Is this a Joke?

[wowimthere]

So healthcare reform rests on a senate seat in Massachusetts even though the Democrats have a 19 seat lead on the Republicans? You're kidding right? Democrats... you have to be kidding! A clear sign of real failure will be that the Dems don't learn something from this particular election. If the Dems in the house and senate and President Obama don't start moving forward on some of these key agenda items then a senate seat will be the least of their problems. Democrats with majorities in both the house and the senate will quickly become the minority if they don't start acting like they are in the majority. Don't use. You lose.

Healthcare doesn't need the stamp of approval of all 60 senators! Bush got what he wanted squeaking by with a simple majority.

Do we want to throw the country back to the Republicans after just one year of President Obama's term? That senate seat, lost or won, is the joke that's being played on Democrats. Are Dems actually afraid of governing... effectively?

Dems, stop sitting on your fucking hands. Stop arguing, giving Republicans the upper-hand. Ram that motherfucking healthcare reform bill through and get it to the president! Get it done!

I firmly believe that when the healthcare bill gets to the president's desk the sun will shine and tea baggers will recede to the cellars of a past collective imagination. People voted for change. People put Dems in charge. Believe it, Democrats and stop acting like change means status quo.

[DJ13]

1. The party wants the "we dont have 60 seats" excuse so the House

is pressured into accepting the Presidents.... I mean, the Senate's pro-corporate mandated reform as is without reconciliation.

[wowimthere]

2. So that means they don't think very highly of the power they wield?

[FiveGoodMen]

5. No. They don't want to be caught wielding their power in the wrong way

So they blame the other guys. ("We couldn't help it. They were mean!")

They're just trying to keep the one-party corporate political system hidden.

[Vincardog]

15. Bingo they want us to accept the Presidents.... I mean, the Senate's pro-corporate mandated reform

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Because that is the way our system works, yes, that is correct.

41 votes in the Senate trump everything but reconciliation. Reconciliation is not applicable to all legislation. But it isn't just health care that can be held hostage. Regulation of the banking industry can not happen if there are not 60 to overcome a filibuster. Regulation of an industry do not appear to fall under the reconciliation process. Global warming initiatives can not happen if there are not 60 seats to overcome a filibuster. If a party is willing to use the filibuster to stop everything, only budget items and things that qualify for reconciliation will come up for a vote.

The Senate created a form of filibuster that can and does block most bills form passing the Senate, if the minority party wants to use it. Republicans want to filibuster.

[wowimthere]

4. Then the Dems should be able to pass HCR before they seat the elected senator

My blood is beginning to boil because it really didn't have to be this way. Democrats in both houses knew that people voted for change. They knew Obama wanted to reform healthcare. It's as if they didn't know where this president stood during the primaries. This legislation was always supposed to be historic.

[FiveGoodMen]

10. "This legislation was always supposed to be historic" -- it will be.

Either

"The 2010 HCR bill was the clearest sign possible that America was no longer a representative democracy, thus began decades of fascist ..."

Or

"The roots of the Second American Revolution can be traced back to ..."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Or

"The success of the 2010 HCR bill, along with its many adjustments over the years, marked the clearest sign that the leftmost 10% of the Democratic Party had completely lost their minds and were no better or more informed than the 10% fringe on the opposite end of the political spectrum."

[Myrina]

23. +10

n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

20. That is what they are aiming at, but there is more than one issue...

Bank regulation and consumer protection will not be considered by 41 Republicans. Fifty-eight Democrats Plus Lieberman and Sanders can address that issue.

Global warming will not be addressed by 41 Republicans. Fifty-eight Democrats Plus Lieberman and Sanders can address that issue.

There are others.

The idea that 41 Republicans in Washington, or a minority here in California can screw everything over is a travesty, but it is also a reality. And there are more issues than just health care to consider.

[DisgustedInMN]

6. Horse manure!

The majority can do what they want, ESPECIALLY a majority as big as the Dems have. We gave 'em their vaunted "60th vote," MY Senator Al Franken. They still screwed the pooch. Either deliberately or because they really are that weak-kneed. Take your choice.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. And Joe Lieberman took it away.

I'm not sure how it's "weak kneed" that we weren't able to corral a Senator we actually primaried out of our party. There was nothing that could be done about him.

[Ozymanithrax]

21. Senator Al supports Health Care, Bank Regulation, and doing something about global warming...

We should see that he has the support of 59 others.

[treestar]

28. Lieberman is in that 60!

[DisgustedInMN]

34. Not my problem..

... I didn't vote for LIEberman, ('cept for VEEP) nor did I do the math that the Dem Party told me made him a part of 60.

It's all just phony excuses anyway, Repukes haven't had the "magic 60" since 1923 and have managed to cram every piece of shit legislation they wanted through. Maybe if our Speaker would grow a fuckin' pair and twist some arms we wouldn't be pissin' down our leg about losing a GODDAMN Senate seat that has been Democrat since the year I was born. I'm 56 years old.

[Milo_Bloom]

14. So make them FILIBUSTER!

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ.

Make them actually DO IT. Make them stand up there and show the American people that they are willing to waste hours and hours and hours and hours of Senate time and business to do nothing but obstruct.

For fuck sake, 41 votes is not supposed to be an automatic stop to anything they want.

The filibuster is supposed to be an emergency measure used by a minority to stop egregious legislation from being rammed down their throats, not used every time you aren't 100% happy with the way things are turning out.

[Ozymanithrax]

22. They do exactly what the current rules require of them.

What you mean is change the Senate Rules to make them filibuster. But until the new Congress sits in 2011, it will require 66 votes to change a Senate Rule.

Now, where will you get 6 Republican votes to make them filibuster?

[Milo_Bloom]

24. Wrong. The Majority leader CAN force debate.

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Filibusters_and_Cloture_in_the_Senate.pdf

[Ozymanithrax]

25. But he can not end debate. He can not force it to an up or down vote.

That power is held by Republians if they have 41 votes. That is why the whip must decide if there are enough votes to bring something to the floor. 41 no votes means Republicans can and will control the debate. Becasue it does not good to talk about something if you can't pass legislation.

[Milo_Bloom]

26. That is exactly the point!

Make them show their asses for as long as they are willing.

[treestar]

29. My theory is that they'd love it

It would be a historic filibuster, covered by the M$M 24/7. They would get a chance to repeat their talking points over and over again.

[Milo_Bloom]

32. So you are afraid of their position???

[elocs]

7. No, Bush didn't get by with simple majorities. Dems could have done the same as Republicans do now

and always have and they could have thwarted Bush but they chose not to do that. Yes, healthcare reform does need 60 votes to pass the Senate, and reconciliation will not get much of a bill if they can pull it off.

[DisgustedInMN]

8. Ooops ...

Forgot to rec this, might as well kick it while I'm here.

[wowimthere]

9. We have to succeed at this. I don't want to return to the last 8 years.

[PolNewf]

12. Grandiose statements don't change the senate rules

Instead of blaming the Dems you should be directing your ire at Repugs, they are getting a free ride on their obstruction tactic because nobody is surprised by Repug behavior. This is a basic problem for Dems in that they are susceptible to moral arguments and accusations such as patriotism and hypocrisy. Republicans just shrug those charges off.

If Dems had decided to fillibuster everything like the Repugs are now Bush wouldn't have gotten anything done either, and they did block a fair number of things, but you can be sure Repugs would be calling them out while Dems barely mention it. Remember all the "up or down vote" rhetoric?

You could argue for changing the fillibuster but I'm pretty sure you will want the fillibuster when Republicans regain control. Without a 60 vote majority I think the stage has been set for permanent gridlock.

[wowimthere]

16. Blaming the Dems? Proper context. Joe Lieberman. Blue Dogs! 60 seats?

We know what Repubs do. We've had 8 years of their bullcrap! Republicans should still have been insignificant given we have 60 seats.

Blaming isn't what I'm trying to do here. What I'm trying to say is, we don't need any Democrats standing in the way (we've already got a really hammy opposition party) and if we do then we had better be able to do something to move around this or we will become the minority once again.

This seems like a repeat. I want Democrats to stop repeating history.

[Thrill]

17. Democrats are a bunch of wimps. Get use to it.

Thats why he doesn't matter if Coakley wins or losses

[Teaser]

18. Bush did not get that much of what he wanted

remember Social Security reform? That little thing?

Bush got what he wanted on taxes because

a) reconciliation works really well on taxes.
b) everyone loves a tax cut.

[wowimthere]

19. Grayson just NAILED it on msnbc. We don't need 60 seats to pass healthcare

We might want 60 but we don't need it. I'm goin' with that great news.

[treestar]

27. Have you missed the part where the Repukes all vote no in lockstep no matter what?

i suppose you'll be happy with the concessions we'd have to make to Olympia Snowe.

[wowimthere]

30. The Dems should vote in lockstep to reform healthcare. With 60 seat cushion we don't

have to rely in any Republicans. That is the point. And we don't need 60 seats to pass hcr.

[treestar]

31. Any one of them can filibuster

When Lieberman said he would, we had to give him what he wanted. If he filibustered, no reform at all.

[leftygolfer]

33. Jon Stewart said this last night...

I just don't understand why this is so hard. a 19 vote advantage (out of 100 votes!) and somehow we can't get what we want? So disheartening. I'm just torn up inside at today...(though not giving up!)....and this is just another kick to the stomach.