Afghanistan isn't even close to being the worst quagmire the US is in.

[Are_grits_groceries]

The worst quagmire is in the US Senate. You could get through the Khyber Pass with busloads of ninth graders on a field trip faster than anything can get through that august body.

It's ridiculous. Filibusters and holds are now being used to grind the Obama administration and the Dems plans to dust. Bills, nominations, and who knows what else are completely stopped.

Neither side wants to change the system because they want that power to be in place when they are in the minority. However, the Rethugs have now shown what those items can do when carried to the extreme. It's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past time for them to be eliminated. If they won't eliminate them, then the Senators need to codify them so that everybody knows what the rules are. No more of this informal, gentlemanly bullshit.

The worst part of the process is the anonymity it can afford. When these methods are used, the malefactors names can be hidden. Then the craven shitheads don't have to own up to their meddling and explain their reasoning. DeMint is holding up the TSA nomination because of possible 'unionization.' At least he can be nailed for that stupidity. Maybe Xe/CIA/NSA/Secret Squirrel can get Al Qaeda to consider electing shop stewards and being certified by the NLRB. Then maybe DeMint will let the nomination through.

Enough!!!!!

[Oregone]

1. Oh, when was the filibuster used?

I wasn't paying attention. Please tell

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. It is directly related to cloture.

You have to have 2/3 or 60 votes to cut off debate. Right now just the threat of a filibuster will halt a bill unless the Majority leader knows he has the votes to cut off debate.

[Oregone]

3. Ah, you mean it was used as an excuse by Democrats to water down the bill

Got it, yes, thats true. As far as it actually being used, its not the case. It remains an unholy figment of their imagination, prodding them into perpetual capitulation.

[Are_grits_groceries]

5. Whatever...........

They won't make the Rethugs actually do anything. It is a part of the Senates laws and not an imaginary idea. Thank you ever so much for picking all the nits.

[Oregone]

7. There is no senate law that dictates constantly watering down a bill...

Then telling the public you would fear a filibuster if you didn't do so.

That is called astute politicking. It allows a politician to take stands contrary to positions they adopted to get their constituency to vote for them, yet allows them to retain their base throughout the sham.

[Are_grits_groceries]

10. Oh,FFS.

There is a law about filibusters. They aren't imaginary. The threat of them is apparently enough to keep Reid and co. from forcing the Rethugs hand. I think Reid should make them play on some things.

The problem is that there are so many items held up, it would take forever. They did manage to get around Coburn this session. Last session he held almost every bill related to the environment. At the beginning of this Congress, Reid rolled them all into an Omnibus Bill and managed to pass them that way.

Piffle somewhere else.

[Oregone]

13. "The threat of them is apparently enough..."

Yes, the threat of something that may never happen is enough to make a political party constantly capitulate? Something is wrong with that picture.

Unfortunately, Harry is allowing the Republicans to never spend any political capital actually performing one. It also allows Democrats, who may also oppose certain measures, to not be recorded in an up or down vote on them.

Its sad though that you cannot see the politicking being used in this situation, and keep referring to rules when we are at nothing more than a threat/bluff/excuse stage. Until it is actually evoked, NO ONE here knows it would be, what the threat is being used for, by whom the threat is being used, etc. Right now, its being used more to manipulate public perception than anything.

I think its working

[Are_grits_groceries]

16. That's not my point.

I see all the cahooting and politicking. I don't know if the filibuster threat is giving more cover to some Dems or Rethugs. They run around like Chicken Little saying 'the filibuster is coming', the filibuster is coming.' I want them to force its use too. If the sky falls, that will be a first.

My point about there being a rule is that it isn't just imaginary. If it wasn't codified, there would be nothing to threaten anybody with. It would be like trying to get somebody to roll over with a threat of life for a misdemeanor violation. There is no basis for that so it won't hold up.

Condescend somewhere else.

[LiberalAndProud]

6. BS. Fillibuster is absolutely the tool of the other party right now.

Ben Nelson expressly stated he would not vote for cloture if federal funds were to be used for abortions. But don't let reality get in the way of your Dem bashing. It would just be too inconvenient.

[Oregone]

8. Then force it. There are political ramifications of using the filibuster

Its easy to bluff when you know your opponent will fold. Despite what anyone says, no one knows what will really happen and what the fallout would be.

As of now, we don't know if the Republicans really would filibuster a reform movement the majority of Americans favor

As of now, we don't know how much justification that would give the Democrats to use the nuclear option

As of now, we don't know how badly that would hurt the Republicans in the 2010 election.

As of now, we don't know what the Democrats really would support if they didn't have the filibuster excuse.

What we do know is that the filibuster has not been materially used, but rather used as an excuse to produce less than ideal health reform. We don't actually know who is using it more as a "tool" and who is benefiting more from referencing it (or who would from using it). Until it is actually used though, its likely best to not let it mindlessly affect your perception of what is actually happening (which is what some are intending it to do)

[LiberalAndProud]

12. Let's say they did as you say and forced a (certain) fillibuster.

Now we get to glean the political fallout on the Republicans. Good on us. And still we have no health insurance reform legislation in the end. To carry your scenario to the obvious conclusion, there are those who would bash the Dems for lack of foresight. Let me conjecture, "Anyone with half a brain would know that the Repukes would fillibuster. What were they thinking?"

[Oregone]

14. "Now we get to glean the political fallout on the Republicans. Good on us."

Exactly. Imagine going into 2010 elections with the obstructionist Republicans blocking a popular reform.

Yep...put the pieces together if you will. You just might come up with a real health reform bill that isn't a pile of kangaroo shit

[LiberalAndProud]

15. Actually that would be good.

Where would we pick up the seats? Any idea?

I'd be very happy to see this legislation die if I truly thought we had a chance for something better in the near future.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Ah, your own example is of Nelson using the filibuster - or the threat of

filibuster - not of the 'other party' using it. Unless, of course, you are admitting that Nelson IS of the 'other party', which I've believed for a long time.

[LiberalAndProud]

11. I have long admitted that Nelson would be more comfortable

across the aisle. The fact that he (and Joe Lieberman) have publicly stated that they are perfectly willing to support a fillibuster against their purported party is exactly why the fillibuster is a real threat and not imagination.

[caitxrawks]

4. giggity.

I agree =)