Why not focus on changing this Filibuster rule asap?

[KansasVoter]

Maybe I am naive but why not focus on changing it?

I think it would solve all our problems.

Would it just take a majority to change it? Maybe we could get 60 to change it?

[MineralMan]

1. If I'm not mistaken, it has to be changed by the next Congress.

All the more reason to make sure Republicans don't get control and to work to elect as many Democrats as possible.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. There has been talk of that. Here's a document that discusses the implications of it.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C%2AP%2C%3B%3F%22%20%20%20%0A

[CreekDog]

3. 2/3rds required to change rules midstream I think

or they could go the nuclear option, that only takes a majority...we could discuss this, but it involves playing hardball, in fact, WAY SERIOUS hardball and Democrats don't even seem to like talking about hardball.

so um...sheesh, they could at least threaten it.

Matthew Yglesias said that when the nuclear option was proposed that the Democrats should've let them do it, that being the party that wants government to do things requires legislation to pass...so that ultimately getting rid of the filibuster helps Democrats more than Republicans.

[NJmaverick]

4. In my opinion, changing the Filibuster rules is a short sighted idea

there have been times when that same tool has prevented egregious right wing measures from being passed. It's reasonable to expect that those same rules will be needed, for that same reason, again.

[mikeiddy]

5. Couldn't it be changed to stop use of the filibuster to prevent debate

and leave the right to filibuster intact for final votes? It seems to me that would be an improvement that would not throw the baby out with the wash-water.

[NJmaverick]

6. That seems like a good suggestion

[MiniMe]

7. Agreed, But lets change the silent hold on bringing bills to a vote

And make them actually debate the bill. Call it the Coburn bill.