A simple solution to the 60/40 vote cloture problem: make them filibuster.

[pnwmom]

Indefinitely. Interminably. Let them make speeches against Children's Health Care on the floor of the Senate till they're blue in the face. Shut the business of government down until every person in America knows why, and knows that the Rethugs are the ones responsible.

Where would the civil rights movement be if we had rolled over every time a conservative threatened a filibuster?

Senator Reid has it within his power to require an ACTUAL filibuster, as opposed to backing down every time the Rethugs announce they have 40 votes and merely threaten one.

So we should pass a very popular bill, like Children's Health, and make them actually debate it indefinitely, if they want to. Then let Bush veto it, if they want to. At least the country will know where we stand.

And then we should do it all over again with another popular bill.

[robinlynne]

1. and with every bill. of course!

[Hippo_Tron]

2. The senate rules were changed in the 1970's you can't force a real filibuster

Senators just say they "want to filibuster" and the bill doesn't go to the floor unless there are 60 votes for cloture. You can't force them to stand there and read the phone book anymore.

[pnwmom]

3. That's not true. Senator Reid still has that discretion.

In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can therefore be as powerful as an actual filibuster. Previously the filibustering senator(s) could delay voting only by making an endless speech. Currently they need only indicate that they are filibustering, thereby preventing the senate from moving on to other business until the motion is withdrawn or enough votes are gathered for cloture.. . . .

A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else. Strom Thurmond's attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.

www.wikipedia.com

[Hippo_Tron]

4. I'd have to research it further but I'm not sure wikipedia is correct about this one

I know you could do that in the past but I'm not sure you can anymore.

[pnwmom]

5. Cloture, which requires the 60 votes, is the way to stop the endless debate

that the Senate rules otherwise allows to occur.

All Harry Reid needs to do is not schedule a cloture vote. Keep the Senate open. Stop all other business. Let the debate continue.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. I think that any individual senator can motion for cloture, though

[pnwmom]

8. That's true. And if the cloture vote -- the vote to end the debate -- fails,

then that means the debate goes on. Indefinitely.

Senator Mansfield did this. He allowed the debate (the filibuster) to go on as long as his opponents wanted. In the meantime, he brought no other business to the floor of the Senate. Harry Reid could do the same thing. Let them debate. Let the cloture vote fail. Let them debate some more. Let another cloture vote fail. Let the American people see that a MINORITY of Senators is refusing to even allow a vote on Children's Health care.

[ArkySue]

7. 62 damn "filibusters" by the Repugs this year.

Make them get up and talk for 30 hours straight each time and let the public actually see what the hell is going on (via cspan). Would MSM cover it? I think they would kinda have to.

Now, how do we get Harry to figure this out?