Will they be able to overcome a filibuster on climate-change legislation? They’ll have to convince Arlen Specter (D-PA) to vote with the Democratic caucus. How about a filibuster on a national security bill? They’ll have to struggle for Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) vote. They’d better make sure their proposals aren’t too liberal, or they’ll lose Evan Bayh’s (D-IN) vote.
The point is, 60 Democrats (counting independents who caucus as Democrats) are still not going to be enough in many cases. The Democratic party is simply too fractious — and Harry Reid is too weak a leader to whip them into line. Of course, every vote counts, and Franken’s vote will help Democrats get more bills through Congress. But on the most important legislation — cap and trade, for instance — the Senate is still likely to be a black hole.
This I do not get. Your party should not block party members right to vote. You can still vote for cloture and then against the actual bill. Filibustering your own party is nuts.
Worst. Conventional. Wisdom. Ever.
Sorry Jeff, this is an excuse for not being able to get anything done. Legislation takes 50 votes to pass the Senate. It only takes 60 votes to cut off debate IF WE FORCE THE GOP AND ITS CORPORATE-FRIENDLY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES TO FILIBUSTER.
Now is the time to be putting pressure on leadership to actually lead and whip the Dem caucus to hold conscience votes for the actual vote instead of the cloture vote. Anything less is just an excuse for laziness.
Also remember that Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd have been absent in their health issues that they are both battling.
I hope the public puts enough pressure on to make it look foolish for dems to filibuster their own party. What will make it difficult to get the 60 votes needed for cloture is the health related absence of Senetors Kennedy and Byrd. I also think the 60 vote cloture rule should be changed. Its intent and history was not to use it to obstruct nearly all legislation.
At least the blue dog democrats will be willing to compromise, unlike the brain-dead right.
Jeff is absolutely right. Having the votes “on paper” is a lot different from having the votes. What a sham of a government we would have if all we needed was to have raw numbers of party people elected. If we didn’t require them to actually read what they wer voting on but rather let their party dictate their yeah or nay we the voting public wouldn’t actually have any representation at all (unless the people we voted for were all party chairs).
Joe is also right however. The Democrats wont be able to use the Republican bogeyman anymore when on paper they should be able to walk anything they want right up to the President and make it a law. Frankly the Dems have lacked a valid excuse for their failures (one being the economy) since 2006 when the only check on their power was a Republican president that thought the veto pen was only to be used if an embryo was in danger. Now, unless the court is forced to get involved, with a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate, a huge majority in the house and a President with more executive power than any in the history of the republic I’m really not seeing how the Democratic Party will be able to blame anyone but themselve for any failure to deliver on the promises they made. The left will of course be able to blame the slightly less left but that’s pretty inside baseball for the folks back home to even care about.
In short, the Democrats own it all now. If they break it they buy it and while they may be successfully labeling the Republican party “The Party of No”, no may seem like a pretty good word to have been saying by this time next year.
Lloyd,
You miss the point entirely. No one is saying you cannot vote your conscience. The point is, your party should not block the opportunity to vote. I like the fact that our party doesn’t have strict purity like the Republicans. You will often see Democrats vote against the party.
The point, Lloyd, is that a party should not filibuster their own party. You can vote for cloture, allowing a fair vote, and then vote against the actual bill. Either you are intentionally being obtuse, or not paying attention.
Alec
I guess I don’t follow you Alec. I wasn’t even commenting on your statements of whether a party should filibuster itself. Frankly, you really weren’t making enough sense for me to even respond to you. Are you saying that the right to filibuster should be reserved for opposing parties only? If that isn’t strict purity than what is?
I’m with both Alec and Lloyd on this one. I hate the idea of filibustering a bill, and that is coming from someone who sees themselves right of center. Having the GOP filibuster a bill is a sissy way of getting out of having to debate a bill, and potentially end up with egg on ones face by losing. You win some, you lose some, you should filibuster at all.
Lloyd is right, too. For a Democratic party that has become used to, in the past 8 years, playing the victim (at the federal govt level) and blaming problems on the other’s guys policy, they need to shift mindset. They 100% own what is happening today, and what has happened since January. If it works, they’ll be on top of the world. If it doesn’t, it either was crappy policy or executed poorly, both of which can be wholly pinned on them.