If we could get 65-67 seats in the Senate...?

[kentuck]

we could have a filibuster-proof Senate? After all, we know that we're going to have 5 or 6 Democrats that side with the Republicans more than they do their own Party. In actuality, they are Republicans in everything except name.

Democrats believe this "stimulus bill" is urgent. That is why they are so open to compromise. The Republicans know the Democrats think the bill is urgent and they use that impatience to get it passed in order to get what they want in the bill, namely taxcuts and cuts in spending. They do not see the same urgency as the Democrats in passing this bill.

That is why they are able to use their diminished majority so effectively. They are simply better than the Democrats at playing the political game. The Democrats are better at playing the "statesman" game. They do it for the benefit of the country. Republicans do it for the benefit of their Party and the next election.

That is why all the talk about a 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate is nonsense. Democrats never will have a filibuster-proof majority because they will never vote lockstep like the Republicans. Specter and Collins are supporting the bill because they are up for re-election the next time around. They do not want to be slaughtered at the polls like the Republicans in the last election. It is all a political charade.

[Donnachaidh]

1. there seems to always be a number we're not quite capable of reaching

But it's sure a lovely excuse for them not to hammer the other side, isn't it?

[Horse with no Name]

22. A picture is worth a thousand words

[msongs]

2. repubs want to win, dems want to be liked. big difference nt

[Seen the light]

3. Who is talking about a veto-proof majority with 60 seats?

I assume you mean filibuster-proof?

[kentuck]

5. Yes. Thanks.

Corrected. Sorry about that.

[TahitiNut]

4. On edit: Oh... OK. That makes more sense.

How many more Ben Nelsons would it take? :evilgrin:

[kentuck]

7. :-)

I meant enough votes to veto the Republican efforts to filibuster.

[rucky]

6. Then we'd need 70 votes to pass anything. n/t

[old guy]

8. I said the same thing last fall before the election

that we needed at least 67 because of the bluedogs. Wrong, I was told!! The dogs would come around when Obama won and all would be fine. I must not have enough time and posts for credibility, but there you go.

[RoyGBiv]

9. It just doesn't matter ...

Even if ... even if ... Even if God in Heaven above comes down and points His hand at our side of the aisle. Even if everyman woman and child held hands together and prayed for us to win. It just wouldn’t matter because all the really good looking girls would still go out with the guy from Mohawk cause they’ve got all the money.

It just doesn't matter ...

[undeterred]

10. Republicans don't give a shit about the American people

and they never will.

[harun]

11. We need 50 votes in the Senate, don't buy the BS.

The rest of the talk is just political BS to try and cast the other side in a negative light.

[tom_paine]

14. It's a bit more complicated than that, but you are correct that it is not a matter of poltiics, but

of political WILL.

I have been observing it's steady deterioration on the Democratic side for deacdes now, and it's a Watergate Conspirator's wet dream, in retrospect.

The maxims of raw and brutal power, even in this Caesar-Cheney-esque way it's being performed, are still the same as in Hitler or Caesar's time.

The law is a fragile thing. If no one has the guts to stand up and enforce it against tyrants, the tyrants become "legal". Nazi-style brainwashing lives in it's new fom on Fox "News". Free societies are easily subverted by tyrants from within, once their organization passes a certain critical mass. Read Ed Luttwak's "Coup D'Etat: A manual" sometime ofr early Bushie thinking on the matter. Most of that book has already been applied to Americans by the Bushies.

You are in essence correct, harun, IMHO. We need only 50 votes. Or SHOULD need only 50, if the system of checks and balances in all it's many facets, including the media, were functioning, and IF we had a Democratic Congressional Leadership that was something other than a Watergate Conspirator's Wet Dream.

The reasons why are multi-facted and complex, many other things besides political will, which I made example of here.

[MadHound]

12. Even if we had one hundred Democratic Senators, they would still find a way to cave to the 'Pugs

After all, this is the two party/same corporate master system of government that we're dealing with here, and nothing is going to truly change until we eliminate corporate money from the equation via publicly funded elections.

[tom_paine]

15. Well said. n/t

[tom_paine]

13. No, no, no.! We need at least 73-80 senators to get anything done!

It would be funny if it wasn't so frighteningly tragic.

We know, without the violence directed at us and the night terrors, but other than that we now KNOW what it felt like, some of it, to be an Italian Liberal in 1923, or a German Liberal in 1929, or a Russian Liberal in 1922, or an Argentinian Liberal in 1982, or a Phillipino Liberal in 1977, or an Iranian Liberal in 1958 or...

Think about it. We get the whole Disney E Ride, from the comfort and safety of our own homes.

IT'S THE GREATEST REALITY SHOW EVER! IT'S THE GREATEST AND BIGGEST DISNEY E-RIDE HUMANKIND HAS EVER DESIGNED!

We get to live the horrific hopelessness and insanity of the Rise of the Nazis, with almost ZERO of the attendant physical dangers! Whoopeeeeee!

And, at least until the coming Greater Depression leads to the next wave of Bushification, which is probably the transition period from gentle Inverted Totalitarianism to the more brutal, obvious Classical Totalitarian methods.

4 or 8 years? 12 years, is such possible in an Inverted Totalitarianism like America? Who wants to bet how fast the next one comes?

[JVS]

17. We won't get shit done then because to pass amendments we'll need state legislatures

:sarcasm:

[leftofthedial]

16. then they'd be claiming they need 75 for some absurd reason.

There could be 100 Senators with a "D" after their names and we still wouldn't see effective legislation passed.

The DLC doesn't want effective government.

[kentuck]

18. The Democrats fell for the trap...

When they saw what the Repubs were going to do, they should have played their game with their rules. We should have taken it to the people and let the people pressure the Repubs into agreeing with President Obama. Rather than trying to work out some type of legislative compromise, they should have competed with the Repubs on purely PR grounds and they would not had to compromise anything. The Republicans would have been forced to agree to the stimulus plan. But the Democrats rushed into the bill and fell for the Repubs trap.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Part of it is because Reid can't herd the cats, part of it is because the senate is slow

Each member of the senate thinks that everything is about them and they rarely see the bigger picture.

[book_worm]

20. that's unrealistic to get that many senate seats.

As it is the party in power traditionally loses seats in congress in the midterm. Hopefully in '10, if things are better, we can buck that, but we certainly wouldn't be able to buck it enough to get that many senate seats.

[MrPerson]

21. We should just take the seats and make the bastards stand.