New Math??? WTF??

[orleans]

remember the last couple of years when FIFTY ONE votes equaled a "majority" and crash cart would offer up his limp-dicked tiebreaker to fuck us even more?

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THAT NUMBER OF 51?

WHERE DID 60 COME FROM???

i thought "60" was only for legislation that a president wouldn't sign...then you needed 60 votes (a super majority) for it to become law.

when the fuck did the rules change?

how the hell did 51 become irrelevant to the point that we need 60 votes to pass something that obama wants?

let's count this:
1. Akaka, Daniel K. - (D - HI)
2. Baucus, Max - (D - MT)
3. Bayh, Evan - (D - IN)
4. Begich, Mark - (D - AK)
5. Bennet, Michael F. - (D - CO)
6. Bingaman, Jeff - (D - NM)
7. Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA)
8. Brown, Sherrod - (D - OH)
9. Burris, Roland W. - (D - IL)
10. Byrd, Robert C. - (D - WV)
11. Cantwell, Maria - (D - WA)
12. Cardin, Benjamin L. - (D - MD)
13. Carper, Thomas R. - (D - DE)
14. Casey, Robert P., Jr. - (D - PA)
15. Conrad, Kent - (D - ND)
16. Dodd, Christopher J. - (D - CT)
17. Dorgan, Byron L. - (D - ND
18. Durbin, Richard - (D - IL)
19. Feingold, Russell D. - (D - WI)
20. Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA
21. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. - (D - NY)
22. Hagan, Kay R. - (D - NC)
23. Harkin, Tom - (D - IA
24. Inouye, Daniel K. - (D - HI)
25. Johnson, Tim - (D - SD
26. Kaufman, Edward E. - (D - DE
27. Kennedy, Edward M. - (D - MA
28. Kerry, John F. - (D - MA
29. Klobuchar, Amy - (D - MN
30. Kohl, Herb - (D - WI)
31. Landrieu, Mary L. - (D - LA)
32. Lautenberg, Frank R. - (D - NJ
33. Leahy, Patrick J. - (D - VT)
34. Levin, Carl - (D - MI)
35. Lincoln, Blanche L. - (D - AR)
36. McCaskill, Claire - (D - MO)
37. Menendez, Robert - (D - NJ
38. Merkley, Jeff - (D - OR)
39. Mikulski, Barbara A. - (D - MD)
40. Murray, Patty - (D - WA)
41. Nelson, Ben - (D - NE
42. Nelson, Bill - (D - FL
43. Pryor, Mark L. - (D - AR)
44. Reed, Jack - (D - RI)
45. Reid, Harry - (D - NV)
46. Rockefeller, John D., IV - (D - WV
47. Schumer, Charles E. - (D - NY)
48. Shaheen, Jeanne - (D - NH)
49. Stabenow, Debbie - (D - MI
50. Tester, Jon - (D - MT)
51. Udall, Mark - (D - CO)
52. Udall, Tom - (D - NM)
53. Warner, Mark R. - (D - VA)
54. Webb, Jim - (D - VA
55. Whitehouse, Sheldon - (D - RI)
56. Wyden, Ron - (D - OR
57. Sanders, Bernard - (I - VT)

so... 57 is a MAJORITY. what are we dicking around with this "60" bullshit for???

why do we need a fucking super majority if obama wants the bill passed? do we have to convince all those republicon assholes to be friends with us?

this really pisses me off. (obviously)

[Idealism]

1. Harry Reid lacks what we in American call

cojones

[kristopher]

2. Filibuster and Cloture

Filibuster and Cloture

Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

[Undercurrent]

11. Thanks.

Strom Thurmond during his 1957 filibuster.

[leftstreet]

3. That was Republican Math. This is Democratic Math

Just sprinkle magic Dry Powder over the formula and it will all make sense.

[sandnsea]

4. Republicans Lose Filibuster Attempt

Remember when Democratic Senators were repeatedly embarrassed when they tried to filibuster and failed?

We are bad bad bad at the frame.

[sutz12]

5. Well, they filibustered 95 times in '07-'08

Expect many more as we go forward. Unfortunately, that's the way the Senate works.

Note, it has nothing to do with overcoming a presidential veto, it only applies to stopping debate. In the Senate, once a Senator takes the floor, he can keep it until he stops talking, basically. That's a filibuster and it takes 60 votes to stop it. It takes 67 votes to overcome a veto.

Also unfortunately, they have not been forcing the Repubs to actually do the dirty deed lately. They just take a vote when someone threatens to do this, and if they can't overcome it, they move on to something else. It is the opinion of some that they should make them actually talk for a few hours on some case, just to prove they are really serious.

As far as Obama, there are several Rep Senators in blue or purple states up for re-election in '10. They are the vulnerable ones. Basically they are moderate to begin with and should be able to be pressured, especially if Obama's numbers continue to grow.

[truedelphi]

8. Barbara Boxer was telling Rachel Maddow yesterday that she sure thought it would be great

For the Dems to actually make those old wind bag republicans stay up all night reading the phone book (She was more poltie than that, but that was her basic idea.)

[elleng]

9. And Boxer said

she realized that when one begins to 'understand' the Senate, its time to go!!!! (maybe!)

The system's obviously out of control.

[Greyhound]

15. I believe they threatened to filibuster, but were not actually forced to do so. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Let 'em filibuster. What's wrong with Lindsay Graham peeing on his leg?

I don't see a problem with it. :shrug:

[mwb970]

13. Not "let 'em". *Make* them filibuster.

I want America to see its Republican leaders trying their damnedest to thwart every effort of our popular, just-elected president. I want day after day of news coverage about cots, and long speeches, and Republican intransigence.

Tweety was right. Make them actually filibuster.

The current "implied filibuster" simply means that the Republicans get the benefit of requiring 60 Senate votes on every issue without paying the price of public scrutiny of their obstruction. (Gee, imagine, Republicans taking the benefit but not paying the price, how "unusual". Not.)

[Two Americas]

7. right

51 votes are needed. And the will to fight for the American people and stand up to the right wingers.

Neither party has had 60 votes since 1976. If that makes it impossible to do anything, then how did the Republicans manage to enact and check off almost every item on their wish list over the last few years?

[DUlover2909]

10. Any particular reason you omitted Joe Lieberman?

I know, he's wierd, but did you omit him on purpose? When we get Al Franken that would make it 59, with Lieberman.

[geckosfeet]

12. He ran and won his seat as an independent.

Technically still a dem - but in name only.

[Igel]

14. Poster 2 is close.

Not quite right. Filibuster and cloture are tacitly involved, but for this bill filibuster is probably completely excluded; (R)-bearers probably couldn't filibuster if they wanted to. Since filibuster's been excluded as an option and debate's limited by rule, the increased vote total is needed to protect the speaking rites of the minority. This rule applies to a wide variety of spending bills, and fairly commonly so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(Senate) is a much more relevant link.