Skip to main content

View Diary: The bit of reality behind the Myth of 60 (202 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Couldn't the Dems (5+ / 0-)

    put a clause in the organizing resolution making the Homeland Security chairmanship be subject to change at the discretion of the Majority Leader?

    •  they could put in a clause giving the (7+ / 0-)

      chairmanship to a cute fuzzy alien from the planet melmac who eats cats.... doesn't mean anything if it gets filibustered though.

      I think that's the problem that the article/diary is talking about.

      A PBS mind in a Fox News World | -1.75/-4.00

      by Crookshanks on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 09:35:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I mean, when the resolution is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        first passed, when the new Congress convenes. That would give Joe the chairmanship initially, but keep him in line. Would the Republicans filibuster the resolution, just to make sure Joe is guaranteed his chairmanship for the duration?

        •  probably not but they might use it to demand a (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          concession on another point, as in "You give us [something] and we won't interfere with your internal party disputes"

          I wouldn't put it past them.

          A PBS mind in a Fox News World | -1.75/-4.00

          by Crookshanks on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 09:41:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  senate courtesy. (0+ / 0-)

            i doubt any senator would ever interfere in internal
            party disputes.

            otherwise the Dems would all have voted for a factional Republican
            majority leader, someone who could get some GOP votes and
            all the DEM votes.

            There are a bunch of traditions that still bind the senate.

            George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

            by nathguy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 09:49:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Reid DOES have the ability to force TRUE (6+ / 0-)

              filibusters, like the Senate used to have, rather than the virtual kind that we have now. Somehow, I doubt that the Founding Fathers ever envisioned requiring a super-majority of 60 to be able to vote on anything in the Senate, yet that's where we are now. What ever happened to majority rule?

              Filibusters were intended as an extraordinary measure, to prevent tyranical rule by the majority. They have become SOP for everything.

              So, in my opinion it's well past time to start putting pressure on Harry Reid to enforce the need for the Repubs to actually stand up in front of the Senate and start talking, with the C-Span cameras running, requiring them to visibly and publicly justify their obstructionism, EVERY TIME. That wouldn't go on for very long. Then, we would no longer need a super majority for Senators to be able to go to the bathroom, or actually pass the laws that we need.

              "But there is so much more to do." - Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008

              by flitedocnm on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 10:26:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Republicans showing courtesy?? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Anthony Segredo, bear83

              Next time don't use the 'special' sugar cubes in your coffee :-)

              The W ... it stands for Wrong.

              by nosleep4u on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 11:03:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  that's what I was thinking, but I (0+ / 0-)

      was thinking in more general terms. That the clause should state that the Majority and Minority leaders can change their respective leaders in any committee, at anytime at their discretion.

      May the Schwartz be with you!

      by FLS on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 11:01:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site