkeley, Oregon's new freshman Senator, was a head-buster when he
was the leader in the Oregon legislature.

Obama won because he's Barack Obama -- cool, unflappable, ran a flawless campaign in
a country desperate to throw the Republicans out.

[Better Believe It]

21. Republicans Don't Filibuster, they just threaten to filibuster or call it in

That's usually enough to have the Democratic leaders roll over and play dead.

No reason why that won't continue under the Obama administration.

Senate Democrats may make Obama a one term President.

[cali]

26. Oh, I don't know about that. The new Senate will have a minimum of

58 dems, possibly 59. And look at last night's vote; 10 repubs voted with the dems while only 3 dems voted with the repubs. It'll be even easier to peel off repub votes in the new Senate.

And the idea that the filibuster should be killed is moronic.

[Strawman]

33. Why is it moronic?

Why should we submit to an defacto supermajority in a legislative body that is skewed to overrepresent the most conservative sections of the country.

[cali]

35. because there may well come a day when the repubs are back in the majority

[Strawman]

36. Look at history

The filibuster has been more of a roadblock to progress than a defender of it from rollback.

A core of Southern conservatives blocked Civil Rights for 100 years.

If Republican majorities want to try to undo core liberal policies like Social Security when they are in the majority and control the White House, let them try and then bear the responsibility with the voters.

[Jennicut]

29. The problem is not the filibuster its that Reid caves in and doesn't make them use it

Make them talk for 20 hours or something. What is he so afraid of? If the filibuster delays the bill does that mean it is completely dead and you cannot come back to vote on it later on? I understand that but why not make them use their bluff?

[Strawman]

32. Just saw William Greider has a new article on this. Good read if you're interested

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/greider?rel=hp_picks

[TexasObserver]

34. time to bust the filibuster

Why should we allow the five worst senators in America to set policy for 300,000,000?

It's a rule that has been changed before, and should be changed now.