Skip to main content

View Diary: Musings on SCHIP (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But as long as there are 41 Republicans (0+ / 0-)

    in the Senate, they will play the same game, even with a Democratic president and a stronger majority in the House.  Would the Democrats at that point have the guts to play the "nuclear option?"

    "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars." William Jennings Bryan

    by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 02:40:00 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  How do you have (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dianem

      any inkling about what might happen under such enormously changed conditions?

    •  So lets make it 39 n/t (0+ / 0-)

      You vote independent... I'll stick with the party that brought us social security, civil rights, and environmental protection.

      by dianem on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 03:41:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  how come (0+ / 0-)

      they need only 41, and we need 60 to do anything . . . . .

      Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

      by Lenny Flank on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 03:59:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Senate rules. (0+ / 0-)

        Minority is not disenfranchised the way it is in the House. One member can tie up the whole process. 41 members can shut it down.

        The great tragedy of Science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. T. H. Huxley

        by realalaskan on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 04:39:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  so how come (0+ / 0-)

          it wasn't shut down or tied up during seven years of Bush Administration?

          Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

          by Lenny Flank on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 04:49:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            realalaskan

            ...we had 5 or 10 Democratic Senators from red states who weren't willing to go along with filibusters.

            Plus, during the two or three years after 9/11, Democrats wanted to show they were tough on terrorists-they were scared, as was much of the country.  That's when all the real bad stuff passed (Patriot Act (98-1 vote), Iraq war vote, etc.).

            •  ding ding ding (0+ / 0-)

              Plus, during the two or three years after 9/11, Democrats wanted to show they were tough on terrorists-they were scared, as was much of the country.  That's when all the real bad stuff passed (Patriot Act (98-1 vote), Iraq war vote, etc.).

              Before that, there was, of course, the Omnibus Terrorism Act of 1995, which contained many of the provisions later strengthened in the PATRIOT act.  Among other things, it proposed to (1) overturn the Posse Comitatus Act and involve the military directly in domestic anti-terrorism law enforcement, (2) establish special courts that would use secret evidence to try, and then deport, suspected aliens who were not accused of any crime, without appeal (3) allow "permanent detention" of any alien who, once subject to deportation, is unable to find another nation that will take him, and (4) allow deportation for "terrorism" even in cases where people give aid to nonviolent groups which do not give any material support to terrorists but which "support terrorist goals" (such as giving food or medical supplies to humanitarian groups in areas controlled by the PLO or Hezbollah).

              Sound at all familiar?

              All that chipping away of Constitutional rights in the name of "fighting terrorism", didn't begin with the Bush Administration . . . .

              Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

              by Lenny Flank on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 05:47:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Wow... (0+ / 0-)

              ...too late to rec this comment (I've been away), but I wanted to say that this is a very nice summary of situation.

              You vote independent... I'll stick with the party that brought us social security, civil rights, and environmental protection.

              by dianem on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:01:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  There will always be a few... (0+ / 0-)

      ...semi-moderates in the Senate.  By the nature of the body, there will always be more moderates there (of both parties) than in the House.

      Remember, the Senate had a veto-proof majority for the SCHIP extensions.  With a Democratic president, you only need 60 votes to block a filibuster-and we had 67 (or more?).

      Plus, there is a decent chance we actually get to 60 votes in 2008-the map is very favorable towards us this time.  And getting to 57 or 58 or so is very likely indeed, and that would be close enough in most situations.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site