Five Senate Democrats Endorse Continued Republican Obstructionism of Democratic Agenda

[Joanne98]

If you were hoping that the Democrats in the Senate would do something about the Republicans’ unprecedented abuse of the filibuster, you can forget it.

Senior Democrats say Reid will not have the votes to change the rule at the beginning of next year.

“It won’t happen,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said she would “probably not” support an effort to lower the number of votes needed to cut off filibusters from 60 to 55 or lower.

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) echoed Feinstein: “I think we should retain the same policies that we have instead of lowering it.

“I think it has been working,” he said.

Really?

continued>>>
http://firedoglake.com/2010/07/28/five-senate-democrats-endorse-continued-republican-obstructionism-of-democratic-agenda/


:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Nite Owl]

1. "I think it has been working"

true colors shown.

Bad news.

Bet if the Repukes win it will be the first thing that they do, and they will lower it to 51. Everything will need a veto.

[napi21]

2. There they are AGAIN, afraid of when THEY are in the

minority. I'm torn by this change myself. I keep thinking about what COULD HAVE BEEN when Shrub was Prez & had the Pub majority. Things like privatizing SS, and making those damn tax cuts permanent. If they only needed 55 that stuff & much more could now be law.

[zipplewrath]

3. The problem is the lockstep nature

It enpowers a potentially small geographic/demographic portion of the country to control the senate. They probably need some modifications which demand, ultimately, that there be true regional distribution of obstruction. Say, minimum of 1 vote from each federal district or something (There are 10 of them). Probably should also have an escalating scale, fewer votes needed early on, as debate continues, it takes more votes. Might be interesting too to have a rule where in some period before the end of a 2 year period, all bills come up for vote, regardless of cloture.

[droidamus2]

4. How about a more formal filibuster policy

How about something along these lines of Party R says they are going to filibuster a piece of legislation. Party D says okay we call you on it (formally) at which point the clock starts. At this point you need the 60 votes. After a set amount of time, lets say 3 weeks, Party R is asked are you still filibustering. If they say yes then the number of votes needed drops to lets say 57 votes. Ask again in 2 weeks. Yes? Vote goes down to 54. Ask again in 1 week. Yes? Vote goes down to a majority, 51 votes to end filibuster. That way if they want to actually get on the floor and make their point with an actual filibuster they have 6 weeks to make the point at which time the majority can move forward. No minority should be able to obstruct forever. Yes there is a flip side when the majority is the Republicans/Conservatives and you don't like what they are trying to pass but that is sort of how a democratic government is supposed to work. You have to realize that with the Repugs voting in lockstep all the time they can pass legislation when they are the majority and obstruct any effort to ameliorate that legislation when the Democrats are in the majority with the current rules. With the gradated filibuster at least the Democrats would have a chance to implement some progressive ideas when they are in power.

[Triana]

5. working for WHO? The g*ddamned Republicans?

Oh. Just great. :wtf:

[Parker CA]

6. Working? Hahaha. That's the funniest comment I've read all week. Unbelievable that a Dem said that.

[kenfrequed]

7. Bring back old school Fillibusters

We let tired old men decide to make fillibusters easier, taking what was at one time merely an arcane procedural trick and enshrining it as a tactic while removing the element of having to hold the podium in the first damned place.

[napi21]

8. I'm all for makaing a fillabuster a REAL ONE!! If someone says

fillabuster, fine, get up to the podium and start talking. The fillabuster will be over hen you can't go on anymore! My guess is that would happen once or maybe twice before either party would think long & hard before they decided to say that word again!

[kenfrequed]

9. Yes

The vote for cloture is a procedural trick that the blue dogs absolutely LOVE! It gives them all the power. They can get concessions like crazy out of proper democrats and for the first couple months of Obama's administration it allowed them to hold onto power that they should have been losing.

They will cost the Democrats elections and still be happy as it revalidates their absurd DLC 'third-way' crap. The worst thing for them would be an overwhelming Democratic victory as they would no longer have the slightest bit of cover.