The fundamental problem with argument about GOP fillibusters

[Atman]

Joe Scab just attempted to make the case that WHEN the GOP is back in power, this fillibuster-everything strategy will come back to bite them in the ass because then the Dems will just do it back to them. Except it won't work that way, because the GOP will simply do what it always does and change the rules to benefit themselves. They are ruthless and shameless, and Dems keep thinking that if we play nice, they'll change. I think we should consider changing our mascot to a beer-stained sleeveless t-shirt.

.

[Zen Democrat]

1. Nah. The spineless Dems will just vote for the Republican crap like they did with Bush.

Dems went along with Alito and Roberts. Dems went along with wiretapping and holding AT&T harmless. Dems went along with the Patriot Act. How many Dems voted for exclusive tax cuts for the wealthy? How many voted for the Oil War in Iraq? Face it, obstructionism is anathema to Democrats out of power, and it is the lifeblood of Republicans out of power (if, in fact, they ever really are). This double standard has been status quo for some 40+ years. Was there a coup back then and someone neglected to announce it to the American People? Is the objective of "the game" to keep it from us as long as possible?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. The 'pubs didn't drop the filibuster when they were in power

why would it be dropped if and when they are in power again?

sP

[zipplewrath]

3. 3 realities

1) It's easier to keep 40 senators in line, than 60.

2) If you can be assured that the other 39 will be successful, it's easier to be the 40th. If you are afraid that the bill will pass, it's harder to be on record as having voted against something.

3) It's easier to force through a tax cut, than to force through a health insurance reform bill.


The GOP would have just as much trouble if they were to have such a large majority. For one thing, typically you have such a 60 vote majority in name only. There will always be folks in your party who aren't "stalwarts". In some ways, Brown's election will probably be a "good" thing. It will mean that the senate needs to create bills that some members of the GOP "can't vote against" so to speak.