Who is hurt more when Congressional Dems let GOP block needed legislation?

[yurbud]

I get sick of reading this shit over and over.

The Republicans have horrible, wretched ideas, but at least they fight for them with every weapon possible, then they tear out the sink and drop it on the Democrats head.

By contrast, Democrats let some of their own caucus members vote against key bills, gut legislation to attract Republican votes they won't get anyway, and then give up.

Part of this is obviously kibuki since a sizable number of Democrats work for the same corporate interests as the GOP.

But if the Democrats want to win elections or even be a viable party, shouldn't they at least TRY to stand up for the ideals they run on during their campaigns?

Do they not understand that every time they back down or dilute legislation beyond recognition to get one or two GOP votes and keep the blue dogs from shitting on it, they lose political capital with voters?

Do they understand that some of their reputation for wimpiness comes not from war votes but from constant political retreat even when they have the high ground?

Their failure to press hard when they had the filibuster-proof majority they claimed they needed to get anything done was inexcusable, as they allowed themselves to be held hostage by the minority of Blue Dogs and DLCers, but they should have learned their lesson and become procedural guerrillas, pulling out all the stops to get things done, and putting the Blue Dogs on a choke chain and tell them they'll be running off a cliff if they vote with the GOP.

At a minimum, the Senate could use reconciliation for the most important votes, and when they can't get that done, threaten the nuclear option as the GOP did, and finally pull the trigger on it.

If the Democrats should have learned anything from Bill Clinton it's that he gained voter respect when he stood up to the GOP, first in the budget showdown when Newt threatened to shut down government and again in the excruciatingly juvenile impeachment proceedings. Even with the media largely siding with the GOP, Bubba won the public.

If Democrats had any desire to serve the American people, they would go to the brink, and not worry about luring some GOP lizards out of their trickle down cave or what Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck will say about them.

I guess this is what all of us here have been saying since this board started, but it is frustrating to not see it done.

Congress Fails to Pass an Extension of Jobless Aid
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: June 24, 2010

WASHINGTON — Legislation to extend unemployment subsidies for hundreds of thousands of Americans who have exhausted their jobless benefits teetered on the edge of collapse on Thursday, as Senate Democrats and Republicans traded bitter accusations about who was to blame for an eight-week impasse.

Senate Republicans and a lone Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, joined forces to filibuster the bill in a procedural vote on Thursday. Visibly frustrated, the majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said he would move on to other business next week because he saw little chance of winning over any Republican votes.

The vote was 57 to 41, with the Democrats falling three short of the 60 votes needed to advance the measure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/us/politics/25jobs.html

[Dawson Leery]

1. Tom Delay held the Medicare Part D vote open for 15 hours

to get the votes he needed. The Democrats should do the same.

[dflprincess]

2. That was in the House

I don't think it works that way in the Senate.

However, it is time (past time really) for the Democrats to use the "nuclear option".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the constitutional requirement that the will of the majority be effective. This option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. In contrast, the cloture rule requires a supermajority of 60 votes (out of 100) to end a filibuster. The new interpretation becomes effective, both for the immediate circumstance and as a precedent, if it is upheld by a majority vote.

Majority vote - what a concept. Of course, not using it gives them all an excuse not to get anything accomplished that benefits the serfs more than the corporations.

[MisterP]

10. by that principle, we should get rid of a state-by-state Senate (not a bad idea) nt

[obxhead]

3. destroy the filibuster.

We had the chance to set this up under Bush. Think it was the biggest mistake for the Dems to not end the filibuster while we had a chance of doing so.

If we had might have actually had some health care in the insurance bill we passed.

[yurbud]

6. they failed to act strategically then except to strategically positioning themselves as

reliable corporate lapdogs.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emulatorloo]

5. I like the "use every procedural trick" option. Certainly need some filibuster reform.

[Radical Activist]

7. Time for majority leader Durbin.

He already advocated changing the filibuster. Reid needs to go.

[yurbud]

8. Reid gives weak a bad name.

[dorkulon]

9. Other: Force the filibuster.

Call their bluff. Let them go as long as they can.

[yurbud]

11. that's implied in ''every procedural trick'' but I agree