So, what can be done with 60 that can't be done with 59?

[friendly_iconoclast]

The Pubbies will buffalo them in any case...

[Catshrink]

1. Or 58

can't we please kick Lieberman to the curb?

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. Guess that was a question that should not be asked....

Wouldn't want the punters to, like, think and all that...

[tekisui]

3. One thing that can be done, is we can blame the Democrats

when they water bills down and ignore important issues.

[LostInAnomie]

4. Override Republican filibusters for Supreme Court nominees.

[flvegan]

5. Good point. Sell out do-nothings (largely) at 60. 59 won't be much different.

[Warpy]

6. Not a thing, considering that 60

contains Spector, Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, and other conservative dead wood.

Theoretically, 60 votes are needed to stop a filibuster. What they need to do is force the GOP who are holding things up by threatening to filibuster them actually to do it. I think they'd stop abusing it rather quickly.

Either that, or they need to suspend the filibuster rule temporarily in order to get the country's business taken care of.

However, 60 in this Senate is not much of a magic number. It might be if we didn't have so many hidebound and wrongheaded conservatives making it up.

[Canuckistanian]

10. Exactly. It's not like it was 60 Republicans

Say what you will about the GOP, they KNOW they can count on every vote.

[pnwmom]

12. Wrong. With 60 votes we can have a HCR bill that is a product of negotiations

between the House and the Senate, including the changes that Obama has been involved in negotiating this week.

Without the 60 votes, they are likely to simply take the Senate bill -- which has already been passed in the Senate -- and get it approved by a simple majority in the House. Done. Brown's vote wouldn't make any difference, except to insure that we end up with the Senate bill instead of a bill that has at least some changes from the House side.

[ChicagoSuz219]

15. I don't think I'd include Spector in that list...

...since his defection, he's been a great Democrat!

[geckosfeet]

7. Good point. Dems can't do squat with 60. But I don't want bRown serving as a MA senator.

[pnwmom]

13. With 60 we can approve Supreme Court justices without any Rethug votes. n/t

[geckosfeet]

17. In theory yes. But it's like herding cats to get them all onboard.

[malletgirl02]

21. Will Rodgers Quote

Paraphrase of a Will Rodger's quote about the Democratic party, "I'm not a member of an organized party I'm a Democrat". It seems like the party was that way for a long time.

[FrenchieCat]

8. It will allow the Media to have Democrats, especially progressives,

bend down and take it deeper than ever before......

It will just show that the media knows how to manipulate the progressives,
to end up with a more conservative congress.

And just wait till November of 2010!
Might as well just get on our knees now.....
cause it's gonna be twice as hard.

[xchrom]

9. The 60 is anotherweird myth centrists are using

To hold progressives hostage

the whole of du has been full of hostage
scenarios.
If centrists don't get hurt then they won't learn.

[WonderGrunion]

16. The Prop 8 fight is headed to the Supreme Court

60 votes in the Senate prevents the filibuster of a liberal judge that will support civil rights for ALL Americans. When the Repukes took control of congress in 1994, exactly how far left did that push the Democratic party? I remember DOMA, GATT and ending Welfare as we know it coming from that "lesson".

I don't care if you have to curl up fetal position in the shower for half a day afterward, if you care about your civil rights, you'll vote Democratic.

[pnwmom]

11. What can be done? Pass a HCR bill with some changes initiated by the House side.

The changes that are being negotiated right now.

Otherwise, we're likely just to take the Senate bill -- which has already been passed and wouldn't need further Senate approval -- and get it passed by the House. As is. Period. Then we wouldn't need 60 votes to avoid a filibuster.

[WeDidIt]

14. Confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

With 59, the Pubs can successfully filibuster.

Do you really think the Dems would go nuclear in that situation since the Pubs could then shut the Senate down via procedure?

[Frank Cannon]

18. It wouldn't matter if we had 100 Democrats in the Senate

It's become quite clear that nothing would change. The "magic 70 figure" was always a bullshit sales pitch.

[CanonRay]

19. We could give them 72 and they still wouldn't get anything done

We are under Corporate rule, lets face facts.

[KharmaTrain]

20. The Problem Is The Damage One Can Do...

I saw a great article the other day of the tactics the GOOP is using to slow walk almost everything through the Senate. While not in control, Senate rules allow one Senator to all but stonewall a bill or put endless ammendments into bills (Coburn) or holds on appointments that scare others into being too ambitious. It doesn't matter if its 51 or 60...the rules have been so perverted by both parties that it's made the Senate dysfunctional.