Stop perpetuating the 60 Senate votes lie!!

[margotb822]

If the Republicans want to filibuster, let them. Let them be accountable to the American people. Let everyone see the Republicans obstructing the governing process and our progress as a nation.

Democrats have a majority in the Senate and we can't let this minority compromise our principles.

On Rachel Maddow, Pelosi specifically said "The Senate is different, they need 60 votes."

No, they don't.

Harry Reid needs to make them get out on the floor and actually filibuster. That would be more embarrassing for them than it would for the Democratic party.

51 votes is a majority. We can't be lead around by the minority and I wish Reid would get his balls out of the lock box and use them!

check out my website for more!

[msongs]

1. hahahaha maybe Jon Conyers will write a "stern" letter - he's great at that nt

[Divine Discontent]

2. why is this hard for her to accept? I dunno, but I agree with you - make them get up there & bitch

and whine, and obstuct progress!


President Obama Inaugural, "A Witness To History" & the 1st presidential portrait items www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MilesColtrane]

4. Your assuming that most people know how the Senate works.

It's more likely that the common reaction won't be "Damn those Republicans for filibustering.", it will be, "Damn those do-nothing Democrats who can't get a bill passed."

[margotb822]

5. true, but

if the Republicans have to actively filibuster, it puts the burden on them. I just don't think we should be doing the obstructionist work of the Republicans for them.

[Senator]

14. not true, but...

...you're assuming that "most people" are stupid when recent polls show the exactly opposite -- that the public is way ahead of the nail-biting beltway on http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/24/bipartisanship/index.html">the DO Some Damn Thing Meter.

Sadly, it is this defeatist reflex that is the core problem with the Dems among the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy.

But even under that fear-based, leadership-as-manipulation presumption, a simple media buy in the Northeast should easily whip Collins and Snowe (at least) back onto the bandwagon -- and perhaps even right out of the crumbling GOP.

---

[Omnibus]

6. I agree with you 100%.

Make the Republicans get up there and make fools of themselves. Let them speak 60 hours straight against health care reform.

Record it all.

Let them write their opponents' campaign commercials.

[keopeli]

7. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work like that. It has been tried before

I think it was in the 80s that Sen. Byrd forced the filibuster to proceed.

What happened? Everyone went to their offices to work while one Republic Senator sat in the chamber and constantly called a quorum vote. This proceedure is about 100 years old. Any Senator at any time can suggest the absence of a quorum. The rules say that the clerk must call the roll. This takes 15-20 minutes, after which time the Senator may simply suggest the absence of a quorum again. The only way to stop him from asking for a roll-call vote is with 60 Senators prepared to stop him from speaking (the cloture vote).

It seems to me Sen. Byrd made this charade go on for a while before giving up. The absence of anyone in the chamber (since there was no way to stop it from happening) left nothing but empty chairs.

Now, I realize that in these extraordinary times, even this type of stunt might hurt the Republics. However, the cost is very high for the show as all business has to stop.

Suffice to say that, in the past 100 years, your suggestion has failed whenever attempted, which was rarely. I would love to see it work! But with the odds being so slim, efforts are probably better focused elsewhere.

Peace

[omega minimo]

8. That's the Stragerist excuse for not IMPEACHING Bush Cheney -- she's hangin' on to it.

[many a good man]

9. Senate may require 60 votes on budget bills without a filibuster

Any Senator can raise a "point of order" against legislation that exceeds budget, according to Congressional Budget Act of 1974, aka Titles I-IX of P.L. 93-344, and some subsequent legislation.

link: http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/7/161443/9275/436/583

SEC. 201. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.

(a) Point of Order-

(1) IN GENERAL- It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit for either of the applicable time periods as measured in paragraphs (5) and (6).

...

(5) BASELINE- Estimates prepared pursuant to this subsection shall--

(A) use the baseline surplus or deficit used for the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget; and

(B) be calculated under the requirements of subsections (b) through (d) of section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as in effect prior to September 30, 2002) for fiscal years beyond those covered by that concurrent resolution on the budget.

(6) PRIOR SURPLUS- If direct spending or revenue legislation increases the on-budget deficit or causes an on-budget deficit when taken individually, it must also increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit when taken together with all direct spending and revenue legislation enacted since the beginning of the calendar year not accounted for in the baseline under paragraph (5)(A), except that direct spending or revenue effects resulting in net deficit reduction enacted in any bill pursuant to a reconciliation instruction since the beginning of that same calendar year shall never be made available on the pay-as-you-go ledger and shall be dedicated only for deficit reduction.

(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeals-

(1) WAIVER- This section may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn

...

[originalpckelly]

10. Yeah, I seem to remember them pushing the nuclear option on us...

but now that we're in power, we dare not use it, or the Republican tools will get all pissy. Fuck them NUKE THE BASTARDS!

[14thColony]

11. We did win a majority in November, right?

Sometimes it's hard to tell. So if we had 60 seats, would Reid feel compelled to re-write the rules to require a 2/3 majority for cloture?

[orleans]

13. probably. n/t

[tavalon]

12. I wonder what the next excuse will be when we have a supermajority

in the Senate and still nothing gets done.

[Nye Bevan]

15. This is a common myth, which I too used to believe

Harry Reid *cannot* "make them get out on the floor and actually filibuster".

Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time."

Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum." The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

[FiveGoodMen]

21. In that case, why could we not simply threaten a fillibuster when they had a majority?

We couldn't stop them.

How can the rules be different?

[librechik]

22. because they threaten us with the loss of the fillibuster tactic entirely (the "nuclear option")

but since nowadays the filibuster-er does not have to talk, just be present, and other rules have changed about it, I think we should just blow it up. In fact, I don't see why we need a Senate at all, now that slavery is dead. Get rid of the pompous pampered asses and go with the House alone!

[Nye Bevan]

23. We did. That's how we stopped Miguel Estrada (nt)

[smiley_glad_hands]

16. Its still a gamble, the repugs still own the media.

Thats not to say i'm not for forcing floor debate, but it is a double edged sword. I could create more santinelli moments that could become distractions.

Still though, I think most Americans would like to see the dems stand up for once. Its tricky though.

[Winterblues]

17. The Majority and the Minority entered into an agreement years ago.

If the votes aren't there no cloture vote would be held and no one would ever be forced to actually filibuster. We made an agreement....Is our word no good?

[eppur_se_muova]

18. They needed 60 votes only to increase the budget deficit. Explanation at link:

http://congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/7/161443/9275/436/583

[DemoTex]

19. Remember how well Gingrich's obstructionism worked in 1995?

The momentum of the Republican Revolution stalled in late 1995 and early 1996 as a result of a budget fight between Congressional Republicans and President Bill Clinton. Speaker Gingrich and the new Republican majority wanted to slow the rate of increase in government spending including on Medicare, which Clinton flatly rejected. Without enough votes to override President Clinton's veto, Gingrich led the Republicans not to submit a revised budget, allowing the previously approved appropriations to expire on schedule, and causing parts of the Federal government to shut down for lack of funds. Gingrich inflicted a blow to his public image by seeming to suggest that the Republican hard-line stance over the budget was in part due to his feeling "snubbed" by the President the day before following his return from Yitzhak Rabin's funeral in Israel. Gingrich was lampooned in the media as a petulant figure with an inflated self-image, and at least one editorial cartoon depicted him as having thrown a temper tantrum. Democratic leaders took the opportunity to attack Gingrich's motives for the budget standoff, and some say the shutdown might have contributed to Clinton's re-election in November 1996. (My emphasis)

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

Let 'em filibuster. It'll backfire on them, like Gingrich's petulance did in 1995-96.

[treestar]

20. Rachel had that graphic on last week about the number of times it

has been used. There used to be a gentleman's agreement only to use it when you felt strongly, like the holdout juror might. But the Republics are abusing it by using it constantly. In the 2006 congress, the graphic showed it went way up - in other words, they use it all the time now, just for routine things.