Skip to main content

View Diary: Maddow: The single most important thing we can do to change Washington (Now w/ action item) (198 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  When did the Republican's take a majority... (6+ / 0-)

    ... in the Senate?  Did I sleep through an election??

    The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10

    by Rick Aucoin on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 11:51:47 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  :P For some reason I combined (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rick Aucoin

      them both in my mind.

      I misspoke.

    •  If we don't fix the Senate rules, the R's WILL (4+ / 0-)

      gain control of the Senate in 2012.

      The mass of low-information voters doesn't know and doesn't care about things like filibusters and arcane Senate rules. All they know is that nothing is getting done. And the Republicans will blame the Democrats and they will blame Obama -- for everything, most especially any disasters that they themselves brought about.

      Udall's proposal doesn't give either party an unfair advantage.

      More to the point: if we don't do this, our entire system of majority rule is destroyed. Nothing will ever, ever get done when the Democrats are in the majority; it is exceedingly unlikely that the Democrats will ever have an effective block of 60 votes in the Senate, especially not with CItizens United ensuring that there will always be Dem senators who are bought, and that non-bought Dems will always face hugely financed campaigns to bring them down.

      I for one would gladly trade restoring a functioning democracy for loss of some ability for Dems to block Republicans in the future.

      For those of you who are saying, "NOW we do this...", please read Udall's proposal.

      Why does this quote now ring so sad and so hollow?
      "But there is so much more to do." - Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008

      by flitedocnm on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 12:08:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  To get stuff done, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        liberte, evangeline135

        you need working majorities in both chambers.

        Democrats have a Senate majority, yes. But Republicans have a majority in the House AND a potential working Senate majority if they can peel off a handful of Dems. Their chances of doing so strike me as actually rather favorable given the conservative leanings of a number of "Democrats" in the Senate (Lieberman, Nelson, etc)

        So given that the Republican working majority is the one that is going to be able to pass legislation for the past couple years (and perhaps next four years), tell me again why it's a good idea to limit the power of liberal Democratic Senators to filibuster it?

        Is being able to communicate that someone is "getting stuff done" to low-information voters really worth the cost of passing radical conservative cuts to Social Security and other social programs? Because you know that's going to be the focus very soon...

      •  And in case anyone has forgotten, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        flitedocnm

        Dems failed to filibuster a number of really rotten bills, and one appallingly awful Supreme Court candidate when the R's were running the show.

        They said they "had to keep their powder dry."

        I guess they got a warehouse of that powder somewhere, and they're holding it until the price goes way up.

        "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

        by Reepicheep on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 05:51:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (67)
  • Elections (25)
  • Environment (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Culture (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Law (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Rescued (16)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Memorial Day (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site