Is there any progessive issue 41 senators who filibuster for or have in the past 30 years?

[yurbud]

This isn't meant as a criticism unless nobody can cite any substantial examples.

I'm thinking of the monolithic 60 votes required to get any progressive policy through that vanishes when the rich need anything like getting their water boy Bernanke reconfirmed.

Enough progressives didn't threaten to filibuster to even slow things down.

If enough progressive senators said they would back a filibuster of Bernanke, even if they didn't have enough votes to sustain it, they could force an actual vote that would make the corrupt DLC scum side with the GOP and show their true colors.

If they don't do it on this issue, I wonder when they would, or whether their numbers are too small, or their opposition is just for show.

I was disheartened recently when one of my senators, who I thought was pretty progressive, praised the Senate health care ''reform'' bill by saying it must be good if it pissed off the right and the left, the latter being the people who put her in office, pounded the pavement for her, and made donations to her campaign.

[Enrique]

1. Social Security, for one

the dems blocked Bush's attempt to privatize, and I think they would block Obama if he tries to cut Social Security. That's what that commission is about, to make it so that entitlement cuts can't be filibustered.

[yurbud]

2. let's hope there's a repeat performance. You would think that would have given them a clue

how successful REAL health care reform would have been instead of a corporate giveaway.

[yurbud]

3. Who gave this an unrecommend? That's the only thing sadder than just one person answering