Why the heck does the MSM continue to say that we need 60 votes to get something passed

[TeamJordan23]

If the Republicans want to try to filibuster while the economy is crumbling, let them do it - I'm sure it would look great for their party.

We easily have more than 50 votes. Just vote and get it over with.

[blueclown]

1. Because they know how spineless Harry Reid is.

The worst thing you can say about Reid is the fact that he has single handedly raised the threshold we need to reach to pass legislation from 50 to 60.

[AlinPA]

3. It's always been 60 for contentious legislation in the senate.

[blueclown]

5. No it hasn't.

Bush's tax cuts passed by 1 vote (Cheney's tiebreak).

Was President Bush's tax plan ever filibustered?

[Occam Bandage]

8. Dems were ridiculously ineffective in the minority. Republicans

are willing to be more obstructionist than we were.

[blueclown]

12. I don't think that takes away from my main point that the other poster disagreed on.

As I said...

The worst thing you can say about Reid is the fact that he has single handedly raised the threshold we need to reach to pass legislation from 50 to 60.

[Occam Bandage]

17. That isn't Reid's doing. That's the Republicans' doing.

I'm not sure how you can blame Reid for the fact that the Republicans have abused the filibuster to an unprecedented extent. In the last Congress, the Republicans set an all-time record for number of filibusters in a Congress before they were nine months into the two-year term.

[ljm2002]

27. And just to reiterate how ineffectual the Dems have been...

...the Repubs set that record number of filibusters *without ever actually holding a filibuster*!!!

Had we made them actually *do* those filibusters, it would have taken precious time and they would not have been able to do a record number of them.

[karynnj]

24. Or maybe Democrats believe in government and Republicans don't

The Democrats in many cases saw that if the budget was not passed, people waould suffer.

[sampsonblk]

15. No, it hasn't (nt)

[AlinPA]

18. I need to word this in a different way: in order stop debate on contentious

legislation, 60 vote are needed to approve a cloture vote. You are correct that not all contentious legislation has required the 60 because leadership on either side decided to go directly to vote.

[AlinPA]

2. I agree we will need 60 on this bill. If the vote for cloture fails, the bill is stopped.

The republicans don't care- they just want to give Obama a "defeat" which is what the media would scream 24 x 7 if the cloture vote fails.

[Life Long Dem]

4. MSM is in another world with all the propaganda.

[Why Syzygy]

7. New Yorkers need to protest CNBC/ABC

Naomi Klein: Public Revolt Builds Against Rip-off Rescue Plans for the Economy

By Naomi Klein, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2009.
http://www.alternet.org/story/125566?page=entire

In America, broadcast studios are our Parliament. That is where is strikes begin.

from link:
The pattern is clear: governments that respond to a crisis created by free-market ideology with an acceleration of that same discredited agenda will not survive to tell the tale. As Italy's students have taken to shouting in the streets: "We won't pay for your crisis!"

[Occam Bandage]

6. Because we do. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

9. The Republicans would win if there was an actual filibuster

The Democrats are in power and thus they are obligated to get things done, the Republicans do not have such a responsibility. 41 Senators can hold the floor for months. That's why there's never an actual filibuster anymore. So while the GOP would look petty for filibustering, Obama would look weak for not being able to get a stimulus through the senate let alone any of his other agenda. There are no actual filibusters anymore for a good reason.

[napi21]

11. BS! I say Reid should say "OK, you want a fillabuster, go for it!"

THEN he should demand they bring in the cots, and have a REAL fillabuster where somebody speaks non-stop until he can no longer continue!

[wryter2000]

14. Lots of us were calling Reid to tell him that yesterday

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

[onenote]

19. that kind of fiilbuster almost always succeeds, y'know

Even strong majority leaders like LBJ and Byrd were forced to back down in the face of old-style filibusters, which is why they rarely forced them to happen. A filibuster is far more burdensome on those opposing it since those filibustering can keep it going with one or two members on the floor, while those opposing would have to have 50 members present at all times. Otherwise, the one repub holding the floor can call for a quorum and everything stops cold until there is a quorum, at which point the filibuster continues.

And I don't like our odds in regaining the upper hand on messaging if 50 Democrats are tied up on the floor, while 40 plus repubs are hitting the news shows, claiming that they're ready and willing to talk about compromise but its the Democrats that won't budge.

I wish it wasn't so, but that's how I see it playing out.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. I don't think you realize for how long 41 people can hold the senate floor if they want to

If it were 5 or 6 then yes they could be worn down fairly quickly. But 41 senators can hold the floor for months. The Civil Rights Act of '64 filibuster didn't end by wearing down the opposition (although Mansfield and Humphrey certainly tried) it ended after 20+ Senators held the floor continuously for months and Mansfield and Humphrey eventually compromised to get Republicans to vote for cloture.

The Republicans could literally tie up the floor for months if they want to. That means absolutely no legislation can pass congress during that time. No health care, no education reform, no stem cell research, no employee free choice act, no confirmation of appointments, nothing. Obama can't afford to go for months without any legislation getting through congress. It means that he will have almost no accomplishments in his first 100 days and that will be a disaster.

Giving Snowe, Nelson, etc. what they want is, unfortunately, the best solution because we need to move on to other priorities.

[treestar]

13. Why would Obama look weak?

It only outlines that he cannot convince Republics to vote in favor of the country's interests. Who can do that? Only God can. Republics are power obsessed - poster upthread is right - all they care about is "winning." The filibuster rule lets them do that. At least make them suffer the consequences of having to stay there all night.

Now I can see why Obama might have Republics in his cabinet - he might have a better change of convincing Republic Senators that they count. In the end this filibuster system allows of couple of Republics and Lieberman to run the country. That's why it's a bad system.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. I don't think you get the ramifications of a filibuster

41 Senators can hold the senate floor for MONTHS. That means that if we force the GOP to filibuster we may be able to tire them out by June but in that time period Obama will not have any significant legislative accomplishments. All of that because we weren't willing to pay off Snowe and Collins for their votes. It's simply not worth it. Maybe in an election year when nothing passes through congress anyway it might be effective to do this. But Obama has a long list of things that he must get done in his first two years to have a successful presidency. If he doesn't do these he's done. Going on television and saying "Hey I want to get this done by the Republicans won't let me" isn't going to work. The GOP will filibuster until they can't filibuster anymore because they are desperate and can't think of any other way out of the woods.

And while I agree with you that it's irritating that Lieberman and the GOP get a lot of leverage with this tool, you have to consider it from the other perspective. If there were no filibuster social security would have been privatized.

[napi21]

25. I understand they COULD...but if Reid demanded a REAL fillabuster,

how long do you believe even 41 Sens. would be willing to spend 24/7 doing it? I'm not talking about 12 hrs a day, I'm talking 24! Weekdays, weekends, continuously! If it were up to me, I'd call their bluff!

[Hippo_Tron]

26. They can basically do it in 2 or 3 hour shifts

They can more or less constantly keep yielding the floor to each other. Additionally the Democrats have to constantly be there (as pointed up thread) for when the filibuster is broken or if they ask for a quorum call. The problem is that once the filibuster is started the Republicans are going to be unlikely to give it up. It's like a crisis situation that starts out small but then escalates because the stakes become higher.

If the timing were different I would consider calling their bluff. But Obama needs legislation passed in the first 100 days.

[treestar]

29. OK

But then why did the Republics have it different? There's a frustration on DU about how, when they had the majority and the Presidency, they would threaten the nuclear option or the up or down vote (whatever that is, sounds like it is just voting on the measure) and a frustration that now that it is all reversed, the Dems don't act equally as aggressively as the Republics did. Why did the Republics get away with this stuff while the Dems, on the other hand, can't do it and have to make deals with the Repugs?

[Phx_Dem]

10. I was thinking the same thing this morning.

What a bunch of spineless wimps.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

16. Because Reid has done NOTHING to dispel this idea.

He has done NOTHING to highlight the difference between cloture and the actual vote, and point out the Republican obstructionism and the contrast from their "upperdownvote upperdownvote nuclear option" days in the majority.

[karynnj]

22. Because to GET to that vote, you need to get a cloture vote that takes 60 unless

both sides waive it - and they won't. Find me one quote from one Senator saying otherwise - this is why they say they need 60.

[baldguy]

23. If were talking about a group of individuals who made up a loyal opposition, you'd be correct.

Republicans are not individuals; their loyalty to their party & it's ideology is much greater that their loyalty to the country. All that's needed to filibuster is a handful traitors against America in the Senate and 41 members to support them. The GOP has 41 votes.

As long as they vote as a monolithic block against the interests of the country, everything is under threat of filibuster.

LET THEM FILIBUSTER!

[CK_John]

28. Denial of facts in place will not make the need for 60 votes go away. n/t