Reality Check: The Democrats do not NOW have 60 Senate votes.

[rateyes]

They have 58.

The other 2 seats we "count" are both occupied by Independents, one being a good Senator and the other being a complete asshole whom the leadership of the party kowtows to at the expense of Democratic ideals and principles. Add to the mix the realization that we also have to deal with the likes of Landrieu, the Nelsons, Lincoln, and Baucus, and one can readily see that if we keep insisting that legislation has to pass by 60 votes rather than 51, we all can pretty much count on Congress NEVER passing real progressive legislation.

If Harry Reid were any kind of leader in the Senate we wouldn't need any more Democratic Senators than we have already. However, Reid is worthless. And, because we don't demand a progressive in his chair, the Democratic Party and the country is screwed.

[Demeter]

1. And It Gets Worse

When you look at voting patterns, we are lucky to have 40.

[ddeclue]

2. It's actually a lot worse when you take out the DINOs:

Ben Nelson
Bill Nelson
Joe Lieberman
Mary Landreu (sp?)
Blanche Lincoln
et.al.

If we had REAL Dems in these seats we could get a lot more passed.

[Better Today]

4. +1 and it appears that Coakley will be one of these from what I've been reading.

[goclark]

3. I signed up to make calls for the Democratic Candidate

No need to complain just be a Democrat and get to stepping for our candidate!

[elocs]

5. Just think how screwed you will feel when the Republicans once again get 51 Senate seats.

Or will the Democrats hold onto the Senate forever?

[pnwmom]

6. No, but Lieberman has voted with us on some critical votes.

For example, the major budget votes. Otherwise, the government would have been shut down.

Why are you blaming Harry Reid for the fact that we only have 58 Democratic Senators?

[rateyes]

10. I blame Harry Reid for his lack of leadership.

He doesn't need 60. He needs 51. But, he's a damned coward.

[pnwmom]

14. You couldn't pass key parts of the bill with reconciliation.

Like banning pre-existing conditions and policy rescission. Only things that directly reduce the budget deficit could be passed through reconciliation.

[Donnachaidh]

13. I'd really like to know how many behind the scenes BRIBES were required

for Lieberman's votes.

I'll bet the Democratic Party could save money in the long run by getting his ass out of that seat.

[pnwmom]

15. I agree that we should do everything we can in the next election to get

Lieberman replaced by a Democrat. Till now, unfortunately, we're stuck with him.

[razorman]

7. I agree. There's no way in hell Ben Nelson is going to support HCR now,

considering the abuse he is taking back home. He is already backtracking. I believe the same thing is happening to Landrieu and others. So, I don't believe that even the original 60 Senate votes that passed the bill a few weeks ago can be relied on now. Not looking good.

[treestar]

8. I don't know what Reid is supposed to have done

these people represent their states, at least their states, which are very conservative, did not send Repukes.

Reid just seems like a scapegoat for the reality.

[rateyes]

11. He could have pushed through a progressive bill through reconciliation.

He could have said to the so-called centrists, "Play ball, or be primaried and forget funds from the DSCC in your next run.

We are already losing Dorgan because of Harry's lack of spine.

[pnwmom]

16. Only deficit-reducing parts of the bill could be passed through reconciliation.

And they would have only 5 years, rather than 10, to reduce the deficit.

[MisterP]

9. I remember back in '06, when all the loyalists were demanding was 51 Senators

that was the "prize" we had to keep our eyes on, what we'd lose if the dirty leftists and dastardly Naderites ruined it for everyone; now, the goalpost has shifted to 60 "friendly" Senators, who foul any legislation coming in. Those goalposts aren't moving, they're galloping faster than a Saturn V.

[pnwmom]

17. Back in the Clinton era, the Rethugs didn't threaten to filibuster every bill

the Dems put forward. But that's what's happened under Obama.

We didn't change the goalposts. The Rethugs did.

[groundloop]

18. They didn't threaten to filibuster everything because their bluff would have been called

They didn't relish the thought of reading aloud from the phone book for days on end, and the world seeing them for what shit-heads they were.

And it sucks that the Senate dems can't be counted on for procedural votes. At least let a bill get to a vote, then they can vote against it if that's their desire.

[cascadiance]

19. THEN CHANGE the F'IN RULES! Go NUCLEAR and get RID of this DAMN FILLISBUSTER!

YES I AM YELLING!

Rethugs would do it to advance their agenda. If the Democrats are truly trying to support their base of voters, they'd do the same. They'd have reason to do so given to the record-breaking obstruction the Republicans and the Corporocrats are doing with the fillibuster now. Far more so than what the Dems "might" have done with judge appointments that prompted the Republicans to threaten to go nuclear earlier.

[branders seine]

12. If they really had 60 actual Democrats in the Senate,

none of this health insurance shit would have happened, and we'd be celebrating our new universal single payer health care system, Medicare for Everyone.

[SoCalDem]

20. and of the 58, there are many unreliable votes..n/t