WTF... Why are we not forcing the douchebags to actually do a filibuster?

[Ohio Joe]

Am I missing something? WTF?

I'm contacting people... are you?

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

[msongs]

1. that's not very bipartisan of you :-) nt

[SoCalDem]

2. because that would not be "nice"

all they have to do is say.. "we're a gonna....", and our dems say ok..we'll stop.. and here's our lunch money as a good will gesture..

[AnArmyVeteran]

3. Because Reid is a coward.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

4. Lieberman sounds the most committed to the cause right now.

He was saying on an NPR report that it'll get through the lame duck session. We'll see. It'll be tough having that wank as a hero in all of this.

[spanone]

5. i don't know.

[karynnj]

6. Because it would hurt us more than them - We WANT stuff passed, they want to obstruct

Making them bring the Senate to a halt for a period of time means we can't do anything. They would love to keep talking on the floor of the Senate until the start of the new Senate.

[Ohio Joe]

12. I'm... not really following that

We are not getting what is right now, how does taking a longer time and forcing the f'ing repugs to show their obstructionist asses and getting what is right a bit later not work? Screw em, force em to talk until they are blue and see the light. Just saying... oh, crap, we have to work for this so we will give up... is NEVER going to get whats right done.

OK, I'm pissed, not pissed at you, just venting.... gah, I'm so damn mad right now.

[BzaDem]

14. Your entire vision of the Senate bears no resemblance with reality.

None. Not even a little.

The best Democrats could do is force a Republican every once in awhile to ask for a quorum call. There would need to be just one Republican popping into the Senate chamber every 15-30 min or so, says "I note the absence of a quorum," and then leaves.

Meanwhile, if 50 Senators do not respond, the Senate adjourns. So if Democrats want to keep forcing one Republican to pop in here and there to ask for the quorum call, 50 Democrats would have to stand in the chamber the entire time, saying nothing.

That's the BEST we could do. Think about how silly it is that you are getting angry over a procedure that doesn't even exist.

[karynnj]

16. I am angry with this too

My point though is that the Republicans do not want ANYTHING to pass. That means that they would not care if they were allowed to totally tie up the Senate. They would just assign their more junior Senators, who are not up for re-election or not useful for campaigning to reading RW talking points - which Fox and other parts of the RW media could play. The other media story would be - of course - that the Democrats are failing to effectively run the Senate even with 59 Senators.

Here, if the Democrats JUST wanted to get the debate started, they could have accepted McConnell's agreement. That likely would have led to the Dream Act, which is not in the bill, not getting a vote - or not getting one before the election. That is also a very worthy bill - and one the Republicans absolutely do not want to have to vote for. This is politics as much as policy - on both sides. Reid WANTS the Republicans making an issue on both of these things because it hurts the Republicans. The gamble is that he can get both passed - or at least DADT. (If you watched Rachel Maddow, the VP speaks of getting the coalition to pass DADT. My guess is that what was new was that the Dream Act was added - something that meets another Democratic (and Obama) promise.

That is ALL my conjecture, having watched yesterday's Senate floor speeches and seen the positions taken. Think of which Senate candidates might be helped if the Republicans are seen as against innocent young people, who came to the US through no fault of their own who want to go to college or join the military.

[tavalon]

7. I'm a nightshifter and I just woke up

Context please.

[VMI Dem]

8. Fucking awesome pragmatism. Thats why.

[BzaDem]

9. Because that is not possible under current Senate rules, regardless of what some people say here.

They just need one person on the floor occasionally asking the chair for a quorum call. That's it. No filibuster required. We need 60 affirmative votes to move anything (not the other way around).

Some may here say otherwise, but that just indicates that they don't know anything about Senate procedure or choose to deliberately mislead others (not that they are correct).

[tritsofme]

10. Time is valuable. If they are "forced" to filibuster, the Senate cannot consider other items.

There is only limited floor time left before the election season recess, and there are other must-pass items on the agenda.

I'm sure Republicans would be more than happy to run out the clock on the 111th Congress, however.

[obxhead]

11. Because a majority of the Dems are cowards.

Things are simply on hold until Pubs take over again and we get back to 51 votes being enough to get stuff passed.

I call them cowards, but in reality enough of them have the exact same agenda as the Pubs.... Corporate interests.

[TexasProgresive]

13. There has to be a quarum

as soon as it is not it is over. That means that the Democrats would have to be present in force-night and day. It's just not going to happen.

[LiberalAndProud]

15. Senate rules require 67 votes just to change the rules.

Did you already know that, maybe?

[piratefish08]

17. get rid of the fucking filibuster. WE will never force it's use but

the right WILL force it's use against us one day...........

[Codeine]

18. How? Changing the rules requires more votes than we're ever likely to have. nt

[KharmaTrain]

19. Why Start Now?

Reid's been a chickenshit for the past four years. Anytime the GOOP sneezes at something he changes the agenda or tables the vote or sends the bill to the back burner. He's afraid to lose and looks for the point of least resistance. Honestly I'm surprised he went with the DADT Bill so close to an election...and I'm tempted to join those who believe this bill was set up to fail, but I also believe the days of DADT are limited. This vote did draw out those who support and oppose and sets a firmer stage for the next time a vote comes up (and it will...it may take kicking out the GOOP again to make it happen, but it will be back).

The Democrats have checkmated themselves into a corner...afraid to move any legislation for fear that it will become too controversial. Too many inside the beltway are spooked by the "conventional wisdom" of the corporate media and are hunkered down and expecting the worst. Rather than fighting, many are playing "not to lose".

I'm hopeful that the Democrats will hold the Senate but I strongly hope there's a leadership challenge. Reid looks more and more like Daschele every day.

[Brickbat]

20. Something about keeping our powder dry...or something.

We'll know when it's time to use it! Or something.