Why do you believe the Republicans didn't filibuster

[Uncle Joe]

the government mandated purchasing of private for profit "health" insurance?

[cali]

1. because they couldn't. n/t

[el_bryanto]

2. Because it was pointless once Reid had Ben Nelson and Lieberman on board?

Just a guess.

Bryant

[MrCoffee]

3. Wasn't there a cloture vote?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. More or less the same reason McCain wasn't sworn in as President.

Something to do with votes.

[napi21]

5. Because the Dems cobbled togetheer the 60 votes to stop them!

Believe me, if they could have found an aopportunity, they would have taken it!

[Romulox]

6. Both 1 & 2; Democrats and Republicans are serving the same corporate masters on this one.

"bipartisanship" :puke:

[cali]

10. huh? What part of they couldn't filibuster because they couldn't don't

some of you get? They had a cloture vote. The repubs lost. that's how it works. period.

[Romulox]

42. LOL. How ridiculous. They "couldn't" because corp. $$$ bought enough votes.

You act like this all happens in a vacuum. :hi:

[shadowknows69]

69. Well that's the root cause, but cali is right about procedure.

[Romulox]

86. Right. It's called a "truism". nt

[WeDidIt]

7. Because they did not have the votes to filibuster it.

They needed to peel off one vote, and didn't.

Cloture was invoked.

Jesus H. Christ, this is 7th grade Civics shit!

[Orangepeel]

8. They did try. It is part of the bill they tried to filibuster.

:shrug:

[timeforpeace]

9. By jove, I believe you have fingered it out. Good poll.

[WeDidIt]

12. No, the OP has demonstrated his ignorance of Senate procedure and basic Civics

The Republicans COULDN'T filibuster.

THEY DID NOT HAVE THE VOTES TO FILIBUSTER!!!

Of course, the truth and facts never got in the way of a good DU conspiracy theory.

[Uncle Joe]

13. Of course they could have filibustered and if they didn't have the votes it would have been defeated

[gcomeau]

14. They voted for cloture.

And no, you CAN'T filibuster after a cloture vote has passed... since a vote for cloture drastically limits the remaining available time for discussion. That's what a cloture vote is. Killing filibusters is why cloture exists.

So you are, in short, dead wrong. And the poll is ridiclous.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Did any of them threaten to filibuster over the mandate prior to the cloture vote? n/t

[WeDidIt]

16. If you're talking an old style "talk 'til you drop" Mr. Smith goes to Washington filibuster

to even suggest such a thing is ridiculous. The last attempt at that sort of filibuster was done in a vain attempt to kill civil rights legislation and has been marred by that shit ever since.

It's political suicide now. Nobody pulls that shit any more.

[Uncle Joe]

20. Didn't Lieberman threaten to filibuster over the public option?

He never carried through because he didn't have to.

From the reaction that I've perceived coming from liberals/progressives/libertarians/populists/moderates/independents and conservatives via the Internet, the mandated purchasing of "health" insurance from private for profit corporations doesn't in any way have the moral equivalency of the civil rights legislation.

Indeed, had the Republicans done the old style filibustering of mandated purchasing of "health" insurance from private for profit corporations, it would have been much closer in moral equivalency to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" than opposing civil rights legislation, in my opinion.

Thus, I find it curious that they would pass such a golden political opportunity to set them selves apart up, instead of proclaiming weak protestations while shedding "crocodile tears."

[SemiCharmedQuark]

23. Procedural filibusters have pretty much killed the traditional filibuster.

[Uncle Joe]

25. As for myself, I've never accepted the concept of

"pretty much killed," it's either dead or it's not.

[cali]

41. it's dead, jim.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

51. Ok. It's dead.

[Uncle Joe]

54. So you and cali believe it's illegal for traditional filibusters to be used again? n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

60. No, I think the Senate Majority leader could require one if he so chooses

But that only would help the Dems, NOT the Republicans. If cloture has been reached, you can't just stand there and keep talking.

[Uncle Joe]

66. My contention is, had the Republicans narrowed their threat of filibuster against the most unpopular

aspects; that being the mandate, cloture wouldn't have been reached.

[MrCoffee]

70. So what? I'm honestly confused about your point.

Is it that Republicans are cold-hearted bastards? Is it that the mandate sucks?

Arguing up one side of a hypothetical and down the other is fun, but what's the point?

[Uncle Joe]

73. Five points

1. The Republicans are cold hearted bastards.

2. The mandate sucks.

3. The Republicans will get to have their cake and eat it too, by having mass opposed on record what will be extremely unpopular with the people and yet fighting it in such a manner as to guarantee their corporate clients will win by having the Democrats do the dirty work.

4. I believe the Democrats shot themselves in the foot on multiple levels in regards to passing these mandates; which primarily benefit the Republican corporate constituency while damaging the natural Democratic people constituency.

5. The Republicans will assuredly rebound in 2010 and most likely 2012; as at least too perceived candidate and President Obama stances were reversed or abandoned, not raising *taxes on people making less than 200-250k and his support for a public option.

* We can quibble as to whether mandating the purchasing of "health" insurance from private for profit corporations is the same as raising taxes, but I have no doubt the Republicans and their corporate media allies will play it that way and to good effect, when election season rolls around.

[MrCoffee]

74. I agree with almost all of that

Personally, I think the root cause of most of the crap spewing out of Congress can be traced back to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi having no idea how to "play politics". Say what you will about the concept of it, but playing the political reality and working the system is what is absolutely necessary in order to move legislation that says and does what you want it to say and do, and our current Congressional leadership is completely inept at it.

Republicans being cold-hearted bastards is nothing new.

[Uncle Joe]

75. The world's second oldest profession.

"Republicans being cold-hearted bastards is nothing new."

Which is one reason as to why I hate it so much when our side enables them back to power by giving the Republicans what they want without the Republicans even trying.

[cali]

39. yes, he threatened to vote against cloture.

there is no more old style filibuster. there hasn't been for decades and decades.

[WeDidIt]

71. He threatened to join the REPUBLICAN Filibuster

e.g. the cloture vote.

He would have voted no on cloture, thus keeping debate open and killing the bill completely.

He wouldn't have done the Hollywood "talk 'til you drop" bullshit last used by the Dixiecrats.

Today, filibusters are procedural moves relying upon Rule 22 of the Senate.

[HuckleB]

32. That's what I thought.

:toast:

[cali]

17. ooh boy. look. cloture is filibuster- if the side voting against cloture has

the votes. they didn't. really, that's how it works.

[Uncle Joe]

21. Prior to the cloture vote, was there a threat of filibuster over the mandate? n/t

[Orangepeel]

28. there was a threat to filibuster (i.e., prevent voting) over the entire bill

it was defeated by the cloture vote. They had to give away the public option in order to get the votes to proceed to a vote. Republicans weren't denying a vote specifically over the mandate but they were doing so over the whole bill itself (and would have regardless of what was or was not in it).

[Uncle Joe]

35. Why didn't the Republicans single out the mandate, when that's the least popular part, giving them

the best chance to either succeed in killing the bill or in gaining major political advantage?

[Orangepeel]

46. The republicans have singled out the mandate in their complaints

for example, “I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats’ proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country,” said Senator Ensign. “As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don’t believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens.” http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/22/demint-to-force-vote-on-constitutionality-of-mandate/comment-page-1/

[Uncle Joe]

47. This is after the fact, did he threaten filibuster on that one aspect while

it was still being debated or did he just give total opposition?

Ultimately Ensign is trying to have his cake and eat it too, depending on the Supreme Court; to play the bad guy and I have no doubt they will.

[Orangepeel]

57. your belief that this is all a show may or may not be right, but this doesn't hold up as evidence

because of the way the process works. republicans weren't singling out aspects of the bill to filibuster because they were threatening to filibuster the entire bill. They complained about all aspects of it before, during and after.

They couldn't claim, the way Nelson and Lieberman did, that there was one specific aspect of the bill they were objecting to because they weren't going to vote for it no matter what was in it or what they bribed with.

[Uncle Joe]

72. Speaking of the way the process works and what they were bribed with.

Who was doing most of the bribing?

I believe it was the "health" insurance corporations; Republicans true constituents and by opposing the entire bill, thus taking themselves out of the equation, the Republicans helped insure the mandate to benefit their clients would pass.

They didn't have to worry about the public option, because Lieberman would take care of, they didn't have to worry about abortion because Nelson would take care of it.

If the Republicans had narrowed their objections to the mandate instead of waging total opposition, their chances of either successful filibuster in killing the bill or getting credit from the majority of the American People for having those mandates removed would have been immense, but their corporate clients would have been upset with them.

The Republicans could have objected to and shaped this bill in an overt constructive manner and the American People; would have been much better off, but I beleive they calculated by using total opposition, the Democrats would shoot them selves in the foot.

As I posted elsewhere on this thread, in this way the Republicans have their cake and get to eat it too.

[cali]

38. there was no single vote of cloture re the mandate

you don't seem to understand how filibustering works. Go to wiki. they have a good article on it.

[Uncle Joe]

43. The Republicans could have threatened filibuster over that one aspect to have it changed or dropped

but they didn't and I believe that's because they wanted the bill to pass while opposing it on the record.

[droidamus2]

11. Possibly?

Is it possible that they gave up on the filibuster idea because there appears to be the 60 votes needed to stop it? Yes, and as an aside I think they would rather be seen as 'giving up' the filibuster idea rather than have their attempt to filibuster defeated. In my opinion each time the Republicans threat to filibuster is defeated it weakens the filibuster as a weapon of obstruction. Eventually people will get to the point of just laughing off the threat of another filibuster. So threaten and withdraw rather than threaten, try and be shot down is their modus operandi.

[NYC_SKP]

18. sigh. "the government mandated purchasing of private for profit "health" insurance?"

As if that's all this bill was about.

The capacity for paranoia and belief in conspiracy theories among some progressives is astounding.

:shrug:

[donco6]

19. It's everything they could ever want!

Why even think of filibustering this huge Christmas present?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. LOL....ay...

Cloture.

[jeffrey_X]

24. Why does DU show poll results before you vote?? Never understood this.

eom

[HuckleB]

26. Because it wouldn't work, and they'd rather let the Dems shoot at each other.

[Uncle Joe]

30. 1. It's not a matter of shooting at Dems, it's a matter of shooting at policy.

2. From a more cynical standpoint, your sentence isn't mutually exclusive.

[HuckleB]

34. It can be looked at any number of ways.

First, the GOP couldn't filibuster because the Dems stopped it with 60 votes. Second, perception is perception is perception, and the current "battle" is ugly, and the GOP has nothing to lose by letting the Dems beat up each other, whether you say it's beating up policy or not.

[Uncle Joe]

40. Prior to the cloture vote, the Republicans could have singled out the most unpopular part; that

being the mandate and either defeated the bill, lost the filibuster to cloture and still have the Democrats disagree in regards to the mandate, thus the Republicans would have gained politically even if they lost.

[HuckleB]

44. If they really thought they could have gained from it, they would have done so.

[Uncle Joe]

53. My post #40 which you just responded to refers to conventional political gain as if the Republicans

were actually representing the best interests of the American People from their political party's perspective, but the point of my thread is, they don't.

They in truth represent corporations over the people and this bill allowed them to have their cake and eat it too, by waging total opposition instead of a strategically targeted way to defeat the bill, they insured it's success while waging total opposition. Thus the Republican natural base of corporations will make out like fat cats; thanks to the Democrats, while the Republicans; come out smelling like a rose to the average American for opposing it.

[Vidar]

27. Because we passed a bill they liked--welfare for the corporations.

[HuckleB]

36. Actually, it was because the Democrats had 60 votes to stop any filibuster.

[Uncle Joe]

45. Not any filibuster, just one of total opposition. n/t

[HuckleB]

48. ...

:rofl:

[Uncle Joe]

55. By going total opposition, the Republicans took themselves out of the equation.

Had they focused on the most unpopular aspects; across party lines, any filibuster would have stood a much better chance of succeeding.

[Ozymanithrax]

29. The forced a cloture vote, prayed for Democrats to die, and call for

brave Democrats not to vote for cloture so their filibuster would be successful.

They have continued to vote against the bill.

But I am sure that voting against the bill en mass is just them trying to hide how much they love the bill. Republicans are masters of reverse psychology.

[HuckleB]

31. According to MSNBC, which could be wrong, I know, ... the Democrats stopped the filibuster.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34574421/ns/health-health_care

Am I wrong somehow, or is this poll just in bizarro world?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. THEY DID

It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster.

We got 60 votes.

[HuckleB]

37. YUP!

[MadBadger]

49. Because the Dems had 60 votes?

They cant filibuster

[Uncle Joe]

59. What if the Republicans had narrowed their threat of filibuster to the most unpopular part;

that being the mandate instead of taking them selves out of the equation?

I believe their threat of filibuster would have stood a better chance.

[Swede]

50. Because 60 votes voted for the bill.

:shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

52. They did, the Senate invoked cloture

[Uncle Joe]

56. My question was narrow, why didn't they just threaten on the mandate; the most unpopular part?

They went total opposition taking themselves out of the equation, why did they do that?

[Hippo_Tron]

58. The mandate was inserted in committee, not on the floor

They would've thus had to filibuster the entire bill to filibuster the mandate. And they did filibuster the entire bill, but the Democrats successfully invoked cloture.

[Uncle Joe]

62. They could have threatened to filibuster just to have the mandate removed before it was ever

inserted.

Lieberman narrowed his threat to the public option, Nelson narrowed his threat to abortion.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. That would conflict with their strategy of defeating Obama at all costs

Lets say the Democrats had called their bluff and given in on the mandate. Republicans would've then had to then vote for cloture for the bill, which they don't want to do. They want to defeat the bill because defeating the bill means defeating Obama.

[Uncle Joe]

67. I believe the Republicans knew that allowing the bill to pass with mandates while waging

total opposition which decreased their chances of having successful filibuster allowed them to have their cake and eat it too.

If the Democrats had called their bluff, the Republicans would've shared some popularity in passing the bill for opposing and eliminating one of the most unpopular aspects with both with their supposed small government conservative "base" (although I don't believe it's their true base, their true base is corporations) and everyone else; that believes forcing the people to purchase "health" insurance from private for profit corporations to be wrong on multiple levels.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. I think that's their second most preferred outcome

Their most preferred outcome would be to defeat the bill altogether. Their most preferred best outcome is that the bill passes, it is unpopular, and it is partisan. The bill is partisan and it will pass. We have yet to see if it will be unpopular.

[Zynx]

61. Another option...they don't have the votes.

[Jakes Progress]

63. They get what they want without having to. nt

[Uncle Joe]

64. Thank you, that's precisely what I believe. n/t

[Kansas Wyatt]

76. How can we figure it out, but the Democratic Leadership cannot?

:shrug:

[Uncle Joe]

77. That's a good question, Kansas Wyatt.

They're not stupid people, I can't help but believe they have figured it out, but don't care.

I imagine all that money used for lobbying purposes by the for profit "health" insurance industry and big pharma must have some adverse effect on judgment or else bribery would be legal for everyone else.

[alfredo]

78. They wanted to get out early enough to visit their mistresses

before Christmas.

[SoCalDem]

79. um.. they actually DID filibuster..or do at least the modern version of one

all they have to do is SAY they will, and it counts the same.:grr: This whackdoodle system has to change.. It has not been like "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" for a very long time.

Every one of those senators only had to win their election by 1 vote, and yet every bill they try to pass must have a soooooperdooooper majority/

[Uncle Joe]

81. That's true, but my question was more narrowly aimed as to why

they didn't just threaten filibuster against the most unpopular aspect which would have increased in my mind, their chance of a successful filibuster or at least the dropping of an across the board unpopular mandate, instead of entirely taking themselves out of the equation.

As I posted up-thread, I believe it was because by mass opposing the bill, they still got what they wanted for their primary corporate clients while having the Democrats do the dirty work.

[SoCalDem]

83. yep. they have marching orders to "shut Obama down"

they would vote no for free milk & cookies..

[Uncle Joe]

84. I meant to tell you before but I love that little photo of the holy Triceratops.

:)

[SoCalDem]

85. tanks.. gotta show some Xmas love to the fundies

:rofl:

[bvar22]

80. They GOT everything they wanted...PLUS...

...they will GAIN CREDIBILITY for OPPOSING this Bill when America opens its NEW Health Care Package and finds a HUGE bill from the Health Insurance Industry.
The 67% who OPPOSED Mndates without a Public Option will be PISSED,
AND they will blame the Democrats.

This is a big COUP for the Republican Party.
They got EVERYTHING they wanted WITHOUT having to pay the political price of having to filibuster.
Only 33% of America supported the MANDATE without a Public Option.

The Democratic Party has done the IMPOSSIBLE.
They have revived a dying Republican Party AND given them credibility.

Look for a blood bath in 2010 and 2012. BUT the Corporate Masters of the DLC and the Republican P{arty don't care.
Too bad the REAL Democrats in the Democratic Wing of the Party will ALSO pay the price.

[Uncle Joe]

82. I agree on all counts as written, it's a major political coup for the Republican Party

:(

[RainDog]

87. They wanted democrats to own the bill so the Repukes can use it to attack at midterms n/t

[joeybee12]

88. How about, because the threat of filibustering worked, and Holy Joe and Ben "I Hate Women" Nelson

were able to gut the bill to make it worthless?