The Senate's "nuclear option"

[Bucky]

Should they? I know they'd never do it, of course. The Dems respect the right of dissent too much. The Senate Dems don't want a strong leader; they want a gentle consensus builder who'll allow the committee chairs to hold the real power. They want a debating chamber, not a parliamentary shoot-out like the House tends to be.

But in your view, is the Republican assault on labor unions enough of a reason to bring out the big nuke and end the filibuster rule? Or should the Big 3 have held out till January before going hat in hand to a more Democratic Congress?

[Joe Chi Minh]

1. Absolutely!

[DJ13]

2. Im a firm believer in treating others as they treat you

Get rid of Reid, and get some leadership in the Senate with balls.

[Bucky]

3. Pfff, the Senate Dems don't want a strong floor leader

They elected a deal broker and a compromiser to that slot. They don't want another LBJ railroading the Senate; they want someone the committee chairs can keep in check. The Senate is not the House; they want a truly democratic structure to their debating society. Reid gives them that, so don't expect him to start sprouting testicles in the near future. They knew exactly what they were getting when they put Harry in charge.

[Occam Bandage]

4. The answer to this question should be the same as the question as posed by the Republicans.

[FrenchieCat]

5. I for one, do not want to become them.....

[annabanana]

6. I am in favor of filibusters.... If they REALLY filibuster.

No "pro-forma" filibusters should be allowed. Make them go to the mattresses, read the phonebook, whatever it takes...

THAT is the only way that the American people will get the real story. Leave all those news outlets with hours of airtime to fill. Make them explain just WHO is stopping WHAT and WHY..

The repugs would be history so damn fast . .

[JuniperLea]

8. Exactly...

Call their bluff...

[ShadowLiberal]

7. Keep in mind we could need filibusters in the future

No majorities in congress are permanent, we'll lose ours eventually. The second we start to talk and think like we have a permanent majority we're setting ourselves up for failure by getting too overconfident and ignoring the will of the voters in that arrogance.

That being said however, I do think they should lower the number somewhat needed for cloture, to something between 55 and 60.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. It was wrong when the Republicans threatened to do it

and it would be JUST as wrong if we were to threaten to do it IMHO. I know the Repukes are jerks and are fully deserving of a good a**-kicking, particularly after the last 14 years, but I don't see such actions as being productive for Obama and the Democrats to get anything meaningful accomplished (face it, we're going to need some Republican moderates) and I'm pretty sure Obama himself would not endorse something like this either. More importantly, however, I don't like such actions. They just seem undemocratic and I don't believe that the founders envisioned nor would have approved of it. Also, it would just give the Repukes something more to run on in 2010, specifically being able to point to something like this as an example confirming their worst fears about Democrats controlling both Congress and the WH. This is not to say that I personally give what they say that much credence nor do I think that they REALLY care about the tyranny of one-party rule considering their behavior during the 6 years that they ran the show with Bush but it could still give them an opening to convince the general public that they tried to work with Obama and the Democrats but were mercilessly shut out.
:shrug:

BAD IDEA!

[Hippo_Tron]

10. It's hard to say, the filibuster more or less saved social security from privatization

But it also killed health care when Clinton was in office. One thing is certain, this country would sure as hell be a different place without it.