Senate Democrats do not have the votes to lower the 60-vote threshold to cut off filibusters.

[babylonsister]

Filibuster reform is short of needed votes
By Alexander Bolton - 07/28/10 06:00 AM ET


Senate Democrats do not have the votes to lower the 60-vote threshold to cut off filibusters.

The lack of support among a handful of Senate Democratic incumbents is a major blow to the effort to change the upper chamber’s rules.

Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate are pushing for filibuster reform at the start of the new Congress next year.

Five Senate Democrats have said they will not support a lowering of the 60-vote bar necessary to pass legislation.

Another four lawmakers say they are wary about such a change and would be hesitant to support it.

A 10th Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said he would support changing the rule on filibusters of motions to begin debate on legislation, but not necessarily the 60-vote threshold needed to bring up a final vote on bills.

Other senators who are not co-sponsors of filibuster reform did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Many Senate Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008 favor changes to longstanding chamber rules, as do liberal activists who have grown increasingly frustrated over their party’s failure to pass legislation despite controlling 59 seats.

Reid told more than 2,000 liberal activists at a political conference held over the weekend in Las Vegas that he would work to change the filibuster rule.

more...

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/111293-filibuster-reform-is-short-of-needed-votes

[a kennedy]

1. D*mn

:mad: :grr:

[DCBob]

2. I suspected this was going to happen..

this is no slam dunk as many DUers have been claiming.

[prolesunited]

3. Why change the rules before November?

If the GOP gains a narrow majority -- which seems like it will happen with the complicity of people here -- that filibuster might be the only things that saves us from the GOP going totally off the rails.

[catgirl]

6. Because we'll still have the majority in the Senate

and as it stands, they're stalling or ruining any progress.

[bornskeptic]

7. There's no possibility of changing the rules this year.

That would require 67 votes. The discussion involves the possibility of changing the rules at the beginning of the next Congress, in January, when only a majority would be required.

[T Wolf]

4. Hell - the Dems do not have the votes (or the will) necessary to do anything except what the GOP

will allow them to do.

Extend and expand the wars - check.

Bail out the banksters and Wall Street - check.

Pass bogus "reform" on various issues - check.

Ignore the crimes of the previous administration - check.

Great job. Now take the rest of the summer off.

[Dawgs]

5. Filibuster doesn't exist anyway.

Democrats are pussies!!

[earthside]

8. It's Simple ...

Democratic Senate incumbents who do not support filibuster reform should be replaced by Repuglicans.

Really, we might as well have Repuglicans in those positions since the 60-vote filibuster means that they get want they want any how (or can stop anything they don't want). At least with the spineless Democrats replaced by nutty Repuglicans we would have 'truth in labeling'.

How any Democratic Senators can be against 'majority rule' and instead favor a 'tyranny of the minority' is kind of mind blowing.

I'm for democracy and majority rule even if the Repuglicans win back the Senate in the distant future -- that is the consequences of freedom and democracy; we shouldn't become so risk averse (like the present Congress) that we give-up the principles upon which this Republic was founded.

The current filibuster 'tradition' is a perversion of the Senate deliberative process ... it was never meant to stop cold votes on legislation, appointments, etc.

If a reduced Democratic Senate majority in January 2011 cannot change the rules to get rid of the anti-democratic filibuster, well, really, what is the point?

[Bitwit1234]

9. BUT even so..don't you think some republicans

so hyped up by the media that they are going to win win win in November would not want the filibuster. If the Democrats were in the minority then they could start the log jam like they are doing. If only gets a few to switch.

[NorthCarolina]

10. That may be a god send considering that they wanted to push that through before

the Debt Commission recommendations are released in December. Social Security may be saved due to a lack of capitulation on filibuster reform.

[TheKentuckian]

11. Except it is an up or down vote already hashed out.

Even sixty is a near lock how many pukes do you think will pass on a chance to stab the New Deal in the heart?

They overplayed the silly Party of No hand once when about seven Republican co-sponsers bailed reflexively because Obama came out for the binding legislation but it is folly to expect them to fall off again.

This won't require many Democrats to pass but we will be held responsible since Obama created the commission. It's win/win for them and the culmination (or close enough to their end game) of decades off effort and they won't get blamed for it at all.

[killbotfactory]

12. Obama's fault, I assume...

If only he would do... well, I dunno, but I'm sure he could do something! One more item to add to my list of outrages and betrayals.