Why this country needs a "filibuster-proof" Democratic Senate?

[kentuck]

Because there is a lot of work to do and the Republicans have only proven themselves to be good at filibustering and blocking anything proposed by the Democrats in the last 2 years. Barack Obama cannot sign any laws that do not make it to his desk. All the Republicans need to stop anything from coming to his desk for his signature is 41 votes. If we do not get a 60-seat majority, then we are stuck with the same old partisan gridlock. We need to find these Senators that can be defeated and work to get them out of office, no matter if it is some Republicans, such as Olympia Snowe, that we might respect. The stakes are too high this time. We need a 60-seat Senate for the Democrats.

[dhpgetsit]

1. It is unlikely that we will have 60 seats.

Dems will have to learn how to twist arms and make deals. They have to create bills with components that will be politically risky to oppose. And they will need to use political theater the way the Cons did when they controlled both houses.

I think 57 seats will belong to Democrats. That does not count Sanders and Lieberman.

But even for it to go that well, we have to send that strong message on November 4th and cast our votes!

[TahitiNut]

12. It'd take more than 60, anyway.

Herding cats. "Individualism." With Ben Nelson and the others, it'd take about 65 to be reasonably "filibuster-proof."

[dhpgetsit]

13. Oh, hell yes!

And not impossible!

[bemildred]

2. This is why a strong turnout and big win are needed.

It must be clear that obstructive politics will get you un-elected.

[NNN0LHI]

3. Remember the "nuclear option" the Rethugs were threatening to use on us?

We are going to use it on them.

Don

[Cid_B]

4. Whoever is in power...

... I don't think it is wise to have anyone who is beyond reproach or intervention.

[Silent3]

5. I know it's not likely but...

...I sometimes wonder if a few moderate Republicans in the Senate might jump ship and declare themselves Democrats, or at least declare themselves Independents who caucus with Democrats, like Jim Jeffords did in 2001.

I'd certainly not want us to be in the position of depending on Lieberman as our 60th vote, but if it does come to that, as much as I now dislike Lieberman, he might still function more or less as a useful Democrat on issues other than Iraq and national security.

[TankLV]

6. Umm - we don't NEED a "fillibuster proof" majority...

with a Democratic President, even NARROWLY PASSED legislation will likely be signed from a Democratic House and Senate...

The only reason we needed a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate and House was everytime the Dems would pass something, bunkerboy would be SURE to "veto" it...

It will be a different ballgame, even without a "fillibuster proof" Congress...

[W_HAMILTON]

7. As the original poster said...

...Obama can't sign into law what doesn't reach his desk. If Senate Republicans decide to filibuster every piece of legislation the Democrats bring up, it will probably be one of the worst things that could possibly happen. Not only will we not be able to pass the laws necessary to fix this country, but when election time rolls around again, the Republicans will just point and say, "hey, they did nothing!" And then we get voted out.

If we don't have at least 60 votes, all it takes is a couple of Republicans hell-bent on stopping every piece of Democratic legislation to ensure that almost nothing is accomplished by our Democratic House, Senate, and President.

[kentuck]

8. If we don't get the 60 votes needed...

then we will have to impress upon several Republican Senators that they will be up for re-election in 2 years and we will target them if necessary. The people want change. They want to give the Democrats a mandate to fix this mess created by the Republicans. If the Republicans filibuster everything, there will be a price to pay in two years. The Democrats must be ready to work in a bi-partisan way to fix this mess and if the voters are giving them a mandate to do so, it would be wise for all of them to work together. The Democrats may have to wait 2 more years to get the 60 votes necessary to make any changes to the status quo. The status quo is unacceptable.

[W_HAMILTON]

9. I hope so.

But I doubt it.

I actually posted a message regarding this issue before, hoping that others more "in the know" would be able to point out how we would still be able to pursue a Democratic agenda if we didn't get a filibuster-proof majority, and the Republicans decided to filibuster everything that Democrats brought up.

I didn't really get any positive responses. Soooo, I'm a little worried.

And I think you're being a bit too optimistic in believing that the country will continue to elect Democrats in the next election, if we don't accomplish some of the changes we have pledged. The Republicans can filibuster everything, leading to a "do-nothing Congress," then blame us for it, and get our Democrats voted out. It's pathetic, but that's what I see happening if we don't gain a filibuster-proof majority.

I hope you are right, and that the Democrats will play dirty for once and force their agenda regardless, like the Republicans do when they are in the majority. But I'll believe that when I see it. It just seems like Democrats, especially in the Senate, are all too quick to be run over by their Republican counterparts, regardless of whether they are in the majority or minority.

[kentuck]

10. I would like to thank John McCain for bringing this matter up...

And I wish that Barack Obama would bring it up as well. I think the voters would be more inclined to give the Democrats the authority to clean up this mess created by the Republicans moreso than they would worry about one-Party governance at this time. The only thing they have been successful at is obstructionism. I think this issue backfires on McCain and the Republican Party.

[cynatnite]

11. Judges...that's why we need it...

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/05/frist_filibuster.html