Dems short on votes for filibuster reform

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: The Hill

Democrats don’t have the 51 votes they need in the Senate to change filibuster rules that could make it harder for the GOP minority to wield power in the upper chamber.

Lawmakers leading the charge acknowledge they remain short, but express optimism they’ll hit their goal.

“I haven’t counted 51 just yet, but we’re working,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a leading proponent of the so-called constitutional or “nuclear” option, in which Senate rules could be changed by a majority vote.

“We’re building the momentum right now,” Udall said. “It’s hard to say at this point, but I think it’s looking very good. The last two years have really helped coalesce people’s minds around the idea that we need to change the way we do business.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/267471-dems-short-on-votes-for-filibuster-reform

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Who's the hold-out?

[Scuba]

6. ... and why? Career as a Democrat is over.

[happyslug]

23. Some Democrats remember when they were in the minority

And in the Minority you fall in love with the Filibuster. Remember the Filibuster is a two way street, it works for whatever party is in the minority, and sooner or later the Democrats will be in the minority.

[Scuba]

28. And if the Repubs get in charge you think they'll OK the filibuster for the Dems???????

[happyslug]

47. They have in the past.....

n/t

[xtraxritical]

58. Is anyone going to answer the question? Who's the holdout?

[xtraxritical]

59. Ok, I'll do my own homework, here's the answer...

<snip>
Udall, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) proposed a package of reforms for the 112th Congress that would have eliminated filibusters on motions to proceed to new business. Their package also would have required senators wanting to hold up legislation or nominees to actually hold the floor and debate, and shortened to two hours the time that must elapse after a filibuster on a nominee has been cut off.

The package failed in a 44-51 vote, with Democratic Sens. Jim Webb (Va.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Reid voting no. Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), John Kerry (Mass.) and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) did not vote.
<snip>

What is wrong with these Democrats? I'm especially dissapointed to see Fienstein, Kerry, and Inouye not voting and I would like to know their reasons.

[valerief]

70. I am sooooo pissed. nt

[ChaoticTrilby]

72. Kerry? Really? ACK.

Such morons. We're never going to get anything done with them gumming up the works...

[karynnj]

139. Kerry is for filibuster reform

Kerry was out of the country for Obama and had Reid's approval - ifr his vote would have made the difference, Reid would have scheduled it when he returned . He posted the following on filibuster reform http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/11/a-few-quick-thoughts-on-filibuster-reform/-

[ChaoticTrilby]

143. Ah, good! Thanks for the update.

I'll admit I was just irritated that he (among others) hadn't voted. I'm glad to hear that this has changed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

83. Senator must cast a vote if they are present

So it is likely that they were absent when that vote was taken

[Freddie Stubbs]

87. And Reid probably voted against it because for procedural reasons

It would be easier for him to bring it up again if he votes against it.

[NYC Liberal]

93. That was a vote taken 2 years ago though.

The sentence just before those paragraphs:

But Democrats can’t count on a number of their “old bulls,” as was reflected by a vote just two years ago.

[lonestarnot]

107. I could have named most of them without looking at your list. Kerry I am surprised did not vote.

WTF!

[karynnj]

138. I think he was in Sudan where things were falling apart

He was their as an emissary for Obama with Reid.s knowledge and approval. If his vote were needed, Reid would have scheduled the vote when he was back.

More importantly, here is what he posted on blue mass -
http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/11/a-few-quick-thoughts-on-filibuster-reform/

[CreekDog]

128. I think they are at 49, easily at the moment

Kaine replaces Webb and is in favor (45)

Kohl replaced by Baldwin also in favor (46)

Warren replaced Brown, also in favor (47)

Reid will vote yes if it can pass (48)




going to have to pressure the others, but I think we'll get Angus King (49) and one more and Biden can break the tie.

Hold these and snag one more.

Get to it.

[MurrayDelph]

146. Remember "The Nuclear Option"?

It refers to a plan that Republicans had to eliminate the filibuster when they led the Senate 51-50 (even split, but a Republican VP).

The only reason they didn't nuke it was because the Dems promised not to use it so much.

And unlike the Republans, the Dems kept their promise.

[BlueCaliDem]

42. And should that happen, do you think the Repubs wouldn't change it now

the Democrats have expressed the desire to? Oh hell, yes, they will change it!

Better to have it changed now so that we can finally get policies through that benefit US without the Republicans going haywire on the filibuster rule again and force Democrats to water down EVERYTHING so we are at risk at losing in 2014. Because that's what this is about.

[gcomeau]

48. Nobody is talking about killing the filibuster.

They're talking about making it less susceptible to abuse. Like, for example, you have to actually PERFORM the damn filibuster for it to have effect, not just have one guy show up say "we're gonna filibuster", then walk out and the bill is dead.

There is *zero* excuse for not playing ball on this. Anyone who is holding out needs to be identified and pressured. by their constituents. Hard.

[former9thward]

54. Actually they are not even talking about that.

Last edited Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:30 PM - Edit history (1)

They are considering not using the filibuster for amendments to a bill. But you could still use it for the bill itself and you would still not need to 'perform' just say you are going to do it.

[gcomeau]

55. In that case...

...there is even less excuse for opposing. And EVERY damn democratic senator needs to be contacted and hit with a clue stick that filibusters need to be *actual filibusters*.

If legislation is important enough to arrant filibustering it it is important enough to get up there in front of the country and do the work to block it and let everyone see you doing it.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

88. Yes...and that's my main concern with the filibuster reform idea

I remember when the Republicans held both houses of congress and were busily trying to eliminate the senate filibuster so they could get Dubya's horrible judicial reforms and legislative agenda through

And there were wiser heads in the Republican Party cautioning "don't do this, we won't have the senate majority forever and this will hit us hard when that happens". Thankfully, the Republican proposals to eliminate the filibuster were scuttled and, indeed, the Republicans lost their majority the next time around.

As much as I want to see President Obama and the Democrats achieve all they have set out to do, I am concerned that filibuster reform will hurt Democrats in the future and enable the right wing all that much more when the tide turns

[MrModerate]

101. It's still obstructionism . . .

Regardless of which side of the aisle it comes from. And it degrades governmental operations, and weakens the whole institution of government. Dems need to take the high road here.

And in my opinion, taking the high road will provide a much bigger payoff — both now and in the future — than preserving the chance to play parliamentary games at some later, unspecified date.

[democrattotheend]

117. Exactly. I was grateful for the filibuster in 2003

When the Republicans controlled the White House and both branches of Congress and Democrats were able to use the filibuster to stop some of the worst judges and policies from going through. I am wary of ending it because like you said, there will probably come a day when we will be in the minority again.

[CreekDog]

127. The reform doesn't take away the filibuster

[CTyankee]

98. One is prolly Joe Lieberman, who often caucuses with the Dems on some issues.

He'll be replaced with CT's own true blue Chris Murphy and you can bet your ass he'll vote for the change!

Can they wait until the new Congress is seated?

[SteveG]

123. The only time they can do this is at the beginning of the term when they are

deciding the Rules of the Senate. They only get one shot at this. Once the Rules are voted on they cannot be changed again until the seating of the next Congress in two years.

[CTyankee]

125. Oh, that's right. I remember reading that somewhere...

[HooptieWagon]

135. Not quite.

The rules can be changed mid-session, however it requires a 60 vote super-majority to do so. At the beginning of session, it only requires 50 votes + VP tie-breaker.

[SteveG]

145. True, but how likely is that?

Especially with the Radical Reactionary faction of the Republican party in control of the party?

[valerief]

69. +1 million. Who the hell are these traitors? nt

[yurbud]

92. From the article on who voted against or didn't vote at all:

I think this is worth a letter, fax, or email to your senator, even if they voted the right way before--remind them to do it again.

There is really no excuse for Democrats not doing this since they failed to wield the filibuster effectively during the Bush years, and since then the Republicans have rarely missed an opportunity to use it.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

The package failed in a 44-51 vote, with Democratic Sens. Jim Webb (Va.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Reid voting no. Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), John Kerry (Mass.) and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) did not vote.

[Mass]

2. Or do they.

This is more of the same insipid crap the political media call news.

Note: The Senate is NOT in session. Even if Udall had started counting (which means there was a reform on the table), he may have had problems getting answers.

[mopinko]

4. tend to agree.

but anybody who doesn't go along on this should forget what pork even smells like.

[CanonRay]

3. Name names, please

so we can get on the phones.

[INdemo]

5. If they wait till January they will have 51+ votes

[longship]

37. AFAIK, they must wait for January.

Rule changes can only happen at the beginning of the session, every two years.

[PoliticAverse]

53. Right. n/t

[wordpix]

105. I agree, so let's wait

The lame ducks don't want to do anything but collect their paychecks, anyway

[CreekDog]

129. I agree, my math says they probably have at least 49 right now

[earthside]

7. Without filibuster reform ...

... we, the people, are going to be denied again the results of democracy.

I have no doubt that the Senate Repuglicans will filibuster everything out of sheer spite if given the chance under the present rule.

Without a change, we will almost be right back where we started from -- before the 2012 election.

What kind of Democrat in the U.S. Senate would be against a rule change that permits a filibuster, but ultimately leads to a 'majority rules' vote?

So, I hope this is just media speculation -- but every single Democrat in the U.S. Senate had better vote for filibuster reform -- every single one!

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. Some Democratic Senators may worry that they may someday be in the minority

[still_one]

11. So. The filibuster is garbage, and no way to run a democracy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. This is a constitutional republic, not a democracy

[HankyDub]

17. it's a democratic republic

don't start talking like rush limbaugh. You know perfectly well what the posters intent was.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. I do not listen to talk radio, so I am not familiar with how Rush Limbaugh talks

If the poster's intent was to state that we have simple majority rule, the poster is wrong.

[HankyDub]

19. That certainly was not the intent, which you know quite well.

Everyone knows we don't have Athenian democracy in the United States. People commonly refer to the US as a democracy, however, because it is based on democratic principles. I didn't really need to explain that, did I?

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. People are often incorrect

Just because something is repeated and repeated does not make it true.

[MessiahRp]

43. If only you remembered that when repeating Administration talking points the past 4 years.

[Freddie Stubbs]

84. We support President Obama here at DU!

[MessiahRp]

97. What a ridiculous response.

I'm willing to bet a good 95% or more of us voted for Obama. I'm going to say there's a good chance that even more than that want him to succeed at his job.

But he hasn't always had liberals backs. The first cabinet was pretty much devoid of them. We were purposely kept away from the table during HCR reform. Then of course he signed the NDAA and continued Bush's Domestic Terrorism policies. During that time Emanuel and Gibbs spent more time attacking us than they did FOX.

During that time you ran around parroting every pro-Obama, anti-liberal comment you could to attack us as the "purists" who apparently would rather see Obama fail than succeed because we didn't get what we wanted. Instead of agreeing that the left should have an equal place in any policy negotiations, you sided with Obama's camp that treated us like the enemies.

A simple Google of your posts in 2009-2010 will show this. So you should heed your own words about repeating garbage over and over and that not making it come true, because you did the exact same thing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

111. If Obama had tried to do everything that the far left wanted, he would have been a one-termer

Instead, he governed from the middle and was reelected.

[MessiahRp]

112. I completely disagree with that assessment.

If he had started far left on HCR negotiations and walked back from there, he gets the public option. The right spun his HCR as if it WERE socialist free government healthcare so people wouldn't have cared about the differences, it would have been spun the same.

If he doesn't sign the NDAA into law and use Warrantless Wiretapping, he gets more votes from people that went libertarian because of that nonsense.

Oh and there's the whole 2010 thing that wouldn't have happened because liberals wouldn't have stayed home. No 2010 wave = No Republican SOS's in charge suppressing the vote at every turn. So he'd probably have won MORE votes going left.

Your third way nonsense is why we will always get less in every negotiation.

[Freddie Stubbs]

114. My 'third way nonsense' is the reason a Democrat has won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6

presidential elections.

[MessiahRp]

115. Thank you for publicly outing yourself as a cheerleader for the Third Way.

Your opinions are noted and you are still 100% wrong. People want REAL choices, not triangulation. The other side labels everything you do with extremist labels anyway so if Obama had pushed for and gotten Single Payer Health Care the exact same insults would have labeled it as the ones that got put onto his Corporate Payout Scheme that actually passed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

119. If people don't like triangulation, why do they keep voting for candidates who do it?

[MessiahRp]

120. When the party only finances candidates that do it, you're left with no choice.

Triangulation bullshit or fuckheads like Romney and Ryan. It's not people's first choice to vote for third way candidates. It's just that the money in the Democratic Party dictates that liberals be pushed out and treated like pariahs and crazies during primaries. There are a ton of examples of the National and State Parties stepping into primaries and railroading candidates that they found undesirable to the Washington and Wall Street elite, out of races. It's not that people WANT triangulation it's that the money run against the other candidates combined with the right wing crazies on the other ticket make it impossible to support the candidates who don't saddle up with the robber barons.

[Freddie Stubbs]

133. In 2008 most of President Obama's funds were from small donations

[Occulus]

141. prior to that you proudly displayed a blue dog painting in your sig line

and you only took it down when the majority of DUers came to understand that blue dog Democrats are really stealth Republicans.

And yes, I do intend to keep pointing that out, and there's nothing you can do about it. You were a traitor to the Democrats then, and the tone of your posts now tells us all that you haven't changed a bit.

[Freddie Stubbs]

142. Those who don't want Blue Dogs in Congress don't want a Democratic majority

I am still waiting to for far-left liberals to step up and run in republican-leaning districts.

[Kingofalldems]

20. Of course he does

[earthside]

24. Oh, jeez.

In a southern drawl ... "'Demos' means 'mob' in Greek, you know!"

I'll never forget the John Bircher I met in Sheridan, Wyoming who always had an apoplectic fit and shouted the above anytime someone referred to the the U.S. as a 'democracy'.

Well, the 'People's Republic of China' is a 'constitutional republic' ... what makes the U.S. form of government different is that the 'democracy' characteristic is real and integral: the 'people' are sovereign.

Everyone knows what we are talking about when we say the U.S. is a democracy. The point is that just like in the election last week, majority rules.

And, why shouldn't that be the ultimate value in the U.S. Senate as well -- even if someday the Repuglicans get control?

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. If that were the ultimate value in the Senate, Wyoming and California wouldn't have the same number

of Senators.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

27. The only ones who keep saying it's a Republic are Republicans,...as if they OWN it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. The fact that it is a republic makes it difficult for any one faction to 'own' it

The framers of the Constitution deliberately created a system which made it difficult for majority to do things.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

46. That's not how they see it. They say it's theirs and Dems need to get out of their way.

[Odin2005]

33. That's a RW talking point, buddy.

usually invoked by wing-nuts angry that We The People can make the rich pay taxes. We are both a Constitutional Republic AND a Democracy.

[SemperEadem]

57. after all, one pledges allegience to both the flag

and the Republic for which said flag stands.

[Freddie Stubbs]

86. Facts are facts, regardless of whoever is stating them

[Odin2005]

102. The US being a republic does not perclude the US from also being a democracy.

China is an example of a republic that is not a democracy, as is Iran.

[still_one]

56. It is still no way to run a Constitutional republic, and the last four years exemplify this

[Comrade_McKenzie]

81. Unfortunately. nt

[HankyDub]

15. I don't think you need to end it

just force them to get up and speak for 8 hours at a time. If your cause is worthy, there's no shame in that. If you're filibustering some minor judicial nominee or food stamps or something like that, then you will be exposed as a creep.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

21. +1 nt

[Ter]

61. Good thing we're not one

n/t

[julian09]

75. Aren't they effectively putting themselves in minority

when they are against filibuster reform. Without reform they are saying 41 votes rules over 59 votes NOW, not at a some future date.
They are putting themselves in minority now, because they might be in minority later. Seize the moment now to accomplish things, that will assure reelection.

[INdemo]

136. If they have no backbone and not pass the rule change

then that will happen sooner than later...

[tonybgood]

64. The United States is a Democratic Republic!!!

It is not and never has been a 50% + 1 democracy. If it were, the rights of minorities could be trampled at any time by a simple majority vote.

[julian09]

77. That is the reason for the supreme court and the constitution.

To overturn bad law.

[tonybgood]

121. Wrong!!! The Supreme Court isn't there to protect against "bad laws"!

If that were the case, they'd have ruled the 18th Amendment "unconstitutional"!!! The Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of a law, not whether it's "good" or "bad".

[julian09]

137. Didn't I mention constitution along with supreme court, connect the dots.

We have had cases recently at lower courts undo some of the voter suppression laws.

[still_one]

80. The filibuster was used to keep slavery intact, so protection of the rights of minorities is

Somewhat a moving target

[Salviati]

126. and the fight against civil rights

the filibuster has done more harm to progressive goals than help. Even if this ends up hurting us a little when we end up with the short end of the stick, I believe that in the long run fillibuster reform will ultimately be a good thing in moving this country in a more progressive direction.

[still_one]

132. I agree

[dlwickham]

95. the rights of the minorities frequently are trampled

ie marriage equality

[wordpix]

106. lately in the Senate the rights of the majority are being trampled due to the filibuster rule

[yurbud]

94. if national Republicans keep this up, they will end up in the same position as California Repubs:

California required a two-thirds majority to raise taxes, which gave the GOP minority an effective veto...until this election when Dems won more than two-thirds of both chambers of the state legislature.

The Republican party is dying.

If Dems end the filibuster, it will be the equivalent of pulling the respirator and feeding tube out of a brain dead Jesse Helms and letting him find his way into the footnotes of history.

[Kablooie]

8. Sounds exactly like the movie Lincoln.

The whole movie is about how Lincoln secured the last few stubborn votes to abolish slavery.

[bemildred]

10. Who do we need to yell at? We need names. nt

[harun]

44. The Blue Dogs and Southern Dems

[heaven05]

50. they

really are traitors to our party. Blue dogs my ass, traitors usually because of the same sickness of rethugs, southern strategy racist pigs. Yes, some democratic senators ARE racist pigs also and hate the color of our POTUS. Anyone can scream and deny with concurrent whining all you want, I know it's true.

[Blasphemer]

60. Perhaps not

In 2005, it was McCain standing up to Frist and the conservative block over this issue. He was worried about future implications. The Dems similarly opposed could be on either side of the ideological divide.

[dmallind]

96. Utter shite - this is completely false

Two main reasons:

1) The Blue Dog caucus is a House group. There are no, and never have been, any Blue Dog Senators
2) Excluding the geographically but not socially South Hawaii, only one Senator voting no is from a (semi) southern state - AR.

Even if you ridiculously extend the Blue Dog label to Bayh's "gang of 16" centrist Dem Senators from the last Congress, only ONE of those voting no was on that list - the very northern Herb Kohl.

[harun]

110. Umm the Corporate owned Dems in the Senate are WORSE than the Blue Dogs

in the House then.

The reason we don't have a Public Option, higher taxes on the wealthy and never ending war is Corporate Dems in the Senate hiding behind Republican filibusters.

Don't act like they aren't the real fucking problem.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

65. Please see #59, above.

[bemildred]

68. Yep, that's about what I thought.

They need to thrash this out now, and then bring it up again in the new Senate. I'm not surprised at those names at all. Meanwhile we need to light a fire under those "Nos" and the abstainers in particular, they are abstaining because they want to slide on the issue.

In the new Senate, i expect those ideas will get a better hearing.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. Real reporters have names....

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Senator Tom Udall is quoted in the article stated that he does not have 51 votes yet

[Kelvin Mace]

31. By names,

I mean the AWOL Dems.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

66. Please see #59, above.

[Freddie Stubbs]

82. If Senator Udall had wanted to name names he would have done so

[Kelvin Mace]

89. Since when do I exepct politicians to report the news

that would be a journalists job. Since someone actually did a little research here and came up with a list, how hard coulod it have been?

[Honest_Abe]

14. Make them actually filibuster!

Seems to me we could go a long way if we just made them actually filibuster. Right now they give up if they don't have the votes for cloture. Make them stand on the floor of the Senate and actually show the world via C-SPAN that they are wasting everybody's time for a bad cause. A couple of 48-hour marathon sessions by some of these old guys, they might be a little more reluctant to try it next time.

Edit: Sp.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

22. +1 nt

[Nancy Waterman]

30. There GOP will end the filibuster in a heartbeat

the minute they get the majority. That is a guarantee.

[loyalsister]

109. Bring on the cook books, Chicken Soup For The Soul...

I fully support returning to the traditional filibuster rules.

[democrattotheend]

118. I agree

I don't want to end the filibuster completely but I support bringing back the actual filibuster, in order to save it for the most extreme cases. That's what it was designed for.

[Posteritatis]

131. Seriously. That's the entirety of the solution, right there.

Now and then it really is that simple.

[fredamae]

29. I just called Udall

202-224-6621 and asked him to please come to us-name names and allow us this seat at the table to persuade Our lawmakers to join Merkley/Udall/Reid etc to Support this effort.
We did, after-all, demand reform. Lets do this

[malexand]

62. senate.gov

I like your style and leadership, fredamae.

It's easy to call or email our senators:
www.senate.gov

Everything matters.

Dwell in possibility.

Yes we can...

[fredamae]

63. Thank you for this link

and yes-not only does "Yes, we can" take on a whole new meaning-but I am already in "yes, we Did" mode.

We Are getting involved in numbers I can't recall happening in the past 40 years, all over the country--so, "Yes, we Are" also fits and I'm hopeful and excited--and Determined

[thesquanderer]

34. TO EVERYONE WHO WANTS NAMES...

Read the link, people! It's all there!

[leveymg]

35. Any Dems who won't vote to reform this should have their precious committee assignments stripped.

[byeya]

36. Maybe Udall put this message out to energize the rank and file Democrats to show

support to ending the filibuster.

[Odin2005]

38. The fillibuster must die.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. Harry Reed took forever to admit it was a problem.

[Maineman]

40. Perhaps we need a constitutional amendment:

If three-fifths of the House of Representatives conclude that the Senate is unable to function effectively or to carry out its constitutional duties, all members of the Senate shall immediately be subject to recall. Such elections shall be held no sooner than 90 days and no later than 120 days from the date of recall."

[Grins]

41. Then CHANGE THE RULES OF THE SENATE!

Then CHANGE THE RULES OF THE SENATE!

Nothing is possible if that is not done. Change the rules to invoke cloture at 51-votes.

You have to propose to change the rules on the opening session of the Senate or you're stuck with the existing rules for the term. We tried to do it last term but Reid effectively stopped it. Make noise.

[heaven05]

45. well

after first of the new year, if no majority vote on this issue in our favor, no filibuster after majority votes it closed, then same old bullshit. 20 states have petitions going for succession from the 'union of states'. People are losing their collective minds. Civil War II anyone? This is a stupid, stupid nation of knuckle dragging cretins. Hey dumbasses, you are not in Fort Sumpter or at Gettysburg anymore! I am more and more thinking ex-pat.

[EC]

49. the independant that won

ran on filibuster reform - where's his vote? We have over 50 in the Senate..why isn't everybody on board with this?

[AAO]

67. He's not a senator yet.

[EC]

74. Oh

I thought they were going to take the vote at the beginning of the new session?

[AAO]

100. Right, but I don't think it starts until 2013 n/t

[s-cubed]

51. Virginia Dems: phone numbers

Jim Webb. 202 224 4024. One of the holdouts. Will be replaced by Tim Kaine who is for reform.
Mark Warner 202 224 2023. In the past was for reform-needs pushing, as he is up for reelection in 2014

[PoliticAverse]

52. "A Reid aide emphasized that Reid did not commit himself to the constitutional option" n/t

[valerief]

71. They should rename it the Ballbuster. nt

[brooklynite]

73. Some of this may have to do with WHAT exactly is being proposed...

Let's be clear that NOBODY is proposing to get ride of the filibuster at this point; what is up for discussion are changes is rules of how filibusters work and what the threshold rules are. Sen. McCaskill has told me that she's not as supportive for broad changes, but does support tougher rules that require the Republicans to publicly fight for every filibuster they want.

[hrmjustin]

76. I know that I may be wrong here, but are you really sure you want to change the rules?

[Pirate Smile]

78. There has to be a way for Obama to fill up the Courts without having to deal with Republican

Senators. That had to be fixed. It is one of the truly important parts of his second term.

[santamargarita]

79. Some Democrat better get off his dead ass and fall in line!

Tell us who it is so we can take have the President take him to the woodshed!

[elleng]

85. How are things going in AZ, re: Carmona???

[Freddie Stubbs]

91. Down 78,000 votes with a little less than half a million ballots still waiting to be counted

He is reconsidering his concession.

[warrprayer]

90. son of a ....

... I I KNEW IT. I just knew it...

[LaPera]

99. Why in the fuck did Feinstein (CA), Kerry (MA) & Inouye (HI) not vote? - This has to pass NOW

[NoodleyAppendage]

104. Because they are COWARDS

...particularly Feinstein. She's probably too busy worrying about how the Petrieus thing will negatively affect her husband's defense contracting business and their familial bottom-line.

J

[Canuckistanian]

103. Oh, come on

This should be a no-brainer.

This filibuster rule as it is now is a MAJOR impediment to passing bills that have general approval of the elected Senate.

Oh, and end this "anonymous hold" bullshit as well.

[ancianita]

108. It's not like the vote to end the filibuster on the first day of each session will end it forever..

just for the 113th congressional session. It can be brought up for re-vote each and every new session, whether Dems are a minority or not. There's got to be some major arm-twisting done before January.

[Ken Burch]

113. Dear God...are there STILL Senate Dems who base their political appeal

on the promise of stopping their own party from getting its way? Why would anybody even run as a Dem if they hate most of what the party stands for?

[jpak]

116. Maine's new Senator Angus King caucused with the Dems and hates the Filibuster

yup

[DarthDem]

122. Not a Good Piece of "Reporting"

. . . and anyone who understands The Hill knows what I mean, and also realizes that the publication isn't going to cheerlead any change in Congressional rules.

The article states that (essentially) 44 Senators voted for changes last time, then says that Webb and Kohl voted no. Well, they're gone, and Kaine and Baldwin support reform. Reid voted no for procedural reasons or because he wasn't fully on board. So now we're at 47. King replaces Snowe: that's 48. With things that close, and with this getting a LOT more publicity this time, Jack Reed may well change his mind, Kerry will probably vote for it, and DiFi won't be able to hide from the vote nearly as easily.
The entire premise of the article is suspect. The Senate is, suddenly, much younger and more liberal. I'm betting that something will indeed pass.

[dsc]

124. From that article I put us at 49

with one very easy way to get to 50. First we are at 49 because we had 44, Reid switching gives us 45, Kohl and Webb were replaced by Baldwin and Kaine that's 47, Brown and Snowe were replaced by Warren and King that is 49. Now the easy 50. Appoint Kerry to SOD or SOS in December and have him replaced by an appointed Senator who favors reform. You now have 50.

[CincyDem]

130. Response from Sherrod Brown's office

I wrote Brown's office expressing my support for filibuster reform. I got a response back that was written by some staffer. Seemed genuine since it specifically referenced some things I said in my letter.

My read was that Brown is NOT an obvious supporter for filibuster reform. Talked about the tradition being necessary to ensure "well examined deliberation".

If they're short of 51, it might not simply be the usual suspects that live on the conservative end of the blue team.

[Daniel537]

134. Funny how we're always short of the votes when we most need them.

Public option? Nope, sorry, just a little short. But a war with Iraq? Yep, we got plenty of votes for that. Revolting.

[woo me with science]

144. Isn't it curious.

The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

[davidn3600]

140. What's the point of this if the GOP has the House?

Sure you get things through the Senate easier, but the House can easily kill it.

Plus the Constitution mandates all spending bills must start in the House.

I just think this is a stupid fight and probably nothing more than posturing. I think it is extremely risky. What if the GOP were to win the Senate and Presidency in 2016? We won't be able to stop anything. That's why you have a few Democrats hesitating to go forward with this.