this filibuster deal is good ONLY if we can take back the Senate . . .

[OneBlueSky]

in 2006 . . . and that will depend entirely on 1) a fair voting (and vote counting) system, and 2) running (and funding) quality candidates against EVERY Republican senator up for re-election . . .

my political instincts are telling me that the way to accomplish the latter is to run strong anti-war candidates for every Republican (and every open) Senate seat . . . because by this time next year, the vast majority of the American electorate should be strongly against the war . . . particularly if the draft has been reinstated (which is looking more and more likely every day), and if we've expanded the war to Iran and/or Syria (also looking likely) . . . there IS a limit to how much death, destruction, and billions people will put up with, and we're rapidly approaching that limit, imo . . .

[Democat]

1. Why would we want Republicans to be able to filibuster if we win?

If we plan to win the Senate back, we should have let them get rid of the filibuster so they couldn't block our agenda!

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. power corrupts and absolute power... hence

why this has never been attempted until now by either party in power

[enid602]

2. option

I don't think the filibuster deal was a clearcut victory for dems; it merely gives us a bit of breathing room. The problem with the nuclear option is not just that it would enable the thugs to pack the courts. I should think that the thugs would ultimately find a way to use it to decide other Senate matters as well. As each day passes (and the populace continues to turn on *), the public will be even less willing to give the thugs a nuclear option which could, in effect enable them to enforce totalitarian rule. I think a coup has been at least partially averted. True, the price paid was steep.

[ps1074]

4. the filibuster deal is only good for the 109th Congress

After 06 midterms it is void.