Skip to main content

View Diary: Millennials: Will they, or won't they? (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Consider adding the Dems who (0+ / 0-)

    voted the Senate rules in to your list of who betrayed you?

    •  Nope (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, Auriandra, flhiii88

      I don't want the rules changed so 50 or 55 votes can end a filibuster. Because at some point if Democrats are in the minority again, we will get royally fucked and have no one to blame but ourselves. There is a reason Republicans didn't change it when they had the chance. They knew they would soon be out of power.

      I refuse to blame Democrats for the lock-step Republican obstruction in the Senate! I know who to blame, dammit! I wish you and yours did.

      •  Perhaps you should read up on this a little? (0+ / 0-)

        David Waldman, Dailykos Front Pager/ guru on congressional rules:

        Fear filibuster reform could come back to bite you? Bite first!   by David Waldman

        Psst. Hey, we are both Dems, and that's the way you and I are going to vote.

        Please don't be so lockstep yourself:

        I refuse to blame Democrats for the lock-step Republican obstruction in the Senate! I know who to blame, dammit! I wish you and yours did.

        In reality, the choices made on the Senate rules gave those Republicans the power they have to obstruct.

        If you cannot see that, I can't help you.

        •  Actually I am aware (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          flhiii88

          of all those arguments. I disagree with them. Republicans will not get rid of the filibuster if they get a Senate majority. They are all aware of what it is like to be in the minority party and they don't want to give up that power to control the debate.

          All the liberal bomb-throwers who want to end the filibuster (seems like most on this site unfortunately) are the same ones who would cry the loudest when Republicans take advantage of it to pass all kinds of regressive legislation. Oops, didn't see that coming. Well, I can see it coming.

          •  The liberal bomb-throwers... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            divineorder

            include a substantial portion of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

            I'm just guessing, but I think if you were in a room with them, you wouldn't call them that.

            Do be aware, though, that not everyone who advocates for filibuster reform advocates "to end the filibuster."

            Believe it or not, there are more people who see things coming than just FreeStateDem.

            •  FDR and LBJ (0+ / 0-)

              both had more than 60 Democrats in the Senate. It can be done. In my opinion, the desire to reduce the number needed for cloture is short-sighted. It used to be that 67 were needed!

              People are frustrated with the inability of the current Senate to pass what people consider to be more progressive legislation. All we need is 1 or 2 more Democratic Senators (How about Maine?) and this would not be an issue. No one would be talking about this at all if WE were in the minority. We would be trying to stop the Republicans from doing it.

              •  And things are absolutely no different? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                divineorder, FreeStateDem

                There's been no evolution in the nature of Senate politics at all since FDR?

                Really?

                That's some statement.

                There were a total of four cloture motions filed during the entire Roosevelt administration, and about 14 during the entire Johnson administration.

                There have been 123 in the first two years of the Obama administration.

                The nature of the filibuster has changed dramatically since those days. For one thing, it no longer actually requires your continued physical presence on the floor. For another, it's no longer limited to use for preventing the progress of bills and nominations that Senators actually oppose. Instead, it's used as a matter of course, to delay the passage even of bills that are supported overwhelmingly -- the idea being that by consuming more floor time in passing cloture motions by votes of 99-0, there's less floor time available for the passage of anything else.

                Yes, it used to be that there were 67 needed to invoke cloture.

                And. They. Changed. It.

                And no one would be talking about this at all if we were in the minority? Who was in the minority in 1995 when Tom Harkin and Joe Lieberman cosponsored the proposed rules change to gradually reduce the number of votes needed to invoke cloture?

                You're not even looking at the basic history of cloture and how the rule has been changed over time. You're going to have to do that if you want to try to invoke it in defense of your position.

                •  I looked into (0+ / 0-)

                  Tom Harkin's 1995 proposal. I trust and respect Tom Harkin. His plan to gradually reduce the number of votes needed for cloture after a bill is introduced makes more sense than what I have heard from anyone else. His plan was to require 57 votes after two weeks had passed, 54 votes after a few more weeks, etc. That is a logical proposal that could preserve the minority party's ability to control debate, while at the same time not completely ending the prospect that a particular piece of legislation could pass given enough time. It is a reasonable proposal.

                  So, thank you for informing me about Harkin's plan. If more people were interested in talking about more nuanced approaches such as this then perhaps I would not have taken the approach that I did. All I hear from 99% of the people on this site about the filibuster is that they want to "end it".

                  •  Great! (0+ / 0-)

                    Now there's something you can get behind, so that's good news.

                    There are a couple of good proposals floating around, but the first step is to make sure Senators take advantage of the opportunity to make a change, and that they be convinced of the propriety of doing so.

      •  Once they do away w gerrymandering and primary (0+ / 0-)

        abuses, then they can change the filibuster. Til then, like Obiwon Kenobi, it's our only hope...

        "All politics is national."

        by Auriandra on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 11:17:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site