Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Republicans Big Lie That Democrats Sell: Senate Democrats Need 60 Votes To Pass Legislation

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:13 AM
Original message
The Republicans Big Lie That Democrats Sell: Senate Democrats Need 60 Votes To Pass Legislation
Edited on Wed Feb-04-09 10:16 AM by Better Believe It
Democrats need 51 votes in the Senate, not 60.

If Senate Republicans filibuster in an effort to stop a stimulus bill and other legislation, let them!

Keep the Senate in session, let a few obstructionist Republicans filibuster day and night on the Senate floor against an economic recovery act and other laws until the public gets fed up with their antics and 60 votes are obtained for cloture.

But, Senator Reid and other conservative "Republican lite" Democrats are trying to convince us they need 60 votes in order to get legislation passed.

They will use this excuse to mask their unwillingness to fight real and threatened Republican filibusters and to justify endless concessions to Republican "demands".

So let the Republicans filibuster. Wait them out. All filibusters end. Don't use a filibuster as an excuse to withdraw legislation because "we can't get 60 votes for cloture". You'll never get those 60 votes when Republicans know you'll surrender and withdraw legislation at the first sign of a filibuster.

What's so hard to understand about this?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. I agree. Make the Republicans do it. Call their bluff and/or make them look obstructionist. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
19. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CanonRay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. Actually, we only need 50
because Joe will vote to break a tie. Hahahahahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. You're Right! Vice-President Biden can vote to break a tie in the Senate!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. But he won't be here for the vote, he is going to Germany.
So we need all 51, which we already have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
59. That's only if 100 vote
Which can't happen right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
3. Obama and the dems are going to learn what Clinton learned: You can't make deals with these fuckers.
Bipartisanship is worthless when the opposing party wants you to fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
24. Clinton learned this when?
when he passed NAFTA, which they wanted; welfare reform, which they wanted; and the telecommunications act that they wanted? Did he want them to impeach him?

Where did he stand and fight - as you seem to think. He should have investigated Marc Rich as the BCCI report recommended, rather than pardoning him nearly 8 years after getting that report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
34. After all that, they still hated him.
After all of the capitulation the GOP still wanted Clinton gone. Clinton may not have learned, but the rest of us sure did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Their hatred was viseral, irrational and intense
Part of it seemed to be that they never accepted him as President. I have problems with many things Clinton did and his lack of integrity, but it is hard not to see his intelligence and see that he can be charming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #34
57. Of course they still hated him...
...bullies see capitulation as a sign of weakness, and they hate the weak. That is one reason why the cycle of abuse is so hard to break, because the abusee is frightened of the bully (usually with good reason), so they react by capitulating -- but they fail to realize that this just gives the abuser more reason to despise them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
36. will they?
i'm not going to hold my breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
4. Let 'em filibuster Reid. Make them show themselves in public.
According to my constitution it takes 51 votes to pass a bill in the senate.
Let America see their obstructionist tactics and empty policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
7. The senate is one BIG CLUB. Must not ruffle the feathers of
your fellow club members.:puke: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
8. Upordownvote! UpordownVote!
Where did I hear that before?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
9. Explains why Reid isn't rushing to fight for Franken, and agreed to the Judd Gregg "GOP seat swap"
He still has his "short of 60" excuse for not really doing jack shit about anything that way....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #9
52. Reid had no real say in who replaces Gregg
I know it was said he was ok with this - but the only two who really had a vote were Obama in picking Gregg and Lynch in making the appointment. With Franken, MN has been following its laws - and it should continue to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
10. Did Senators Cave In And Give Up When Southern Dems Filibustered Against the 1964 Civil Right Act?
No.

The legislation wasn't withdrawn when faced with a 57 day filibuster by die-hard segregationists!

And that was when 67 votes were needed to invoke cloture!

The filibuster ended and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed 73-27.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
53. Different rules then
If today's rules were in place, there never would have been a filibuster as no more than 27 Senators would have voted for it. Then they could filibuster as long as they didn't stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
11. We don't have a senate leader to do such, but o well, there's no support in getting rid
...of Reid or making him correct his behavior
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. If true, it's up to Obama to lean on him and other Senators like LBJ did
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
global1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
13. Bring In The Cots To The Senate Floor And Let Them Spew At The Mouth......
let the American public see these people for what they are - OBSTRUCTIONISTS. Let it be known who got us into this situation in the first place and who is willing to see this country go down the tubes. Call their bluff. Don't put up with this behavior for another minute. Show them 'who's the boss'. Bring them to their knees and make them submissive for the next 8 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Bingo! Now that's what leaders do!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debbierlus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
14. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
16. Unfuckingbelievable isn't it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
17. filibusters don't work the way they used to, you don't talk day and night or block other business
back in the day, a filibuster was a dramatic move that brought all other senate business to a halt with filibustering speakers talking endlessly to avoid the matter coming to a vote.

nowadays, you can practically phone it in. other senate business can continue, and whenever they try to call a vote on the contentious bill, 41 or more people just vote against cloture and a vote on the bill itself is avoided. the senate goes back to other business.

this likely explains why the filibuster has boomed in frequency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. The Democrats can require opponents to actually filibuster on the Senate floor
No call in votes against cloture!

The Democrats (they run the Senate, really .... they do if they so choose to) can set the rules on filibusters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. but they're not going to because doing so would backfire
The repubs would end up looking like the principled ones, willing to make a stand against particular provisions in the bill that will be depicted (in some cases accurately) as not all that necessary to the economic recovery program. The Democrats will then have to publicly cave on those provisions. Blame for "forcing" the filibuster will land on the back of the Democrats along with blame for shutting down other business by the Senate, such as the enactment of other legislation, confirmation of presidential appointements etc. The blame will fall on the Democrats because there is a way to address the same disptue -- the repubs opposition to the bill -- through a mechanism that doesn't shut down the rest of the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
35. "The blame will fall on Democrats" if Republicans filibuster???!!!!
The blame will fall on the Democrats because there is a way to address the same disptue -- the repubs opposition to the bill -- through a mechanism that doesn't shut down the rest of the Senate. "

That comment makes absolutely no sense to me!

The Republicans are free to demonstrate their opposition to the economic recovery bill BY VOTING AGAINST IT!!

That's the traditional mechanism that Republican are free to use without shutting down the Senate. They can vote on it up or down!

Democrats are not requiring Republicans to tie up the Senate with a real filibuster.

If Republicans wish to be cast as obstructionists who are putting their petty partisan politics before the "economic interests of the people and nation" let them filibuster!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. You're naieve if you don't think this would be spun against the Democrats
for forcing a relatively rare actual filibuster over a bill that even the Democrats concede has specific provisions that may need to come out of the bill.

Sure the repubs could demonstrate their opposition to the bill by voting against it. But why should they. They want to maintain the public stance that they are in favor of having a bill, just a "better bill." There are things in the bill they are for and things that they are against. Voting against the bill opens them to ads that say they opposed something popular. HOlding up the bill to force compromises that they want doesn't do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Really? Republicans would attack Democrats for doing something right? How shocking!
Edited on Wed Feb-04-09 04:11 PM by Better Believe It
Well, we certainly can't have that!

"this would be spun against the Democrats"

No shit Dick Tracy!

Of course Republicans would try to spin anything effective that Democrats do. Did you think that I and other progessives are not aware of this? Thanks for that golden nugget of wisdom!

Well, those who have no principals and backbone worry and fret all the time about how Republicans might criticize Democrats who actually challenge their obstructionism and reactionary policies. Oh no! .... hide .... run for the hills .... hide under the bed .... the big bad scary Republicans are coming! And people like that want to lead this nation?

I suppose the "problem" of Republican spin could be eliminated with your approach .... make peace with the right-wingers and don't challenge the Republicans or get them mad .... capitulate to their policies and demands. They'll love ya for that! We can have a bi-partisan love-in! By the way, who do you think won the 2008 election?

It seems your not at all naieve about the politics of surrender in Washington. I'm just sorry you endorse it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #26
44. Message discipline would prevent this from happening, repeated - first - easy to understand terms
...would prevent reThugs from setting the story.

Unfortunately dems don't have the ....I don't know, ability to observe to recognize this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. I agree with you Many Democrats are really poor propagandists
They don't want to cause trouble and sound like they are starting a class war!!

And they lack the passion, the heart and life experience, so it's difficult for them to speak with, rather than at, working people.

This is certainly the problem with Pelosi and Reid .... plus they are not really on our side!

They have to be pushed into doing things that just go against their grain and politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #20
58. I do not think you are correct
Rule 22 governs filibusters and cloture motions. I believe that to change the rules the Democrats would actually need 66 votes to break a filibuster on a proposal to change the rules. On normal cloture votes the motion must gain 3/5 of the sitting Senators to prevail. This means that the filibustering side doesn't even have to vote to be successful.

Rule 22 in effect allows for the passive filibuster. What the Democrats could do is to continue to sign cloture petitions and vote on them but I do not think a filibustering Senator has to actually hold the floor as in the old days. Maybe a Senate expert out there could comment.

I expect there to be a discussion about modifying the Senate rules if Republicans continue to employ the filibuster as often as they have since losing control of the Senate in 2006. THey have taken it way beyond what is was intended to be or how it has been used in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. Read post #51 and check out the link on filibusters
I'd like to know your opinion on the "nuclear option" proposal. The Republicans used the mere threat of it in 2005 to get all of their appointments approved by Democrats in the Senate without any threat of a filibuster.

I've read elswhere that the Senator Reid has the power to require filibustering Senators to be actually present on the Senate floor for debate. I couldn't find anything in Senate Rule XXII that forbids Senator Reid from ending "call in" filibusters or requiring filibustering Senators to be on the floor during Senate debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Thanks
I thought that only applied to nomination votes but it sounds like it could be used on anything. You know, I think the majority should find an occasion to do this before Obama starts making judicial appointments. The stimulus bill would be a good place to start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. I would talk about it first
If the Republicans know that Reid is even thinking about doing this it might be enough to curtail their use of the filibuster. If the Democrats were really planning to employ this I only see two ways it could happen.

1. Do it quickly and without prior warning or discussion. They had better be prepared for the inevitable whining and gnashing of teeth.

2. Build a strong public case against the "obstructionist, do-nothing Republicans" and say that this has to be done for the good of the country.

I do not see the Senate leadership having the willingness to take such a bold step. I do not doubt that the epublicans would have used the "nuclear option" in 2005 had not the "gang of 14" acted. The republicans always believe in the sin now and spin later philosophy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Without boldness nothing will change
"I do not see the Senate leadership having the willingness to take such a bold step."

But as Obama has pointed out, boldness is exactly what is required during this crisis or we will certainly slide into a very long and deep economic depression.

If that happens and the economy has not improved in four years the Republicans will regain control of Congress and the White House 2012 by a landslide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. I would not be surprised to see Obama force new leadership
I think Obama's focus is on the short term goals of getting this stimulus bill passed and the great titanic that is the US economy slowly turned. In the next few months I think we will see his long term plans. I am sure he is sizing up Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to see if he thinks they fit into the plans. We should get some inkling of where he plans to go in his speech in couple of weeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. Why? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #17
31. Reid is weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #31
47. is he weaker than Byrd or LBJ?
What people don't seem to get is that filibuster -- even the old fashioned talk all day kind -- generally succeed. They are more burdensome on those opposing the filibuster (who have to make sure there is a quorum present) than they are on those filibustering. And they generally succeed, even when you have a strong majority leader. Back in the 50s, Sen Byrd went so far as to have the senate sergeant at arms arrest senators and bring them to the floor to vote on a quorum call. He still failed to break the filibuster. In 1960, LBJ kept the Senate in continuous session for nine days -- but he still failed to break a filibuster against the 1960 Civil Rights Act and had to accept a watered down version.

Sure, some filibusters can blow up in the face of those conducting them even when (or particularly when) they're successful. The public can become disillusioned with the obstructionists. However, that result is more likely when there is a clear issue -- like passing a civil rights bill. However, and this is just a fact of life, it is likely that the message that the public will come away with if there is a filibuster over the economic stimulus package would be that the Democrats were being uncompromising -- that both sides wanted to pass a bill, but the Democrats wouldn't give in to certain demands by the repubs. So long as some examples of spending remain in the stimulus package that can, unfairly or not, be spun as not directly related to the recovery, the repubs could esaily win the message battle, even if they are being unreasonable on other demands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
18. The Republicans NEVER had 60 votes during the Bush reign....
and they managed to ram through every fucking thing they wanted.

Soooooo, what's up with that, Democrats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. The Democrats never filibustered so the Republicans never had to invoke cloture
Edited on Wed Feb-04-09 11:24 AM by Better Believe It
They got whatever they wanted only needing 51 votes.

The Republicans played hardball when they controlled the Senate.

The Democrats folded.

Today the Republicans are playing hardball with the Democrats firmly in control of the Senate.

The Democrats are still folding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #22
32. Never? Then what were those 18 cloture votes in 2005?
Edited on Wed Feb-04-09 12:09 PM by onenote
Forty percent of which were defeated by the Democrats?

Or the 21 cloture motions in 2004, more than half of which were defeated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
23. The Republicans have been using this tactic since at least 1994!
Edited on Wed Feb-04-09 11:41 AM by Better Believe It
Senate Republicans Deal A Major Defeat to Labor
By CATHERINE S. MANEGOLD,
New York Times
July 13, 1994


Handing organized labor a major defeat, Senate Republicans today blocked passage of a bill that would have made it illegal for employers to hire permanent replacements for workers striking over wages and benefits. Republican threats to filibuster the bill, which passed the House comfortably last year, led Senate leaders to schedule today's vote over whether to cut off debate.

Since even the hint of a filibuster can move the Senate toward a cloture vote, which calls for a wider margin of victory than the passage of a bill does, the Republicans have found it an effective tactic in stalling or forcing changes in legislation that the party opposes but cannot defeat on a majority vote.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A962958260

No actual Republican filibuster took place, it never happened, and yet that legislation was withdrawn by Democrats when they called for a cloture vote which lost!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Life Long Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
25. 200,000 bills to choose from - 1 is chosen, leaving how many?
:rofl:

Okay okay... I'm alright now...

The President holds sole responsibility addressing the nation's crisis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
27. Fun facts: cloture motions in 2005 v. 2009
2005: Senate voted on cloture motions 18 times and rejected them 7 times.

2009 (thus far): Senate has voted on cloture motions 3 times and as approved all of them.

Obviously, what these statistics don't take into account is that leadership often will not bring up a bill for a cloture vote if they know that cloture will be rejected. That was the case in 2005 and today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. And how many times were cloture motions voted on to stop actual filibusters?
I think the number is probably somewhere between zero and none.

Perhaps someone can dig up hard information on that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. none because no one is going to stop senate business cold when there is another way
The public's reaction to filibuster's is highly combustible. Will it be thought of as the principled action of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? Or will it be thougt of as the actions of unrepetent neanderthals, as with the filibusters against Civil Rights legislation.

If public reaction, one way or the other, is clear, then a traditional filibuster would not take place in today's media saturated environment. ANd where its not clear, neither side will risk it when they have the cloture mechanism without shutting down the government as an option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. The Republicans Only Have "another way" If Democrats Give Them That Way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ioo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
28. Reid is a UBER coward... all you have to do is threaten, and he rolls over.
Edited on Wed Feb-04-09 11:50 AM by Ioo
He needs to go!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
37. Amendments diferent? Any way to resurrect the $25B in infrastructure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Yes there is.
Present a brand new bill that includes the 25 billion in infrastructure spending and all other amendments that passed. That's one possible way or propose up a "new" Democratic amendment that calls for 26 billion in infrastruture spending and only requires a simple majority vote like Republican amendments.

However, I do have a question.

Why do Republican amendments only require a simple majority vote and Democratic amendments require 60 votes in order to proceed to an actual vote on an amendment?

----------------------------

The vote was on adding $24 billion in infrastructure spending on things like highways, mass transit and improvements to water and sewer systems. Had the amendment passed, the Senate's version of the economic stimulus package would have topped $900 billion.

The procedural vote that would have allowed the Senate to waive the budget rules and move forward on the amendment failed.

Democrats needed just two more votes to proceed on the amendment. The provision failed, with a vote of 58 in favor and 39 opposed. A three-fifths majority was required on the motion.

The Senate on Tuesday approved an amendment introduced by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, striking the $246 million tax break for Hollywood production companies. The vote was 52 in favor, 45 opposed. A simple majority was needed on the amendment.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/stimulus/index.html





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
42. A detailed explanation of how filibusters and cloture work
For those that want a more complete understanding of this process:

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C%2APLW%3D%22P%20%20%0A
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Thanks for the link
This document might be a bit dated (march 28, 2003) and doesn't include changes such as "call-in" filibusters that apparently have been granted by Senator Reid.

I'd like to see something more current if it exists on the web.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #43
54. The rules haven't changed since. You might want to actually read it;
given your complete failure to understand what a filibuster is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uzybone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
46. I agree with this
I usually do not to see filibusters forced but this is a situation that calls for it. Let them filibuster an economic stimulus bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Life Long Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
48. Obama is wearing them out.
Saw McCain once, and he looked drained. He was pushed to his limits and has lost all his will to fight on for that 3% of the package that they don't want!! Fight on McCain! :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
49. Exactly. Make them stand in lock step with Rush Limpballs.
Make them do it publicly every day until they cave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-09 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
50. Why are Democrats still spreading this b.s. about needing 60 votes in the Senate
in order to pass the stimulus bill?

Here's yet another report in todays media.

WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of moderate senators reached a deal Friday to cut about $100 billion from the $937 billion stimulus package, a development that could win enough GOP support to get the 60 votes needed to pass the bill, the group's Democratic leader said.

"The hope is we'll pick up two more Republicans, and if we're able to do that then I think we'll have sufficient numbers to get a vote and pass the alternative," Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., told reporters as he walked into a meeting with other Democrats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29050187

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #50
55. Because Democrats understand Senate rules better than you do? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. shhhhh, don't spoil it for them n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. Sorry. I really didn't mean to undermine the myth!
:) :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
51. And Democrats always have the so-called "nuclear option"

The Republicans are determined to see this President fail with the help of Republicans and some conservative Democrats in Congress.

They are pinning their hopes on the belief that the current inadquate stimulus package along with the timid actions of the Treasury Secretary will increase the possibility of a full scale economic depression and that not much more will be done to jolt the economy and save the banking system.

The Republicans believe they only need to accomplish a few more things to almost guarantee a real depression on Obama's watch. They think that all they have to do is vote against any new money for stimulus, additional funds to shore up the financial system and massive economic relief for millions that will prevent foreclosures.

They think they can accomplish this by engaging in a filibuster against all new economic measures. And they will challenge the Democrats to try and break any filibuster.

Based on past experience, they expect the Democratic majority in Congress to once again cave-in to Republican filibuster threats.

Well, the Democrats in Congress and President Obama will have to call the Republicans out on their filibuster threats.

They will have to mobilize the public in support of new legislation and not play the Republican "bi-partisanship" game the next time around.

If the Republicans actually organize a real on the Senate floor filibuster the Democrats have the following options.

1. Surrender to the filibuster and withdraw the legislation.

2. Agree to Republican demands and weaken legislation to the point of being ineffective.

3. Let the Republicans filibuster until the public tires of Republican obstructionism and 60 Senators finally agree to end debate and a majority vote for new economic legislation.

4. Use the so-called "nuclear option" in which the Senate will simply change the rules and require 51 votes to pass legislation to bypass any Republican filibuster.

So what really is the "nuclear option" which scared the crap out of Democratic Senators in 2005? Much good has been accomplished with partisanship.

-----------------------------

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
56. No kidding!
I almost threw something at the TV last night when I heard Chris Matthews on Hardball saying the bill had just "squeaked through the Senate by 1 vote".

WTF?

And the Dems, as you point out, just play along ineptly with this meme.

It is beyond infuriating, I am beginning to think they have some reason to want it this way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC