A Coakley defeat (if it happens) will be another scapegoat for the Dems

[NightWatcher]

1st it was, "with an Obama win, we'll have change and hope and" ......
Then it was "we need 60 votes in the Senate to get ANYTHING done"....
Now a Coakley loss (if it happens, this is not a rah rah Dems' lose post) will be another cop-out...


If Coakley wins will we have 60 Senate Democrats? Nope, remember Asshole Joe.

WE WILL NEVER GET 60 SENATE DEMS AND THE DLC'ers WHO ARE IN CONTROL LOVE IT.

We can't defeat a filibuster, so why even try to act in a progressive manner.

Gays, we'd love to help you with equal rights, but the repubs will filibuster it, so why bother.
Healthcare, we'd love to give it to everyone (wink to our friends at Big Ins), but the repubs would only filibuster it, so why bother.
A REAL STIMULUS/BAILOUT, we'd love to fix things by punishing the Big Bankers (wink to Timmeh G.), but the repubs would only filibuster it, so why bother.


We've been fed helping after helping of fresh roasted scapegoat by the Democratic power structure as a means to try to pacify us with no real change. I know Obama's done a few good things, this is not a "Blame Obama" post.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jennicut]

2. Biden thinks needing 60 votes to pass everything is kind of stupid

Biden derides supermajority rule

Joe Biden, seeming to lay the groundwork for the case for moving health care legislation forward without 60 votes in the Senate, described the supermajority rule as a perversion of the Constitution.

"As long as I have served ... I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the Constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decisions has required 60 senators," he said at a Florida fundraiser, according to the pool report. “No democracy has survived needing a super majority."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Biden_derides_supermajority_rule.html?showall#

If only the entire WH and Congressional leadership felt that way.

[NJmaverick]

3. The only way for the Dems to get to a true 60+ majority is to start electing Democratic Senators

Martha is the first of the many needed. If the Dems get a true 60+ they could finally tell ole traitor Joe to go F himself.

[LakeSamish706]

4. I see a lot of the fault falling at the feet of Harry Reid with this 60 vote BS though.

Harry needs to grow a spine and start sticking it to the Republics as they do to the Dems. He seems to bend over and take it any time the Repugs talk roughly to him.

[treestar]

5. 60 is needed. Simple fact

Republicans could cooperate on some things, though. that's the problem here.

[DisgustedInMN]

8. Could you kindly ..

... point out where in The Constitution of the United States of America, it says that 60 votes are required in the Senate to pass legislation?

Thanks, I'll anxiously await your reply.

[kirby]

10. Article 1, Section 5

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"...

The Senate rules allow for unlimited debate on everything. The rules allow for a vote of 60 to end that debate. (It used to be 67 but was changed).

[DisgustedInMN]

12. So basically..

.. they've made a rule to make sure they have an excuse for doing nothing or worse?

Which they could and would change if they had a spine?

Isn't that special?

[kirby]

13. No...It is more complicated than that...

Prior to 1917, it was unlimited debate period. In 1917 they added the 'cloture' rule, allowing for the end of debate. In 1975, the rules were change from 67 to 60 votes needed to end debate.

To change a Senate rule requires 67 votes so they could not adopt a new rule today even if they wanted to.

[DisgustedInMN]

14. Actually..

.. it really isn't complicated at all. You're certainly welcome to accept the ruse. I don't, and I have yet to hear anything that even comes close to persuading me otherwise. It lets them continue to do their Kabuki Theater without ever doing their fucking jobs. I may have been born during the day, but it wasn't yesterday.

[DisgustedInMN]

15. Interesting...

... you call 'em on this false meme bluff...

.. and they disappear.

:shrug:

[tbyg52]

11. 60 is needed according to the current rules

Rules can be changed. Or the Dems could at least make the R's actually stand up and filibuster. I've been against the "courtesy filibuster" since the first day I became aware of it.

[TheWraith]

6. Yet another DLC boogeyman thread.

I hear they're secretly allied with the Illuminati.

[rateyes]

7. DLC isn't the bogeyman.

It's a stinking pile of shit, though.

[DailyGrind51]

9. "Gee, and we had that majority going for us too, damn it!"

"Wheew! Now we don't have to worry about accomplishing anything, we can just posture!"