HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Dems short on votes for f...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:14 AM

Dems short on votes for filibuster reform

Source: The Hill

Democrats don’t have the 51 votes they need in the Senate to change filibuster rules that could make it harder for the GOP minority to wield power in the upper chamber.

Lawmakers leading the charge acknowledge they remain short, but express optimism they’ll hit their goal.

“I haven’t counted 51 just yet, but we’re working,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a leading proponent of the so-called constitutional or “nuclear” option, in which Senate rules could be changed by a majority vote.

“We’re building the momentum right now,” Udall said. “It’s hard to say at this point, but I think it’s looking very good. The last two years have really helped coalesce people’s minds around the idea that we need to change the way we do business.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/267471-dems-short-on-votes-for-filibuster-reform

146 replies, 19555 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 146 replies Author Time Post
Reply Dems short on votes for filibuster reform (Original post)
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 OP
no_hypocrisy Nov 2012 #1
Scuba Nov 2012 #6
happyslug Nov 2012 #23
Scuba Nov 2012 #28
happyslug Nov 2012 #47
xtraxritical Nov 2012 #58
xtraxritical Nov 2012 #59
valerief Nov 2012 #70
ChaoticTrilby Nov 2012 #72
karynnj Nov 2012 #139
ChaoticTrilby Nov 2012 #143
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #83
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #87
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #93
lonestarnot Nov 2012 #107
karynnj Nov 2012 #138
CreekDog Nov 2012 #128
MurrayDelph Dec 2012 #146
BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #42
gcomeau Nov 2012 #48
former9thward Nov 2012 #54
gcomeau Nov 2012 #55
RFKHumphreyObama Nov 2012 #88
MrModerate Nov 2012 #101
democrattotheend Nov 2012 #117
CreekDog Nov 2012 #127
CTyankee Nov 2012 #98
SteveG Nov 2012 #123
CTyankee Nov 2012 #125
HooptieWagon Nov 2012 #135
SteveG Dec 2012 #145
valerief Nov 2012 #69
yurbud Nov 2012 #92
Mass Nov 2012 #2
mopinko Nov 2012 #4
CanonRay Nov 2012 #3
INdemo Nov 2012 #5
longship Nov 2012 #37
PoliticAverse Nov 2012 #53
wordpix Nov 2012 #105
CreekDog Nov 2012 #129
earthside Nov 2012 #7
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #9
still_one Nov 2012 #11
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #13
HankyDub Nov 2012 #17
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #18
HankyDub Nov 2012 #19
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #25
MessiahRp Nov 2012 #43
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #84
MessiahRp Nov 2012 #97
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #111
MessiahRp Nov 2012 #112
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #114
MessiahRp Nov 2012 #115
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #119
MessiahRp Nov 2012 #120
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #133
Occulus Nov 2012 #141
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #142
Kingofalldems Nov 2012 #20
earthside Nov 2012 #24
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #26
Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2012 #27
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #32
Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2012 #46
Odin2005 Nov 2012 #33
SemperEadem Nov 2012 #57
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #86
Odin2005 Nov 2012 #102
still_one Nov 2012 #56
Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #81
HankyDub Nov 2012 #15
ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #21
Ter Nov 2012 #61
julian09 Nov 2012 #75
INdemo Nov 2012 #136
tonybgood Nov 2012 #64
julian09 Nov 2012 #77
tonybgood Nov 2012 #121
julian09 Nov 2012 #137
still_one Nov 2012 #80
Salviati Nov 2012 #126
still_one Nov 2012 #132
dlwickham Nov 2012 #95
wordpix Nov 2012 #106
yurbud Nov 2012 #94
Kablooie Nov 2012 #8
bemildred Nov 2012 #10
harun Nov 2012 #44
heaven05 Nov 2012 #50
Blasphemer Nov 2012 #60
dmallind Nov 2012 #96
harun Nov 2012 #110
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #65
bemildred Nov 2012 #68
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #12
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #16
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #31
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #66
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #82
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #89
Honest_Abe Nov 2012 #14
ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #22
Nancy Waterman Nov 2012 #30
loyalsister Nov 2012 #109
democrattotheend Nov 2012 #118
Posteritatis Nov 2012 #131
fredamae Nov 2012 #29
malexand Nov 2012 #62
fredamae Nov 2012 #63
thesquanderer Nov 2012 #34
leveymg Nov 2012 #35
byeya Nov 2012 #36
Odin2005 Nov 2012 #38
Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2012 #39
Maineman Nov 2012 #40
Grins Nov 2012 #41
heaven05 Nov 2012 #45
EC Nov 2012 #49
AAO Nov 2012 #67
EC Nov 2012 #74
AAO Nov 2012 #100
s-cubed Nov 2012 #51
PoliticAverse Nov 2012 #52
valerief Nov 2012 #71
brooklynite Nov 2012 #73
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #76
Pirate Smile Nov 2012 #78
santamargarita Nov 2012 #79
elleng Nov 2012 #85
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #91
warrprayer Nov 2012 #90
LaPera Nov 2012 #99
NoodleyAppendage Nov 2012 #104
Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #103
ancianita Nov 2012 #108
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #113
jpak Nov 2012 #116
DarthDem Nov 2012 #122
dsc Nov 2012 #124
CincyDem Nov 2012 #130
Daniel537 Nov 2012 #134
woo me with science Nov 2012 #144
davidn3600 Nov 2012 #140

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:17 AM

1. Who's the hold-out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:22 AM

6. ... and why? Career as a Democrat is over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:51 AM

23. Some Democrats remember when they were in the minority

And in the Minority you fall in love with the Filibuster. Remember the Filibuster is a two way street, it works for whatever party is in the minority, and sooner or later the Democrats will be in the minority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:06 AM

28. And if the Repubs get in charge you think they'll OK the filibuster for the Dems???????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #28)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:30 AM

47. They have in the past.....

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #47)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:28 AM

58. Is anyone going to answer the question? Who's the holdout?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #58)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:33 AM

59. Ok, I'll do my own homework, here's the answer...

 

<snip>
Udall, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) proposed a package of reforms for the 112th Congress that would have eliminated filibusters on motions to proceed to new business. Their package also would have required senators wanting to hold up legislation or nominees to actually hold the floor and debate, and shortened to two hours the time that must elapse after a filibuster on a nominee has been cut off.

The package failed in a 44-51 vote, with Democratic Sens. Jim Webb (Va.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Reid voting no. Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), John Kerry (Mass.) and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) did not vote.
<snip>

What is wrong with these Democrats? I'm especially dissapointed to see Fienstein, Kerry, and Inouye not voting and I would like to know their reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #59)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:14 PM

70. I am sooooo pissed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #59)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:42 PM

72. Kerry? Really? ACK.

Such morons. We're never going to get anything done with them gumming up the works...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChaoticTrilby (Reply #72)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:58 PM

139. Kerry is for filibuster reform

Kerry was out of the country for Obama and had Reid's approval - ifr his vote would have made the difference, Reid would have scheduled it when he returned . He posted the following on filibuster reform http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/11/a-few-quick-thoughts-on-filibuster-reform/-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #139)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:09 AM

143. Ah, good! Thanks for the update.

I'll admit I was just irritated that he (among others) hadn't voted. I'm glad to hear that this has changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #59)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:05 PM

83. Senator must cast a vote if they are present

So it is likely that they were absent when that vote was taken

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #59)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:23 PM

87. And Reid probably voted against it because for procedural reasons

It would be easier for him to bring it up again if he votes against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #59)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:09 PM

93. That was a vote taken 2 years ago though.

The sentence just before those paragraphs:
But Democrats can’t count on a number of their “old bulls,” as was reflected by a vote just two years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #59)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:27 PM

107. I could have named most of them without looking at your list. Kerry I am surprised did not vote.

WTF!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #107)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:53 PM

138. I think he was in Sudan where things were falling apart

He was their as an emissary for Obama with Reid.s knowledge and approval. If his vote were needed, Reid would have scheduled the vote when he was back.

More importantly, here is what he posted on blue mass -
http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/11/a-few-quick-thoughts-on-filibuster-reform/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #59)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:12 PM

128. I think they are at 49, easily at the moment

Kaine replaces Webb and is in favor (45)

Kohl replaced by Baldwin also in favor (46)

Warren replaced Brown, also in favor (47)

Reid will vote yes if it can pass (48)




going to have to pressure the others, but I think we'll get Angus King (49) and one more and Biden can break the tie.

Hold these and snag one more.

Get to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:05 AM

146. Remember "The Nuclear Option"?

It refers to a plan that Republicans had to eliminate the filibuster when they led the Senate 51-50 (even split, but a Republican VP).

The only reason they didn't nuke it was because the Dems promised not to use it so much.

And unlike the Republans, the Dems kept their promise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:22 AM

42. And should that happen, do you think the Repubs wouldn't change it now

the Democrats have expressed the desire to? Oh hell, yes, they will change it!

Better to have it changed now so that we can finally get policies through that benefit US without the Republicans going haywire on the filibuster rule again and force Democrats to water down EVERYTHING so we are at risk at losing in 2014. Because that's what this is about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:35 AM

48. Nobody is talking about killing the filibuster.

They're talking about making it less susceptible to abuse. Like, for example, you have to actually PERFORM the damn filibuster for it to have effect, not just have one guy show up say "we're gonna filibuster", then walk out and the bill is dead.

There is *zero* excuse for not playing ball on this. Anyone who is holding out needs to be identified and pressured. by their constituents. Hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #48)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:13 AM

54. Actually they are not even talking about that.

Last edited Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:30 PM - Edit history (1)

They are considering not using the filibuster for amendments to a bill. But you could still use it for the bill itself and you would still not need to 'perform' just say you are going to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #54)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:16 AM

55. In that case...

...there is even less excuse for opposing. And EVERY damn democratic senator needs to be contacted and hit with a clue stick that filibusters need to be *actual filibusters*.

If legislation is important enough to arrant filibustering it it is important enough to get up there in front of the country and do the work to block it and let everyone see you doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:31 PM

88. Yes...and that's my main concern with the filibuster reform idea

I remember when the Republicans held both houses of congress and were busily trying to eliminate the senate filibuster so they could get Dubya's horrible judicial reforms and legislative agenda through

And there were wiser heads in the Republican Party cautioning "don't do this, we won't have the senate majority forever and this will hit us hard when that happens". Thankfully, the Republican proposals to eliminate the filibuster were scuttled and, indeed, the Republicans lost their majority the next time around.

As much as I want to see President Obama and the Democrats achieve all they have set out to do, I am concerned that filibuster reform will hurt Democrats in the future and enable the right wing all that much more when the tide turns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 06:57 PM

101. It's still obstructionism . . .

Regardless of which side of the aisle it comes from. And it degrades governmental operations, and weakens the whole institution of government. Dems need to take the high road here.

And in my opinion, taking the high road will provide a much bigger payoff — both now and in the future — than preserving the chance to play parliamentary games at some later, unspecified date.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:56 PM

117. Exactly. I was grateful for the filibuster in 2003

When the Republicans controlled the White House and both branches of Congress and Democrats were able to use the filibuster to stop some of the worst judges and policies from going through. I am wary of ending it because like you said, there will probably come a day when we will be in the minority again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:08 PM

127. The reform doesn't take away the filibuster

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:41 PM

98. One is prolly Joe Lieberman, who often caucuses with the Dems on some issues.

He'll be replaced with CT's own true blue Chris Murphy and you can bet your ass he'll vote for the change!

Can they wait until the new Congress is seated?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #98)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:10 AM

123. The only time they can do this is at the beginning of the term when they are

deciding the Rules of the Senate. They only get one shot at this. Once the Rules are voted on they cannot be changed again until the seating of the next Congress in two years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveG (Reply #123)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:54 PM

125. Oh, that's right. I remember reading that somewhere...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveG (Reply #123)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:21 AM

135. Not quite.

The rules can be changed mid-session, however it requires a 60 vote super-majority to do so. At the beginning of session, it only requires 50 votes + VP tie-breaker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #135)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:30 PM

145. True, but how likely is that?

Especially with the Radical Reactionary faction of the Republican party in control of the party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:12 PM

69. +1 million. Who the hell are these traitors? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:05 PM

92. From the article on who voted against or didn't vote at all:

I think this is worth a letter, fax, or email to your senator, even if they voted the right way before--remind them to do it again.

There is really no excuse for Democrats not doing this since they failed to wield the filibuster effectively during the Bush years, and since then the Republicans have rarely missed an opportunity to use it.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

The package failed in a 44-51 vote, with Democratic Sens. Jim Webb (Va.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Reid voting no. Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), John Kerry (Mass.) and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) did not vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:19 AM

2. Or do they.

This is more of the same insipid crap the political media call news.

Note: The Senate is NOT in session. Even if Udall had started counting (which means there was a reform on the table), he may have had problems getting answers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:20 AM

4. tend to agree.

but anybody who doesn't go along on this should forget what pork even smells like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:19 AM

3. Name names, please

so we can get on the phones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:20 AM

5. If they wait till January they will have 51+ votes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to INdemo (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:19 AM

37. AFAIK, they must wait for January.

Rule changes can only happen at the beginning of the session, every two years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #37)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:11 AM

53. Right. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to INdemo (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:15 PM

105. I agree, so let's wait

The lame ducks don't want to do anything but collect their paychecks, anyway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to INdemo (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:14 PM

129. I agree, my math says they probably have at least 49 right now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:26 AM

7. Without filibuster reform ...

... we, the people, are going to be denied again the results of democracy.

I have no doubt that the Senate Repuglicans will filibuster everything out of sheer spite if given the chance under the present rule.

Without a change, we will almost be right back where we started from -- before the 2012 election.

What kind of Democrat in the U.S. Senate would be against a rule change that permits a filibuster, but ultimately leads to a 'majority rules' vote?

So, I hope this is just media speculation -- but every single Democrat in the U.S. Senate had better vote for filibuster reform -- every single one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:29 AM

9. Some Democratic Senators may worry that they may someday be in the minority

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:32 AM

11. So. The filibuster is garbage, and no way to run a democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:37 AM

13. This is a constitutional republic, not a democracy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:40 AM

17. it's a democratic republic

 

don't start talking like rush limbaugh. You know perfectly well what the posters intent was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HankyDub (Reply #17)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:44 AM

18. I do not listen to talk radio, so I am not familiar with how Rush Limbaugh talks

If the poster's intent was to state that we have simple majority rule, the poster is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:47 AM

19. That certainly was not the intent, which you know quite well.

 

Everyone knows we don't have Athenian democracy in the United States. People commonly refer to the US as a democracy, however, because it is based on democratic principles. I didn't really need to explain that, did I?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HankyDub (Reply #19)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:58 AM

25. People are often incorrect

Just because something is repeated and repeated does not make it true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #25)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:27 AM

43. If only you remembered that when repeating Administration talking points the past 4 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #43)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:05 PM

84. We support President Obama here at DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #84)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:34 PM

97. What a ridiculous response.

I'm willing to bet a good 95% or more of us voted for Obama. I'm going to say there's a good chance that even more than that want him to succeed at his job.

But he hasn't always had liberals backs. The first cabinet was pretty much devoid of them. We were purposely kept away from the table during HCR reform. Then of course he signed the NDAA and continued Bush's Domestic Terrorism policies. During that time Emanuel and Gibbs spent more time attacking us than they did FOX.

During that time you ran around parroting every pro-Obama, anti-liberal comment you could to attack us as the "purists" who apparently would rather see Obama fail than succeed because we didn't get what we wanted. Instead of agreeing that the left should have an equal place in any policy negotiations, you sided with Obama's camp that treated us like the enemies.

A simple Google of your posts in 2009-2010 will show this. So you should heed your own words about repeating garbage over and over and that not making it come true, because you did the exact same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #97)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:30 AM

111. If Obama had tried to do everything that the far left wanted, he would have been a one-termer

Instead, he governed from the middle and was reelected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #111)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:37 PM

112. I completely disagree with that assessment.

If he had started far left on HCR negotiations and walked back from there, he gets the public option. The right spun his HCR as if it WERE socialist free government healthcare so people wouldn't have cared about the differences, it would have been spun the same.

If he doesn't sign the NDAA into law and use Warrantless Wiretapping, he gets more votes from people that went libertarian because of that nonsense.

Oh and there's the whole 2010 thing that wouldn't have happened because liberals wouldn't have stayed home. No 2010 wave = No Republican SOS's in charge suppressing the vote at every turn. So he'd probably have won MORE votes going left.

Your third way nonsense is why we will always get less in every negotiation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #112)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:10 PM

114. My 'third way nonsense' is the reason a Democrat has won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6

presidential elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #114)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:37 PM

115. Thank you for publicly outing yourself as a cheerleader for the Third Way.

Your opinions are noted and you are still 100% wrong. People want REAL choices, not triangulation. The other side labels everything you do with extremist labels anyway so if Obama had pushed for and gotten Single Payer Health Care the exact same insults would have labeled it as the ones that got put onto his Corporate Payout Scheme that actually passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #115)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:59 AM

119. If people don't like triangulation, why do they keep voting for candidates who do it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #119)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:56 AM

120. When the party only finances candidates that do it, you're left with no choice.

Triangulation bullshit or fuckheads like Romney and Ryan. It's not people's first choice to vote for third way candidates. It's just that the money in the Democratic Party dictates that liberals be pushed out and treated like pariahs and crazies during primaries. There are a ton of examples of the National and State Parties stepping into primaries and railroading candidates that they found undesirable to the Washington and Wall Street elite, out of races. It's not that people WANT triangulation it's that the money run against the other candidates combined with the right wing crazies on the other ticket make it impossible to support the candidates who don't saddle up with the robber barons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #120)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 08:08 AM

133. In 2008 most of President Obama's funds were from small donations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #133)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:40 PM

141. prior to that you proudly displayed a blue dog painting in your sig line

and you only took it down when the majority of DUers came to understand that blue dog Democrats are really stealth Republicans.

And yes, I do intend to keep pointing that out, and there's nothing you can do about it. You were a traitor to the Democrats then, and the tone of your posts now tells us all that you haven't changed a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #133)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:03 PM

142. Those who don't want Blue Dogs in Congress don't want a Democratic majority

I am still waiting to for far-left liberals to step up and run in republican-leaning districts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HankyDub (Reply #17)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:48 AM

20. Of course he does

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:54 AM

24. Oh, jeez.

In a southern drawl ... "'Demos' means 'mob' in Greek, you know!"

I'll never forget the John Bircher I met in Sheridan, Wyoming who always had an apoplectic fit and shouted the above anytime someone referred to the the U.S. as a 'democracy'.

Well, the 'People's Republic of China' is a 'constitutional republic' ... what makes the U.S. form of government different is that the 'democracy' characteristic is real and integral: the 'people' are sovereign.

Everyone knows what we are talking about when we say the U.S. is a democracy. The point is that just like in the election last week, majority rules.

And, why shouldn't that be the ultimate value in the U.S. Senate as well -- even if someday the Repuglicans get control?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #24)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:00 AM

26. If that were the ultimate value in the Senate, Wyoming and California wouldn't have the same number

of Senators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:01 AM

27. The only ones who keep saying it's a Republic are Republicans,...as if they OWN it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #27)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:14 AM

32. The fact that it is a republic makes it difficult for any one faction to 'own' it

The framers of the Constitution deliberately created a system which made it difficult for majority to do things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #32)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:29 AM

46. That's not how they see it. They say it's theirs and Dems need to get out of their way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:16 AM

33. That's a RW talking point, buddy.

usually invoked by wing-nuts angry that We The People can make the rich pay taxes. We are both a Constitutional Republic AND a Democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #33)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:24 AM

57. after all, one pledges allegience to both the flag

and the Republic for which said flag stands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #33)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:06 PM

86. Facts are facts, regardless of whoever is stating them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #86)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:16 PM

102. The US being a republic does not perclude the US from also being a democracy.

China is an example of a republic that is not a democracy, as is Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:22 AM

56. It is still no way to run a Constitutional republic, and the last four years exemplify this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:58 PM

81. Unfortunately. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:39 AM

15. I don't think you need to end it

 

just force them to get up and speak for 8 hours at a time. If your cause is worthy, there's no shame in that. If you're filibustering some minor judicial nominee or food stamps or something like that, then you will be exposed as a creep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HankyDub (Reply #15)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:50 AM

21. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:35 AM

61. Good thing we're not one

 

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:02 PM

75. Aren't they effectively putting themselves in minority

 

when they are against filibuster reform. Without reform they are saying 41 votes rules over 59 votes NOW, not at a some future date.
They are putting themselves in minority now, because they might be in minority later. Seize the moment now to accomplish things, that will assure reelection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:19 PM

136. If they have no backbone and not pass the rule change

then that will happen sooner than later...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:20 PM

64. The United States is a Democratic Republic!!!

It is not and never has been a 50% + 1 democracy. If it were, the rights of minorities could be trampled at any time by a simple majority vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonybgood (Reply #64)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:08 PM

77. That is the reason for the supreme court and the constitution.

 

To overturn bad law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to julian09 (Reply #77)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:49 AM

121. Wrong!!! The Supreme Court isn't there to protect against "bad laws"!

If that were the case, they'd have ruled the 18th Amendment "unconstitutional"!!! The Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of a law, not whether it's "good" or "bad".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonybgood (Reply #121)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:43 PM

137. Didn't I mention constitution along with supreme court, connect the dots.

 

We have had cases recently at lower courts undo some of the voter suppression laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonybgood (Reply #64)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:27 PM

80. The filibuster was used to keep slavery intact, so protection of the rights of minorities is

Somewhat a moving target

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #80)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:07 PM

126. and the fight against civil rights

the filibuster has done more harm to progressive goals than help. Even if this ends up hurting us a little when we end up with the short end of the stick, I believe that in the long run fillibuster reform will ultimately be a good thing in moving this country in a more progressive direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salviati (Reply #126)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:17 PM

132. I agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonybgood (Reply #64)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:11 PM

95. the rights of the minorities frequently are trampled

ie marriage equality

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #95)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:17 PM

106. lately in the Senate the rights of the majority are being trampled due to the filibuster rule

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:10 PM

94. if national Republicans keep this up, they will end up in the same position as California Repubs:

California required a two-thirds majority to raise taxes, which gave the GOP minority an effective veto...until this election when Dems won more than two-thirds of both chambers of the state legislature.

The Republican party is dying.

If Dems end the filibuster, it will be the equivalent of pulling the respirator and feeding tube out of a brain dead Jesse Helms and letting him find his way into the footnotes of history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:27 AM

8. Sounds exactly like the movie Lincoln.

The whole movie is about how Lincoln secured the last few stubborn votes to abolish slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:29 AM

10. Who do we need to yell at? We need names. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:27 AM

44. The Blue Dogs and Southern Dems

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #44)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:36 AM

50. they

really are traitors to our party. Blue dogs my ass, traitors usually because of the same sickness of rethugs, southern strategy racist pigs. Yes, some democratic senators ARE racist pigs also and hate the color of our POTUS. Anyone can scream and deny with concurrent whining all you want, I know it's true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #44)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:34 AM

60. Perhaps not

In 2005, it was McCain standing up to Frist and the conservative block over this issue. He was worried about future implications. The Dems similarly opposed could be on either side of the ideological divide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #44)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:17 PM

96. Utter shite - this is completely false

Two main reasons:

1) The Blue Dog caucus is a House group. There are no, and never have been, any Blue Dog Senators
2) Excluding the geographically but not socially South Hawaii, only one Senator voting no is from a (semi) southern state - AR.

Even if you ridiculously extend the Blue Dog label to Bayh's "gang of 16" centrist Dem Senators from the last Congress, only ONE of those voting no was on that list - the very northern Herb Kohl.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:24 AM

110. Umm the Corporate owned Dems in the Senate are WORSE than the Blue Dogs

in the House then.

The reason we don't have a Public Option, higher taxes on the wealthy and never ending war is Corporate Dems in the Senate hiding behind Republican filibusters.

Don't act like they aren't the real fucking problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:26 PM

65. Please see #59, above.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #65)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:46 PM

68. Yep, that's about what I thought.

They need to thrash this out now, and then bring it up again in the new Senate. I'm not surprised at those names at all. Meanwhile we need to light a fire under those "Nos" and the abstainers in particular, they are abstaining because they want to slide on the issue.

In the new Senate, i expect those ideas will get a better hearing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:34 AM

12. Real reporters have names....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:40 AM

16. Senator Tom Udall is quoted in the article stated that he does not have 51 votes yet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #16)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:13 AM

31. By names,

I mean the AWOL Dems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #31)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:27 PM

66. Please see #59, above.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #31)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:03 PM

82. If Senator Udall had wanted to name names he would have done so

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #82)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:49 PM

89. Since when do I exepct politicians to report the news

that would be a journalists job. Since someone actually did a little research here and came up with a list, how hard coulod it have been?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:39 AM

14. Make them actually filibuster!

Seems to me we could go a long way if we just made them actually filibuster. Right now they give up if they don't have the votes for cloture. Make them stand on the floor of the Senate and actually show the world via C-SPAN that they are wasting everybody's time for a bad cause. A couple of 48-hour marathon sessions by some of these old guys, they might be a little more reluctant to try it next time.

Edit: Sp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honest_Abe (Reply #14)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:51 AM

22. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honest_Abe (Reply #14)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:12 AM

30. There GOP will end the filibuster in a heartbeat

the minute they get the majority. That is a guarantee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honest_Abe (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:06 AM

109. Bring on the cook books, Chicken Soup For The Soul...

I fully support returning to the traditional filibuster rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honest_Abe (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:57 PM

118. I agree

I don't want to end the filibuster completely but I support bringing back the actual filibuster, in order to save it for the most extreme cases. That's what it was designed for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honest_Abe (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:27 PM

131. Seriously. That's the entirety of the solution, right there.

Now and then it really is that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:12 AM

29. I just called Udall

202-224-6621 and asked him to please come to us-name names and allow us this seat at the table to persuade Our lawmakers to join Merkley/Udall/Reid etc to Support this effort.
We did, after-all, demand reform. Lets do this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #29)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:35 AM

62. senate.gov

I like your style and leadership, fredamae.

It's easy to call or email our senators:
www.senate.gov

Everything matters.

Dwell in possibility.

Yes we can...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malexand (Reply #62)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:54 AM

63. Thank you for this link

and yes-not only does "Yes, we can" take on a whole new meaning-but I am already in "yes, we Did" mode.

We Are getting involved in numbers I can't recall happening in the past 40 years, all over the country--so, "Yes, we Are" also fits and I'm hopeful and excited--and Determined

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:17 AM

34. TO EVERYONE WHO WANTS NAMES...

Read the link, people! It's all there!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:17 AM

35. Any Dems who won't vote to reform this should have their precious committee assignments stripped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:18 AM

36. Maybe Udall put this message out to energize the rank and file Democrats to show

 

support to ending the filibuster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:19 AM

38. The fillibuster must die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:20 AM

39. Harry Reed took forever to admit it was a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:21 AM

40. Perhaps we need a constitutional amendment:

If three-fifths of the House of Representatives conclude that the Senate is unable to function effectively or to carry out its constitutional duties, all members of the Senate shall immediately be subject to recall. Such elections shall be held no sooner than 90 days and no later than 120 days from the date of recall."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:22 AM

41. Then CHANGE THE RULES OF THE SENATE!

Then CHANGE THE RULES OF THE SENATE!

Nothing is possible if that is not done. Change the rules to invoke cloture at 51-votes.

You have to propose to change the rules on the opening session of the Senate or you're stuck with the existing rules for the term. We tried to do it last term but Reid effectively stopped it. Make noise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:28 AM

45. well

after first of the new year, if no majority vote on this issue in our favor, no filibuster after majority votes it closed, then same old bullshit. 20 states have petitions going for succession from the 'union of states'. People are losing their collective minds. Civil War II anyone? This is a stupid, stupid nation of knuckle dragging cretins. Hey dumbasses, you are not in Fort Sumpter or at Gettysburg anymore! I am more and more thinking ex-pat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:35 AM

49. the independant that won

ran on filibuster reform - where's his vote? We have over 50 in the Senate..why isn't everybody on board with this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EC (Reply #49)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:39 PM

67. He's not a senator yet.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #67)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:59 PM

74. Oh

I thought they were going to take the vote at the beginning of the new session?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EC (Reply #74)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:40 PM

100. Right, but I don't think it starts until 2013 n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:59 AM

51. Virginia Dems: phone numbers

Jim Webb. 202 224 4024. One of the holdouts. Will be replaced by Tim Kaine who is for reform.
Mark Warner 202 224 2023. In the past was for reform-needs pushing, as he is up for reelection in 2014

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:10 AM

52. "A Reid aide emphasized that Reid did not commit himself to the constitutional option" n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:15 PM

71. They should rename it the Ballbuster. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:50 PM

73. Some of this may have to do with WHAT exactly is being proposed...

Let's be clear that NOBODY is proposing to get ride of the filibuster at this point; what is up for discussion are changes is rules of how filibusters work and what the threshold rules are. Sen. McCaskill has told me that she's not as supportive for broad changes, but does support tougher rules that require the Republicans to publicly fight for every filibuster they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:06 PM

76. I know that I may be wrong here, but are you really sure you want to change the rules?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:12 PM

78. There has to be a way for Obama to fill up the Courts without having to deal with Republican

Senators. That had to be fixed. It is one of the truly important parts of his second term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:27 PM

79. Some Democrat better get off his dead ass and fall in line!

Tell us who it is so we can take have the President take him to the woodshed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:06 PM

85. How are things going in AZ, re: Carmona???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #85)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:02 PM

91. Down 78,000 votes with a little less than half a million ballots still waiting to be counted

He is reconsidering his concession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:02 PM

90. son of a ....

... I I KNEW IT. I just knew it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:29 PM

99. Why in the fuck did Feinstein (CA), Kerry (MA) & Inouye (HI) not vote? - This has to pass NOW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaPera (Reply #99)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:51 PM

104. Because they are COWARDS

...particularly Feinstein. She's probably too busy worrying about how the Petrieus thing will negatively affect her husband's defense contracting business and their familial bottom-line.

J

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:47 PM

103. Oh, come on

This should be a no-brainer.

This filibuster rule as it is now is a MAJOR impediment to passing bills that have general approval of the elected Senate.

Oh, and end this "anonymous hold" bullshit as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:32 PM

108. It's not like the vote to end the filibuster on the first day of each session will end it forever..

just for the 113th congressional session. It can be brought up for re-vote each and every new session, whether Dems are a minority or not. There's got to be some major arm-twisting done before January.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:45 PM

113. Dear God...are there STILL Senate Dems who base their political appeal

on the promise of stopping their own party from getting its way? Why would anybody even run as a Dem if they hate most of what the party stands for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:53 PM

116. Maine's new Senator Angus King caucused with the Dems and hates the Filibuster

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:47 AM

122. Not a Good Piece of "Reporting"

. . . and anyone who understands The Hill knows what I mean, and also realizes that the publication isn't going to cheerlead any change in Congressional rules.

The article states that (essentially) 44 Senators voted for changes last time, then says that Webb and Kohl voted no. Well, they're gone, and Kaine and Baldwin support reform. Reid voted no for procedural reasons or because he wasn't fully on board. So now we're at 47. King replaces Snowe: that's 48. With things that close, and with this getting a LOT more publicity this time, Jack Reed may well change his mind, Kerry will probably vote for it, and DiFi won't be able to hide from the vote nearly as easily.
The entire premise of the article is suspect. The Senate is, suddenly, much younger and more liberal. I'm betting that something will indeed pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:02 PM

124. From that article I put us at 49

with one very easy way to get to 50. First we are at 49 because we had 44, Reid switching gives us 45, Kohl and Webb were replaced by Baldwin and Kaine that's 47, Brown and Snowe were replaced by Warren and King that is 49. Now the easy 50. Appoint Kerry to SOD or SOS in December and have him replaced by an appointed Senator who favors reform. You now have 50.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:18 PM

130. Response from Sherrod Brown's office

I wrote Brown's office expressing my support for filibuster reform. I got a response back that was written by some staffer. Seemed genuine since it specifically referenced some things I said in my letter.

My read was that Brown is NOT an obvious supporter for filibuster reform. Talked about the tradition being necessary to ensure "well examined deliberation".

If they're short of 51, it might not simply be the usual suspects that live on the conservative end of the blue team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 08:18 AM

134. Funny how we're always short of the votes when we most need them.

Public option? Nope, sorry, just a little short. But a war with Iraq? Yep, we got plenty of votes for that. Revolting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daniel537 (Reply #134)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:14 AM

144. Isn't it curious.



The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:33 PM

140. What's the point of this if the GOP has the House?

Sure you get things through the Senate easier, but the House can easily kill it.

Plus the Constitution mandates all spending bills must start in the House.

I just think this is a stupid fight and probably nothing more than posturing. I think it is extremely risky. What if the GOP were to win the Senate and Presidency in 2016? We won't be able to stop anything. That's why you have a few Democrats hesitating to go forward with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread