If The Dem Leadership Is Truly Wants HCR, Then The Mass. Special Election Should Not Matter

[Yavin4]

--On Edit--
This post, in no way means that people should not work for Coakley's election. I'm not advocating her defeat in any way. Mass. voters should be represented by someone who reflects their views, and the best person for that is Coakley. This post is to address the nervous nelly Dems and HCR.
--End Edit--


Even if Coakley loses, the Dems will still be in the majority 59-41. They'd still be in the majority in the House, and they still control the White House. If they cannot get legislation passed with that much control, then they're more interested in an excuse to NOT do something than they are about actually doing something.

There's nothing in the U.S. constitution that says that you need 60 votes to shut off debate. If the Senate Dem leaders cannot figure out a way to curtail this rule to pass HCR, then that's a reflection on their poor leadership and lack of comittment to one of the party's core issues. Several Dem presidential, senate, congressional, etc. campaigns have used HCR as it core message in order to garner donations, campaign volunteers, support, and votes. If they're going to let the 60 vote filibuster rule stop them, then they were never serious about HCR.

[Mimosa]

1. IMO they never wanted Healthcare for US.

They NEVER remotely made an effort to let us have healthcare as good as what Fed Employees get. They would not let us buy into it. They cut back on care for the elderly.

The one issue I needed help on (and worked my fingers off and worked my heart out for Obama) they screwed me. So screw them!

[krawhitham]

2. clueless

[Yavin4]

5. No Counter Argument. Just An Insult

I make a point. You make an insult. Okay, nice discussion.

[mkultra]

7. sometimes a point is just too stupid to approach

like the earth is hollow and we didn't go to the moon. Congratulations, Epic fail is yours.

[Yavin4]

12. Wow. An Immature Insult

"Epic fail"? What are you 12?

[mkultra]

17. im just really immature

surprisingly, even my 15 year old son understands the complexities of cloture.

[burning rain]

33. Ask your 15-year-old son if he understands the nuclear option.

I must say, it's peculiar to see so many Democrats arguing against democracy.

[mkultra]

35. he does, and you should support the cloture as is

i do get tired sometimes explaining to morons like you simple constructs such as democracy, simple majority, super-majority and so forth. Ill waste little energy on the education you should have already received, but i will simply point out that a democracy does not equate to a simple majority.

Yes, many people feel that perhaps the administrative filibuster is over reaching and i would agree. But the fact remains that we used the filibuster threat hundreds of times against Bush very effectively.

Its been around for some time and removing it would be very bad.

[burning rain]

71. Condescension is poor cover for your lack of an argument, cretin.

.

[niceypoo]

38. The republicans would do it in two seconds

Cowardice is the Democratic parties middle name

[Yavin4]

41. My Point Exactly

Republicans would do whatever it takes to pass their agenda, even when their agenda is unpopular and hurts the American people.

[mkultra]

52. One day you jackasses complain about lockstep..

the next you complain about not getting things done. You only get to pick one of those two things you fucking morons.

[niceypoo]

66. Jesus freaking Christ...

Hate and anger poisons a persons integrity and negates their ability to rationalize



Just a suggestion

[treestar]

42. But they didn't

Even in the era of terra.

[niceypoo]

65. They didnt because the Democrats capitulated, as they always do under pressure

They threatened to use it to get Bushes Supreme court nominees in.

[mkultra]

51. then why didnt they?

[niceypoo]

67. Because the Democrats gave in

As they always do. They caved on Bushes supreme court nominees.

[mkultra]

77. except for the 150 times they blocked his nominees, right?

how about that dipshit?

[burning rain]

74. Hell, they just *threatened* it under Frist & Dems folded & let Bush's judicial nominees through.

.

[LaydeeBug]

72. we only ever needed 51, and YOUR clueless ass knows it. nt

[mkultra]

3. are you fucking drunk. your not making any sense

can you really be this stupid?

cloture. check it out.

[Yavin4]

4. Is Cloture In The Constitution?

Check it out.

[mkultra]

6. by extension yes.

the senate has the constitutional right to make its own procedural rules. the rule is made. thus it must be obeyed. and NO, we do not want to get rid of it.

logic. check it out.

[Yavin4]

9. And Rules Can Never Ever Be Changed?

Nor amended in any way even when such rule prevents the congress from actually doing anything?

Are you saying that the Dem leaders have no smart people on their side that can get around this rule, not a law, a rule.

Are you saying that this rule is the reason why we cannot address the Healthcare crisis that our country is facing?

Are these Dem leaders so weak and ineffectual that they allow this rule to defeat them?

[mkultra]

16. they can, at our own folly

this is the much discussed nuclear option. It allows the minority to keep the majority in check. We have needed it many times before. Some would say that if we have nothing but a slim majority, perhaps we shouldn't have the authority.

Yes, if you want better healthcare reform, we are going to need more than a just one extra person.

[riverdale]

19. Ask your son to tell you about reconciliation

[dflprincess]

24. Yeah, because when the Democrats were in the minority

they were so effective at keeping the Republicans in check :sarcasm:

They need to change the rule - twits like Lieberman and Nelson should not be able to hold bills that might actually help Americans hostage. And they need to go back to requiring anyone who wants to fillibuster to stand on the floor of the Senate and speak nonstop.

[Yavin4]

29. Exactly

Where was the filibuster on the Iraq War resolution, the surge, the Patriot Act, the Bush tax cuts, etc.

People on her act like the filibuster rule is some kind of sacred edict that can never be dropped.

[treestar]

45. That was because the Democrats agreed with it, or enough did

And they don't march in lockstep, like the Republicans, a fact of which I think the left is very proud?

[CTLawGuy]

53. The dems have a more ideolgically diverse party

than do the Rs. That is in part because, sorry to say, there are almost twice as many conservatives as liberals in America, so liberals are more dependent on moderates than conservatives are. It is inherently harder for Dems to stay unified.

[Yavin4]

56. Thus, There Really Is No Opposition Party to the Conservatives

Because if the Dems are beholden on pleasing conservatives in order to get anything passed, then NOTHING will be done.

[mkultra]

31. actually, we did prevent many events from happening

So many times that they threatened us with teh nuclear option several times. Making a filibuster a real filibuster would be a fine solution.

[burning rain]

34. If the point is to allow the minority to keep the majority in check...

then if Democrats come to hold 70 Senate seats, then by that logic Senate rules should be changed to require 70 votes for cloture, so that the reduced Republican minority can still keep the majority in check. Do you see where this is going?

[mkultra]

37. i see where your speaking from

and its not a very bright place. You have misstated the goal of cloture. Perhaps you should educate yourself on how we got to where we are.

The Senate's rules have allowed unlimited debate, or filibusters, since 1806, when senators dropped a rule that allowed a majority of the Senate to put an end to discussion and call for a vote. For the next 111 years, there was no way to stop a filibuster once it had started. But in 1917, when filibusters were blocking Woodrow Wilson's plans for World War I, the Senate adopted Rule XXII, which allowed senators to end a filibuster by a two-thirds vote on a motion to cut off debate -- a procedure called "cloture." In 1975, the Senate amended Rule XXII so that cloture required, in most cases, the vote of not two-thirds but rather three-fifths of the senators. In today's 50-state, 100-member Senate, that means it takes 60 rather than 67 senators to put an end to most filibusters.


get it. Since 1806. It keeps a slim majority from abusing a minority and laws from changing with the winds. Again, something my 15 year old understand. Perhaps you are 15. That would explain much.

[treestar]

44. keeping laws from changing with the winds is not a bad thing

the left seems to not realize how much the right could do in its times of power. Short sighted people on DU today.

[burning rain]

70. Thanks for the Wikipedia cut-'n'-paste, shitwit.

As though that were my point.

[treestar]

43. Not true. Then the Dems would truly have a mandate

It's not either/or. Just where it is close enough.

IMO the Senate is conservative enough, allowing small states to drag on big states with more people and thwart the will of the majority. That is indeed happening in HCR. But that's our system and there is no point in blaming anyone or any party. The only people the blame are the conservative states with small populations.

The people who live in Nebraska and Montana outside the big cities are to blame that we can't get a public option, for example. Not Obama. Not Reid. The people who elected Lieberman are to blame. If you must blame and punish, at least go to the real villains.

[burning rain]

64. 60 seats is quite a mandate, the largest majority since 1979.

If Senate Democrats do not use the nuclear option, they are highly likely to limp into the midterms looking like weaklings and cowards in the eyes of their own voters, and that is no place to be. Especially as the opposition is bound and determined to show up at the polls and vote against them in any case.

[depakid]

15. He makes perfect sense- though some are too narrow minded and

enamored with learned helplessness to accept it.

Yep- Obama and the Dems are just "poor victims" of those nasty Republicans. How pathetic.

This despite the fact that Republicans have proven quite capable with far less of pushing their agenda- no matter how unpopular through, using all sorts of procedural maneuvers.

[Yavin4]

21. They're Being Duped To Set Up The Perfect Excuse

If Coakley loses, the Dems have the perfect excuse to walk away from HCR entirely, and yet still ask for support from the rank and file Dems. By Wed. morning, you're going to see a thousand posts blame progressives for losing on HCR.

[treestar]

47. The Dems want HCR

Every one of them will vote for it.

I'd hate to be your kid. Got a B on my report card. anything I say about that is an "excuse."

So easy to judge others.

[Yavin4]

58. I Have A Question for You

So, let's say Coakley loses, and there's no 60 vote majority. The Dem party would then have to go before the American people and say, "We didn't pass HCR because we lost the 60th vote in the Senate, and we can't do anything else meaningful on the economy because we don't have 60 votes."

How do you think the American people will receive that message?

[treestar]

60. You mean they don't know about the filibuster?

Maybe they could edumacate themselves a little! Wouldn't that be something. I guess they would be sorry they didn't do something to help Coakley. The repukes would of course be happy to hear it.

[treestar]

46. Because some Democrats agreed with it at the time

It's not a matter of learned helplessness. It's not helplessness to be bound by the rules. I am not "helpless" to drive my car at 120 mph on the freeway. I just choose to go along with the rules.

[LaydeeBug]

73. I'm not fucking drunk. I know how to put ? at the end of a question, and I know the difference

between your and you're.

Reconciliation. Fucking look it up.

[pnwmom]

8. The ability to filibuster is established law. You're spouting fantasy. n/t

[Yavin4]

11. Law? Or A Rule?

The filibuster is not a law. If it is, please show me the link in the constitution. Thank you.

[pnwmom]

14. Every law isn't found written into the constitution. That's ridiculous! n/t

[Yavin4]

20. Okay, Link The Law, Wherever It's Written

Show me the federal statute. Or the text of the law as you claim. Wherever it is.

[pnwmom]

22. The Senate rules can only be changed at the beginning of the term.

It's not the beginning of the term.

[Yavin4]

26. Why? Is That In The Constitution As Well Or Some Kind of Federal Law

If Reid wanted to kill the filibuster and the Dems voted to kill it, would they be arrested? What would happen?

[mkultra]

32. well, if they went against their own rules

i would imagine that it would create a giant row and that impeachment hearings would begin.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. I don't understand why they're so afraid of a filibuster

When the idiots start talking, the REAL Democrats can pull out books to read or catch up on their correspondence or play games on their iPhones or draw caricatures or put their heads down for naps or whatever amuses them, pointedly ignoring the filibuster team until the idiots get tired of blathering on and on.

[Yavin4]

13. Dem Leaders Want An EXCUSE, Not HCR

They want the base to believe that they need 60 votes to get HCR passed, when in reality, they need no such thing.

Dem pols across the country in race after race have used the healthcare crisis as a rallying point to raise donations, get votes, get elected, etc. Now, once they've been given power, they're looking for ANY reason to not do ANYTHING, so this 60 vote crap keeps flowing.

Now, you have people even in our base that believe the 60 vote cloture is in the constitution when it's not.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. It makes them look like ninnies

"Oh my God, if we don't give the Blue Dogs everything they ask for, they'll TALK AT US!"

[dflprincess]

25. Because they no longer require them to stand there and speak

some jerk just announces s/he doesn't like a bill and will not vote to end debate and that's all they have to do. Though the rule requiring 60 votes for cloture could be changed - but then they might actually have to get something done.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. Yes, it does look as if they're using the Blue Dogs as a handy excuse

for their corporate welfare bill.

[treestar]

48. While the M$M covers 24/7 their reading of the latest transcripts of

rush Limbaugh, all their talking points repeated over and over again. I do not underestimate the potential of that to backfire. it was one thing in the 60s or earlier with a staid newspaper report or a report from Walter Cronkite on the teevee. Today it would be you-tube, the nation would become obsessed, and the right wing would get quite a few fans and followers and people deciding they were going to vote for that wonderful Senator Brown for President - he's so handsome and entertaining.

[Hamlette]

23. The constitution is not the only law/regulation/rule that can be enforced.

There is a rule in the Senate that 40 ppl can filibuster a bill. It is a rule. It is just as valid as the constitution UNLESS the US Supreme Court strikes it down. Now, if you're wishing for that, good luck. Even if it were to happen it would take years to get through the legal process.

So, like I was saying. There is this rule that is fully enforceable. No way around it.

SOME of the things ppl want in HCR COULD have been done by reconciliation but NOT ALL OF THEM.

Guess why?

There is an enforceable rule about what can be passed by reconciliation. (Think budget. Think of the problems going on in CA right now. Right. Its to prevent that and the whole country shutting down.)

ALSO, once a bill hit committee a decision has to be made as to whether it will be done by reconciliation or not. The time for trying to get some stuff through (no insurance co regs could have gone through this way) was MONTHS ago. The bill in its present form can't be changed to a reconciliation track.

So, lets say your a dem and you see the whole problem with health insurance and health care as being costs are too high and there are no regulations on those costs and ppl don't have access to insurance.

You can't do anything about the first problem through reconciliation. So, you might, MIGHT have gotten a public option bill through reconciliation if you wrote it right but it would have none of the regulations on the insurance companies.

I have an idea: you study law before you got spouting off about it. You obviously have not a clue what the hell you are talking about.

[Yavin4]

27. On What Grounds Is This Rule As "Valid as the Constitution"?

There is NOTHING in the Constitution about a super majority to end debates. The Constitution only mentions super majorities for such things as impeachment. The Senate can make or change any rules that they want, whenever they want. The filibuster rule is being abused and used as a weapon to stop ANY legislation, and it's prohibiting the function of government.

So again, show me the clause in the Constitution about the filibuster.

[Hamlette]

30. all laws and rules are as valid as the constitution until a court finds they

violate the constitution. That is what the judicial branch is for. You know. Checks and balances and all that. Three branches of government. Sounding at all familiar? Did you go to school in this country because if you didn't I'm sorry to sound so shrill but your argument is 100% bunk.


Show me where in the constitution it says you can't drink until age 18. Or you can't speed. Or you have to buy a license for your car. Or you have to have a license to drive. Or you can't rip off the unemployment fund, or you're entitled to social security or that you have to pay into social security.

My good god, the dems on this site are sounding as stupid as the tea partiers.

I've defended against my fair share of constitutionalists in my 33 years as a lawyer and none of them have even come CLOSE to winning. If you want to win an argument about the filibuster, you need to make it to the Senate. You might want to read Harkin's arguments on why it is no longer needed and why the Senate should change its rules. Then you could make an argument that was based in the real world with real facts.

Otherwise you end up sounding like all constitutionalists: crazy.

(Don't press me on this, a friend of mine was murdered, I believe, by her constitutionalist client in Portland 2 days before Thanksgiving. I'm not liking that particular brand of crazy right now.)

[mkultra]

36. The Constitution

makes no mention of filibusters, but it explicitly empowers the Senate to determine its own rules. Senate rules allow for unlimited debate on any subject. Rule 21 of the Senate, which governs debate and filibusters, explicitly states that the rules apply to "any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate." The Constitution does not require an up-or-down vote.


Seems like you must be new to America. Here we have laws.

[niceypoo]

39. The majority has the power to change the rules

Some things are more important than the process

[mkultra]

50. thank god they dont

the last thing i want is the republicans ramming every piece of crap and every nomination down our throat next time they have a slim majority. Bush didn't get over 150 of his nominations due to filibuster.

[treestar]

55. Thank you

there are many assertions on DU to the effect that Bush "got everything he wanted." Clearly that is wrong.

[Yavin4]

40. Again, A Rule That Can Be Changed

Using your own words, "it explicitly empowers the Senate to determine its own rules", which means that the rules can be changed.

[mkultra]

49. again, a rule that SHOULDNT be changed.

[Yavin4]

54. So, What You Are In Essence Saying Is That

If Coakley loses, then NOTHING will be done for the next 3 years because the Dems have this built-in excuse for no action whatsoever.

Now, if you think that the American people who are suffering will accept this because of this rule, then you're wrong.

In the end, LEADERS have to LEAD or they will be gone.

[treestar]

57. It's not an excuse

And since many progressives claim they won't vote for the Dems any more, that makes it even more certain there will be Republicans in power again one day. When there is a Republican president and congress, what are you going to be saying about these rules?

Geez, they'd be able to repeal Medicaid by a 51 vote!!!!!!!!

You're not concerned about that at all!

At least you'll be able to say you weren't living under this allegedly so crappy healthcare bill. You just will have to be rich then so you won't have to worry about the poor not having any health care at all. But you'll have been right in 2010 by god!

[Yavin4]

59. If The Republicans Wanted To Repeal Medicaid, They Would Have Done It

And even if they did do something like that, that would embolden the people to take action against them.

[treestar]

61. their disillusioned and disappointed "base" doesn't abandon them, then

Talk to a right winger, they are self sufficient and don't need no gubmint help. that medicaid and medicare is soshalizm! It encourages people to be lazy. That's why the poor are poor. They just don't have the energy and brains to go find that job out there awaiting them! Or don't move to another state/country where there's work. They don't need a fish, they need to be taught to fish!

Yet these boneheads who truly believe all that keep voting for those republicans, because they know which party tends towards their side.

[mkultra]

62. we lack strength BECAUSE of people like you

who don't support the party when it needs support. The republicans are more aggressive because they stick together. Cloture is not the problem, you are.

[Yavin4]

69. IT'S THE LEADERS OF THE PARTY'S JOB TO INSPIRE THE VOTERS

I'M ALREADY A DEMOCRAT. I'M ALREADY INVOLVED. IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT POLITICAL THAT THE DEM LEADERSHIP NEEDS TO ENERGIZE, NOT ME.

YOU ENERGIZE THE VOTERS BY PASSING LAWS THAT MAKES THEIR LIVES BETTER.

IF THEY FAIL TO DO THAT, THEN THERE'S LITTLE OR NOTHING THAT I CAN DO THAT WILL CHANGE THE ELECTION RESULTS.

[mkultra]

76. you are no democrat, you are a paid right wing poster

a fact the most everyone understands to some degree or another. Now get those little fingers to work typing out your fake democratic street cred.

[burning rain]

75. Supposed dangers of popular programs being repealed with 51 votes are much exaggerated.

For instance, for all George W. Bush's investment of political capital and town halls, none of his Social Security scams so much as came up for a vote in Congress, GOP lawmakers were so scared of the electoral consequences. Progressives and even just plain Democrats often complain of an apathetic, unengaged citizenry, which largely results from cynicism over congressional inertia. That would certainly change with ending 60-for-cloture in favor of simple majority.

[ramapo]

63. Obama didn't start with 60-votes

Nobody thought that Democrats would really have 60 votes in the Senate to begin with so it is ridiculous that all this wringing-of-hands is going on portending that we are on the brink of doom.

If the Democrats lose the Kennedy seat and they still can't get anything accomplished, well whose fault will that be?

Poor Teddy will be rolling in his grave if his seat goes to a crazy Rethug

[Yavin4]

68. Thank You

People overreact to a media frame that does not reflect reality.