Update 2: The comments in this diary are mostly a case study in why Democrats end up caving in these tough negotiations.
There is a misconception in the debate about health care specifically and the workings of the Senate generally that seems to be giving off the impression that 60 votes is required to pass anything in the Senate either without using reconciliation or the nuclear option. You need 60 votes to invoke cloture an end debate to get an "up or down vote," right?
That is not correct. If it were, we would not have one of the most significant pieces of legislation in our history: the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
More on the flip.
First, this diary has absolutely nothing to do with reconciliation. I have no practical experience with that procedure. I'm a lawyer, so I'm good at reading rules, and while it seems to me that Biden can just overrule the Senate parliamentarian, this is tantamount to the nuclear option (though not exactly the same: the nuclear option was Cheney ruling that the filibuster was unconstitutional on judicial appointments).
This is not a diary about telling Reid that he could get 60 votes if he was just as tough as LBJ. He's not. I guess I've resigned myself to the fact that there just isn't 60 votes for the public option, even with strong arm tactics. At least not a real public option. But I do think there are 50.
With "normal" legislation, if cloture hasn't been invoked, the debate can just go on. If you have 40 Republican whores, they can just pass the baton until the bill is dead. The theory is that at some point, the leadership just gives up and brings the next agenda item to the floor.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
In 1964, a group of Dixiecrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act for 75 hours:
A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else. Indeed, James Strom Thurmond's own attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak, and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.
In other words, you just let them blow their load. How long do you think these old white guys can blab?
But because Harry Reid has never once forced an actual filibuster, I can't imagine him doing it now, even though this is the President's #1 domestic agenda item.
But if what Harry Reid was willing to do bounded the limits of the possible, we would live in a shitty world. The truth is, they can filibuster, but if you don't refer any further business, they have to keep it up. For days. For weeks. Don't you think this gives some leverage in negotiations.
When the vote does come up, it just takes 50. No nuclear option. No reconciliation. No excuses.
Isn't health care important enough?
UPDATE: Obviously, you can't do this on every thing. You can only do this on the most important thing in a while.