Work with me here....Tell me if we are not as bad off as it seems....

[DimplesinMI]

Ok, so tonight, the Democrats held on to the Senate. Each Congressional session, the Senate Majority Leader (Calling Harry "better be GLAD you won tonight" Reid) decides the rules in which the chamber will govern itself by. Noting such, the filibuster should be back on the table....to be taken OFF the table completely, right?

So, if Harry says....sorry, the filibuster is gone. Completely gone and majority rules, then the House can do what it will but the Senate can smack the crap back to the other chamber, all day long.

In closing, it is up to Harry Reid to show his boxing skills. Do you think he will do it?

[gaspee]

1. wrong thread

posted in the wrong thread

[Ozymanithrax]

2. I think Harry will modify the filibuster rules not get rid of them. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

3. Perhaps we need to organize and tell him what he needs to do,

then we can flood the media with LTTEs and phone calls and insist that this is what many people want,
and we demand the same attention to our demands as they gave to the Tea Party.

In otherwords, instead of us waiting for others to act, perhaps we need to organize not only to tell the Dems what we want, but to tell the entire nation.

[DimplesinMI]

7. I think we need a Caffeine Party (new name) Revolt as Dems....

And DEMAND that Harry Reid kicks the filibuster down one of the many mountains in Nevada. I agree with you FrenchieCat!

[NYC Liberal]

4. Two things:

1. The Republicans NEEDED to win a veto-proof 290 seat majority in the House. The fell far short of that.
2. The Republicans NEEDED to win the Senate. They failed to do so.

I agree with getting rid of the filibuster. It should have been done a long time ago, but here's hoping it will finally happen. Didn't the Dems say it would?

[emulatorloo]

Good points n/t

[NYC Liberal]

8. The media kept saying the Dems needed 60 seats to "really" have the Senate.

Well since there's a Dem president with a veto pen in hand, the Repugs need veto-proof majorities in both houses, right? :shrug:

[emulatorloo]

5. Good points n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. I've been pointing this out

but it don't help much.

Clarity will come I hope after people get some sleep.

[sandnsea]

6. 48+3 is a majority

Just how is the Senate going to smack crap back to the other chamber when Republicans have just as good an opportunity at getting a 51 vote as Democrats do. Don't forget we still have Nelson, Landrieu, and Lieberman. Plus myriad other Senators who have their own interests to consider, like Wyden and logging, and Manchin, Tester, Baucus, Franken... and coal, and Schumer and outsourcing, and Feinstein and whatever... losing the filibuster is not a good idea.

[DimplesinMI]

10. Not so fast.....

On all of President Obama's major legislations (Health Care, Stimulus, Small Business Lending) Landrieu and even floppy Lieberman, voted with the majority. If that is the case, your total would be changed to 48 + 2 (possibly), which is 50. The GOP have 46 + maybe 1 (Democrat in name only) Nelson, in their column.

In other words, Harry should indeed kill the filibuster. As another poster stated, the GOP does not have the votes in the House to override a veto anyway. Harry should play hardball with with Orange Boy and the gang down the street and make work hard for anything they might want.

Killing the filibuster is the only way to do in IMHO.

[sandnsea]

11. Some will, Some won't

You don't base decisions on always winning the best possible scenario. It was tough enough to get some of these Dems to vote previously. With Republicans breathing down their necks in their own districts, I don't see how that's going to make them more likely to vote with Dems. It's short-sighted.

[upi402]

12. Fekking loonies are back in power

after they burned down the house, puked in the car, and robbed the jewelry box to fund their drug-fueled freak party... we give them another chance? and before the hangover ends- really?


upside please?
smiles

[regnaD kciN]

13. Removing the filibuster only makes sense...

...if a 60-vote cloture rule is the main thing blocking things from getting through Congress. With the House solidly controlled by Republicans, that isn't the case anymore. Removing the filibuster would do us no good, and would allow the Republicans to clobber us with it if they were to retake the Senate and Presidency.

If and when we regain control of the House, have a Democratic President, and hold between 50 and 59 Senate seats, we should think about filibuster reform. Until we have all three, no way.