Skip to main content

View Diary: What stands in the way of "forcing" a filibuster? (251 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  People take away from any reading (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alliedoc

    what they're already inclined to see.  

    Here, those who believe it's pointless take away that it's pointless.  Those who believe it isn't, take away that it's still doable, but ugly, and it's a question of just how willing you are to do the dirty.

    As long as we're talking in the abstract, it's available.  Now if, on the other hand, you want to apply it specifically to Reid and his actions, dvogel's comment makes more sense.  Dave doesn't say it's pointless, but Reid has the power to make it so by caving at any time.  And Reid doesn't have a stellar record here.

    I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. - Oliver Cromwell

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 06:58:39 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Boy, truer words were seldom spoke. (0+ / 0-)

      But, then again, I'm inclined to agree ...

      "I want my America back!" -- But, which America is that?

      by alliedoc on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 07:04:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Imagine the simple fact that Reid already knows (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elmo

      all of this, knowing that invoking the filibuster would cost the Democrats, knowing that the Republicans would work as a group to vote against anything, and that there are a number of Democrats who are afraid of changing the Senate rules.  So all of his looking weak is realizing that he doesn't really have a lot of room to maneuver.

      I also imagine how, after the Democrats are in the minority after abolishing the filibuster, people here will complain about how the Democrats as a minority party are unable to stop anything the Republicans do when the Republicans could block their legislation over and over.  And then we'll all make the Democrats pay for being weak.

      Don't make God into an idiot just because you want to ignore evolution.

      by anonevent on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 07:44:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which is why I don't actually favor abolishing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elmo

        the filibuster, but changing the rules of the game so that the burden falls upon those using it.  Let it still exist, but make it so it's up to those using it to fight hard to keep it going.  It's supposed to be used for desperate measures, not trivial ones.

        I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. - Oliver Cromwell

        by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 08:10:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Democrats do not use it (0+ / 0-)

          they fold. Politics are not about being nice, they are about fighting for something other then winning. Messaging has taken the place of governing and results. We all are losing our rights our livelihoods, our money and our representational government. When I campaigned for Kerry I heard a lot of coke or Pepsi they are all the same. Obama was perceived as someone who had Audacity and offered a change. The filibuster should go, it is a procedural toll that allows minority rule and renders us a one party state and that is not democratic. It is stupid to allow a senate procedure to destroy our system it is not law or a principle it's a political bamboozle for not governing for the people.    

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site