God Bless Rachel Maddow!!!!

[Yavin4]

She is saying EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE BEEN POSTING FOR THE PAST WEEK!!!!!


BLESS YOU, RACHEL!!! BLESS YOU!!!!

[tabatha]

1. She analyzes it the best!

Factual, honest, and not holier than thou.

[JuniperLea]

2. I hope she stays that way...

Too many become self-absorbed and it becomes all about them.

She's cautious, and thorough, and sometimes a scardy-cat... I like that! :D

[gateley]

7. I think she will -- I just think that's who she IS. nt

[Ildem09]

3. Stabenow

is figgin stupid. OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO SAY NO. JESUS THEY DONT GET IT

[gateley]

8. She was fine. Other Dems don't seem to realize that. She does. nt

[O is 44]

9. I know she is still holding out hope...

I don't get how we can see it from a far but they are right there and still have hope. Then she really bummed me out when she said it takes 2/3's of the senate to change the rules. ugh that is at least 66 votes that are needed.

[sandyd921]

4. Stabenow on Maddow says it takes 2/3 vote

to overturn filibuster and puts it all on repukes. I've heard that there are other options for avoiding filibuster. Anyone know?

[Ildem09]

technically the fillabuster is a dillatory tactic

and therefor under rules is against senate business. if someone were to make a point of parliamentary inquiry to the senate parliamentarian about the legality of the filibuster it would then be declared as dillatory by the rules of the senate because it violates a subsection of the constitution in regards to senate procedure. then it would go to a vote. and bam filibusterer gone or at least thats how i understand it

[sandyd921]

11. Yeh, just heard someone on a prog talk show

say that only takes 51 votes. Does Stabenow (and the others) just not know this or is there some reason they're scared of it? I also think they can do this on an individual vote and it doesn't have to be applied to everything. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure we get the whole story on this procedural stuff.

[Ildem09]

14. if we get rid of the fillabuster

all hell will break loose. the gop will use tactics to slow the chamber down to a crawl. everything on the senate runs on courtesy of unanimous consent. from setting the calendar to allotting time to debate. they can resend their consent. and just fucker everything up. but if we get rid of it or make it just for judicial appointments. which i think is a fair compromise things might work out well

[dixiegrrrrl]

15. I am wondering if "we need 61" is just a meme

to justify Dem's lack of progress.
That maybe they are counting on most folks believing they need 61, therefore not blaming Dems
for "failure".

[roguevalley]

18. its my impression they vote the rules at the start of the session and

are stuck with them until a new one but that could just be bs. I imagine they can change their own rules if they have the votes.

[CTLawGuy]

5. well

good thing I didn't bother to watch.

[gateley]

6. She always comes through -- and explains how things really are. nt

[Clio the Leo]

10. LOVE her leading off with the "My daughters are available!" remark. NT

[rasputin1952]

12. She does an excellent job explaining things...

Rachel has an astounding mind, and her delivery is usually impeccable.

She is a gem. Even in those few times I disagree w/her, I still hold an immense amount of respect for her...:loveya:

[Ildem09]

13. Howard Fienman FTW

Howard Fienman. that dude hit the nail on the head... the administration has been paralyzed.. and campaigns are in no way indicative of how an administration is going to be

[fadedrose]

16. She's unique, nobody like her..

She should have Meet the Press instead of David.

I love her too....

[wisteria]

17. Did you hear Rendell? If we are going to go down-go down fighting for what we believe in.

Yeah!!!

[uponit7771]

19. AMEN!!! If you're going to go down thrown some and take them with you!!!