60.... 59.... 58.... 57.... 56.... 55....???

[Omaha Steve]

We ended up one short of the 60 needed on filibuster cloture. Between Franken and Burris will be at a total of 57. Until we get the other slots filled for those moving up, we are really way short of the magic 60 number. You would think we would treat Burris a little better with voting privileges.

Ill. governor's pick (Roland Burris) to be given few privileges (in Senate)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3669602

[Thrill]

1. For the most part they have the 60 they will need for

things like the Stimulus. With Collins and Snowe. And no way Voinovich, votes against or goes along with an attempted fillibuster

[ColbertWatcher]

6. But, will all Dem Senators vote as a bloc like the GOP does? n/t

[tritsofme]

2. Well the rule states 3/5 of membership breaks a filibuster

Which could mean 58 or 59 votes needed to invoke cloture in a 97 man Senate.

[tabbycat31]

13. didn't work for the auto bailout

of course if Harry Reid grew a pair things could get done.

[madrchsod]

3. obama got what he wanted in illinois with the help of a moderate republican

there`s going to be a few republicans that will get what they want for their state....

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. Read this article in 'The Nation"

The Nation: "Stop Senator No" by WILLIAM GREIDER

If the Democratic Party intends to get serious about governing, it can start by disabling the Republican filibuster that gives the minority party in the Senate a virtual veto over anything it wants to kill. The chatter in Washington assumes that since Democrats failed to gain a sixty-seat majority, there's nothing they can do. But that's not true. Democrats can change the rules and remove a malignant obstacle from the path of our new president. Given the emergency conditions facing the nation, why should Mitch McConnell and his right-wing colleagues get to decide what the Senate may vote on?



This proposition disturbs the happy talk about the "postpartisan" politics Barack Obama has inspired. But let's get real. McConnell is making nice for the moment, having survived his re-election scare in Kentucky. But he will use the filibuster to stymie the new Democratic administration whenever it looks to him like a political opportunity for Republicans. Thanks mainly to McConnell, the 110th Congress of 2007-08 set a new record--138 cloture motions to limit debate and head off filibusters. That is double the level of ten years ago. Who really believes McConnell will voluntarily give up his starring role as Senator No?

Last year, Democrats had a fifty-one-vote majority, but majority leader Harry Reid lamented their inability to overcome the minority. "The problem we have is that we don't have many moderate Republicans," Reid explained. In the new Congress there will be even fewer. Elections and retirements have left the surviving GOP caucus even more extreme in its ideology. The threat of a filibuster is its lever of power.

Democrats, on the other hand, have lost their last excuse for inaction. For years, they have blamed Bush's veto or the narrowly divided Senate for their weakness. Both are kaput. Now the Dems have the ability to step up and change the situation. But will they have the courage? Many of them like to hide behind Senate tradition, claiming it would be inappropriate to alter the rules. Nonsense. If Democrats allow the sixty-vote filibuster to survive, it is because they want to keep it as a convenient way to avoid taking responsibility.


Snip.......... he continues on how to do it......



http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/greider

[ColbertWatcher]

7. You should post this as its own thread! n/t

[RoyGBiv]

8. Avoiding Responsibility

If Democrats allow the sixty-vote filibuster to survive, it is because they want to keep it as a convenient way to avoid taking responsibility.

I have not been as critical of our Senate leadership over the past couple years because they truly did face a two-headed obstacle. Even if they had gone nuclear, figuratively speaking, in trying to smack down the Republican minority to get votes on various measures, and even then if those measures had passed, the ideological bent that was fueling Senate Republicans was in fact the Bush/Cheney ideology. Surely the effort would have been vetoed and the whole process a waste of time that made Democrats appearing even more weak than they were in reality.

But that's not my point ...

The point is that now, they no longer have this excuse at all, and if they do not do something to harness the tyranny of the minority in the Senate, with an eager-to-make-changes President backing them up, the leadership truly will have shown itself to be the wet noodle a lot of people have claimed it is. Nothing of import should stall in the first 100 days, and if a roadblock is set up, it should be bulldozed by whatever legal means necessary.

[Omaha Steve]

9. I fought ending cloture 4 years ago

Then the 14 stepped in to end the fight. Remember the R's wanted to kill it so any nomination, appointment, etc... could go through. Do I now become a hypocrite and say do away with cloture? Does the original 14 bargain still stand?

Stay tuned.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Destroying the filibuster would more or less destroy the Senate as we know it

Of course, it might be prudent to consider whether or not the Senate is a good thing or not.

[MiniMe]

5. Biden and Clinton won't resign their seats until they take new positions

I believe that Biden will resign just before the inauguraion, and Clinton won't resign until she is confirmed. So there will only be 2 Senate seats missing, Obama's and the Minnesota seat. I would imagine that the Minnesota seat will be resolved relatively soon, I hope. I believe Biden's seat has already been decided, so it will take place quickly. I imagine that Patterson will decide in advance too.

[Muttocracy]

10. yep, Biden's former chief of staff Ted Kaufman was appointed to take his place. nt

[jwirr]

11. I agree - this appointment if done by anyone else would be a good one,

We need a Democrat in that seat. There is not reason to assume that Burris is not a Democrat. As far as I know Burris is not paying to be appointed so he is not the problem. This issue is not worth fighting over. We have much more important things to deal with right now. Let this Blago thing run its course and let Illinois deal with him.