So, we've got to get a Super Majority in the Senate come next election.

[El Supremo]

Yes, I was very disappointed that the Senate couldn't even pass a non-binding resolution against the Surge. But a year ago I could not even believe that we could get a simple majority in the Senate from the election. What this proves that we do not have enough of a majority. Bush still has a lot of power. The Senate just can't change as fast as the House. More hard work is needed on our part!

[napi21]

1. I'm missing something here! When we were in the minority we couldn't

pose amendments, and had hundreds of bills jambed down our throats. Then of course we have to remember the "Nuclear option"! What the hell happened? We now have the majority..although it's a very slim one...and now the MINORITY is controlling the agenda??????

[Hippo_Tron]

3. The "nuclear option" was for judges only and...

It supposedly required Cheney as President of the Senate to make an interpretation about parliamentary procedure. Since we don't have the President of the Senate on our side we can't threaten it.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. Nobody's had a super majority since the 1970's

The problem isn't the fact that we don't have a super majority. The problem is that never before in history have we has there been as much party loyalty as there is in the current Republican Party. In any other era, the Republicans would've jumped off the sinking ship at this point.