Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Filibuster" from Wikipedia

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:03 PM
Original message
"Filibuster" from Wikipedia
I have been thinking about why the Dems are so afraid of a filibuster.
What's the obsession with 60 votes when even with 60 Dems we can't get 60 votes.
So let the 'Pubs filibuster. It would make some cool C-span. I seem to remember some great old filibusters when the poor legislators had to spend the night and have food sent in, Big deal.

"A filibuster, or "speaking or talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby one attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal by extending a debate on that proposal.

The term filibuster was first used in 1851. It was derived from the Spanish filibustero meaning pirate or freebooter. This term had evolved from the French word flibustier, which itself evolved from the Dutch vrijbuiter (freebooter). This term was applied at the time to American adventurers, mostly from Southern states, who sought to overthrow the governments of Central American states, and was transferred to the users of the filibuster, seen as a tactic for pirating or hijacking debate.<1>"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. You'll have people on here explaining to you...
..that it doesn't work that way. They won't explain why and how it doesn't work that way, they'll just condescend to you and dismiss you as not being serious or insult you for not properly understanding how politics work with the same amazing sense of keen insight that they bring to the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. You know, you can explain to people how things work, but they won't read it.
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 07:20 PM by elocs
I posted what I thought was a good explanation of reconciliation and specifically how it would relate to the healthcare reform bill and it got 4 responses (but 5 Recs). So you can provide good info and explanations, but DUers evidently want complicated matters explained in 25 words or less or to use pictures or graphs.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. The Myth of the Filibuster: Dems Can't Make Republicans Talk All Night:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-th...

Hoping for a C-SPAN spectacle of GOP obstruction, some impatient Democrats are urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to call Republicans on their filibuster bluff.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) made a plea typical of the genre, recently telling Politico that Reid should force Republicans into a filibustering talk-a-thon, "so that the American people can see who's undermining action."

By threatening a filibuster, the shrunken bloc of 41 GOP senators has just enough members to prevent a vote, requiring Democrats to make concessions to pick off a few moderate Republicans.

Reid has heard the calls. But his answer will surely disappoint: Sorry. It can't happen.

Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time."

Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."


More at the link.

The filibuster might just come in handy for Dems the next time the Republicans control the Senate. Then we might think the need for 60 votes is not such a bad idea. Reid may not be the greatest Senate leader, but he is not stupid concerning the filibuster and he certainly has been thoroughly advised about it no matter what DU may think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GrantDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Didn't really matter...
Repubs pushed their BS through when they had 55 seats and even 51 seats. With the help of the same "moderate" Dems that cause the problems now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. That is exactly true. Republicans are very concentrated to the right
and have better discipline than Democrats. Will Rogers knew what he was talking about when he said: "I belong to no organized party. I'm a Democrat". It's as true now, if not more, than it was then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhpgetsit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Rs only had to whisper the phrase "nuclear option"
and Ds would melt away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC