Does anyone recall a single instance during the Bush years when they mentioned needing 60 votes?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Just curious. Why is it A CONSTANT refrain that we get beaten over the head with and yet I don't recall it coming up during the Bush years. Memory lapse on my part?

I think at the most they had a few over fifty Senators. Were they always counting on OUR Blue Dogs? Did they just know that Dems would never filibuster? Did they just not care?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Of course. That's what all the "nuclear option" talk was about.

However, it wasn't nearly the constant drumbeat that it is now.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. The "nuclear option" had to do with reducing the filibuster proof majority, right?

And yet did they ever really need the nuclear option? Did the Dems ever mount a single filibuster?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. They mounted the exact same "filibuster" that Joe and friends are mounting now.

That is, no filibuster at all; just a threatened one.

[smokey nj]

6. We don't hear "Up or down vote!" much anymore either.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. Haven't heard it once from a Dem Senator.

Odd that.

[emulatorloo]

2. Yes, for cloture

[havocmom]

3. Nope

I do recall a lot of DEMs rushing to judgment/vote without taking time to give due consideration to very important legislation. And it hurt the nation.

[timeforpeace]

22. No. Didn't seem to need it.

[Better Believe It]

5. They only needed 51 votes. Democrats need 60.

Just listened to the Republican and Democratic Senate leaders.

I tells ya .... we needs 60 votes!

Wanna hear some more bull shit?

[lapfog_1]

8. "Up or Down Vote!!!"

A fairly constant refrain from the repukes when they were in the majority.

And the Dems usually caved after getting some bone tossed to them (wink wink "Of course there will be congressional oversight of how XXX money for XXX war is spent").

[treestar]

9. AGain, Repukes march in lockstep

if Dems did, we would not need 60 either.

[asdjrocky]

10. It's a total sham, we don't need 60 votes.

There is no place in the Constitution where it says you only need 60 votes when the Dems are in the majority.

They must have a different rule book that we don't get to see.

[doc03]

11. All they had to do was say you aren't supporting the troops

or how can you not support the President in a time of war and the Democrats caved.

[kirby]

13. The Dems did filibuster occasionally...

However in many cases the well organized Republican PR machine drilled into the public conscious that it was only fair to have an 'up or down vote'. It was pretty successful in that many Dems voted for cloture (to end debate and start voting), but then voted against the bill.

The Dems mainly filibustered some Bush judicial nominees.

[uponit7771]

14. They didn't need to drill the public they just passed what they wanted via reconciliation which Reid

...is not doing right now.

[kirby]

17. Not as simple as that...

There are a lot of things in the current bill that could not be done via reconciliation and the Republicans would have been able to easily make a 'point of order' and had the Senate Parliamentarian rule that the bill did not fall under the rules for reconciliation.

[GOTV]

21. So split the bill into a reconciliation part and a non-reconciliation part.

[Enrique]

23. but then we heard about the dems filibustering

now we hear about the dems failing to get 60 votes. Nothing about the republicans filibustering.

[fugop]

15. Democrats

The Democrats, as usual, tried to play nice, assuming the GOP would respond in kind. HA! The Democrats didn't use the filibuster to basically derail every bit of legislation they didn't like. THey used it in the "correct" spirit, as it wasn't intended to stop legislation from reaching a vote. The Dems allowed for the 60 on cloture, assuming their responsibility was to allow a vote, but then vote against the legislation.

GOP, on the other hand, has turned to the cloture vote as a way to keep votes from ever happening at all. It's beyond ridiculous. I think Reid and/or Obama ought to stand up and rail about how they've made a mockery of the process by refusing to allow legislation to come to a vote, which is what our system is supposed to be about. I hate this 60 crap. It's gone so beyond reasonable and become purely a way to obstruct votes from happening. SOmething really needs to be done. The Dems need to take a stand instead of thinking about "Gee, if we change this now, we might have to suffer for it when the GOP is back in power!" Newsflash: You'll suffer anyway, because the GOP doesn't give a rip about fair play. They'll find a way to link arms and screw the country no matter what. According to them, 50+1 votes is a mandate. But the 58 actual Democratic advantage? Not a majority, according to the GOP.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

16. I've come to the conclusion that the "60" number is a cover to make compromises

they WANTED to make in the first place.

IF they were serious they would scream "Up or Down" as someone as so correctly pointed out.

I'm starting to totally get it.

[Lorien]

18. Yep. nt

[euphoria12leo]

19. Kent Jones on Rachel Maddow's show would say

WEAK. I would like to add 60 votes is a bunch of b.s.


:banghead:

[denverbill]

20. Conservatives have extra weapons.

When they want to pass something which couldn't possibly pass on it's own merits, like complete elimination of the estate tax or cutting the capital gains tax, they add something little in that most Democrats/average people want, like a minimum wage increase or ending the 'marriage penalty' tax.

It's hard for Democrats to do something similar, because what can they offer Republicans that would make them vote for HCR? There is nothing more important to conservatives than to protect free-market capitalism(or what they call free-market capitalism anyway) at any cost.