I never saw that 60-vote majority they say we lost

[bigtree]

. . . not with members like Nelson, Lieberman, and a few others with 'D's behind their names who made it a point to vote with republicans on key legislation and demanded progressive provisions be changed or eliminated before they agreed to give their vote.

It was always likely there would be some traditional softening of our majority by the midterms, especially because the president and our Democratic majority have taken on responsibility for so many problems left to simmer and burn by the last administration.

But, there was never a working, filibuster-proof majority which was on the verge of defeat just by virtue of this special election in Mass.. That's been the storyline throughout, but I really doubt Coakley's vote would significantly change the equation where republicans are allowed (and helped by some Democrats) to hold up legislation by threatening to withhold votes for cloture.

What our party needs to do is to work to remove the artificial obstacles to passing legislation with a simple majority and deliver what they promised the last election. There wasn't going to be a successful, progressive Democratic agenda in Congress with our legislators hiding behind the excuse that they needed to get the votes of phonies like Specter, Lieberman (and the republicans who's new-found support for Democratic principles are just a token response to progressive election challenges in their states).

The hell with attempting bipartisanship with this present bunch of obstructionists. There is nothing vital or even sustaining about republican proposals - which either give aid and comfort to industry and the wealthy or put their heels to the throats of those whose needs and concerns have been bumped out of the political equation which believes republicans will contribute more than the self-serving tripe we're accustomed to from them and help advance needed legislation.

Bottom-line . . . we have to do more to advance progressive initiatives than just give them lip-service in committees and drop them when it comes time to vote and republicans are needed to fill in the margin. If the purpose of pursuing the 60-vote majority was to provide a means to advance legislation beyond republican obstruction, our party shouldn't abandon that pragmatism just because one more obstructionist is joining the fray.

Our party's initiatives will NEVER find the support of enough republicans to make up for what we lack in filibuster-busting numbers. There is no credible expectation of 'bipartisanship' to carry the day, so any concern that our party will be penalized for ignoring republicans is a moot one. Our Democratic agenda is under siege right now by the opposition. There isn't any 'supermajority' requirement in the elections and there shouldn't be any supermajority requirement to pass legislation. Democrats in Congress need to work to abolish the anti-democratic filibuster rule and get on with fulfilling their promises to the folks who voted for them with simple majority votes.

[uponit7771]

1. amen!!! We didn't even start out with 60, Spectar came over from reThugLund

[arcadian]

2. If we had 61 they would have claimed we needed 70.

[uponit7771]

3. 72

[treestar]

8. You'd raise the stakes too

With 61 we might still not get the public option, because of the Blue Dogs. But say we did. Then you'd be calling them sellouts for not getting single payer.

[notesdev]

4. They found the majority when...

... voting to spend like no government has ever spent before, bail out the banks and pay off all sorts of other special interests.

But when it came time to do something the people of this country needed, it was "oh we don't have 60 votes sorry our hands our tied" BS.

Funny, the corporatists never have any trouble finding a majority.

[bigtree]

5. what will be interesting to see

. . . is whether they will now come up with a numbers scheme to pass the health bill, even though the talk was that Coakley's vote was needed to break the '60-vote' hurdle. The question will then be, why wasn't this employed from the start and couldn't we have avoided the poison compromises to pass it?

[femrap]

6. Given all of the Corporate

Campaign funds given to both parties, do we REALLY have a 2-party system any more?

I'm starting to see that this 'illusion' of having a 2-party system is merely to keep the hordes/masses distracted or better yet 'divided and conquered.'

In addition, I'm seeing that these little Minions in Congress and the Executive Branches are simply doing as they are told by TPTB.

Each and every one of us are on our own. No one in DC is going to help us. It is up to each of us to use our creative abilities, imagination, common sense and intelligence to solve our own problems. Local Cooperatives may be an answer.

[treestar]

7. It is not a fucking excuse!

Until the Senate abolishes the filibuster, it's a reality!

[bigtree]

9. how will our leadership manage to advance the health bill

. . . without Coakley as their '60th vote'. (I'd bet they'll find a way to pass it without 60)

[treestar]

10. there has to be a cloture vote

unless there is a repuke who will get behind it. If I remember right, Snowe wouldn't even after they made the changes she wanted!

[AlinPA]

12. It looks like the health care bill won't go any further now. That's what happens when

there is no leader in the congress.

[bigtree]

14. There's too much handwringing about the prospect of starting over

. . . but I think, at least, the White House is coming out of denial on this. There will likely be an effort to dismantle the bill and pass what they're able. Incremental reform. Not unexpected, I think. Remains to be seen what gets left in/left out.

[bigtree]

11. .

[ncteechur]

13. that is because Joe Lieberman's ego is the size of 10 seats