Remember the Democrats Who Were Scared To Death To Filibuster When We Were The Minority?

Well, now that we're the Majority the same one's are now scared to death the Republican minority will Filibuster. Maybe someone can explain that one to me. When they ran the show we couldn't do anything because they wouldn't let us filibuster, now that we run the show they insure we can do nothing by threatening to use that very same filibuster.

And Congress wonders why its approval rating is at 20%.

The way the media treats the two differently. Straight up or down vote was the call when repubes were in charge, and now with all the filibustering and vetoes, hardly a peep.

that the Dem's really need to explain to the rank and file, those of us who they want to continue supporting their re-elections.

I'm so fucking sick of these cowards in congress. :banghead:

do i really need the tag?

I remember them not having the votes to filibuster on most issues, and I remember that it was useless for them to filibuster on presidential nominees because the Republicans would simply over-ride the filibuster with the "nuclear option."

As to why we would be worried about a Republican filibuster, that's simple. They have the numbers to sustain a filibuster. They have a larger minority than we do, and Republicans have always stuck together better than the Democrats because they have a narrower bandwidth of viewpoints represented in their party, and more importantly, amongst their voters.

Congress's approval rating is so low because both parties hate it. The Republicans hate it because it is controlled by the Democrats and it took away their blank checks and free passes. The Democratic voters hate it because it hasn't ended the war or walked on water or done anything else it doesn't have the power to do yet.

they just couldn't muster enough support among Democrats to do so. There were 44 Democratic Senators when the MCA passed. They had the votes to sustain a filibuster, just not the will to do so.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Unless you are just going off raw numbers that there were enough Democrats numerically to maintain a veto, but not all of them would vote the way we wanted. In that case, welcome to politics. Some Democrats barely get elected in states that would otherwise go Republican by doing what their conservative voters want. The option is to dump them and give Congress back to the Republicans--otherwise, we're just never going to get all Democrats to vote how we want on all subjects.

Which means exactly what I said before. The Democrats didn't always have the votes to maintain a filibuster.

You may want our Congresscritters to be more loyal to party than to their voters, but they aren't going to be. You now all those "Call your fucking congressman right fucking now?" threads that get everyone so excited around here? The other side does it, too. And when the other side outnumbers our side, the congresscritter representing those folk are going to vote their way. Democracy is not pretty. Sometimes--often--it means the idiots win.

because they knew the dems had the votes to filibuster.

OP wants to have explained why this was the case, but the filibuster option was so widely discussed.

Simple: "Up and down vote" imply that there's no possibility of amending the motion. That happens in very few cases--primarily when there's a nominee up for a vote. The nuclear option only applied to nominees, "advise and consent" sort of things.

The repubs have yet to filibuster a nominee, so that's not been discussed. They might if they dislike *'s AG nominee.

Why didn't dems do that, say on the Un-Patriot Act?

they're a coalition of splinter groups who are never going to act as one.
Never.

option" because Bush would veto it if it came from them. The executive wields a lot of power over the Congress. It is a reality.

have eliminated the filibuster, which isn't in the constitution?


anybody?

the Salon link but I'm guessing the gist is that it is merely a Senate rule and not a law that would require the president's signature. I think I just forgot this.

It's a procedural technicality involving several necessary steps. I don't remember each step, but basically the call to end debate is raised, and rather than vote on that issue, a procedural technicality is raised and voted on, leading to a conflicting decision by the chair, which leads to the Parliamentarian declaring the rule requiring 60 votes unconstitutional, or something along those lines. The president isn't involved, only the Majority leader of the Senate. So either party can do it with a simple majority. The problem is that many senators won't go along with it, because it would destroy a long-held power, and there is a sense of history in the Senate that most senators don't want to tamper with.

Any section of the Senate rules could be amended this way, I guess, but since most rules only require a simple majority, there isn't any point in it. The sections on filibusters are broken into several types, so that the filibuster on confirmations could be nuked, while leaving the filibuster for regular legislation.

This is why I'm not sold on the argument that Lieberman switching caucuses wouldn't give control of the Senate to the Republicans. When you have the majority, there are any number of clever parliamentarian tricks one can play.

Just FYI, the best I can recall without getting sucked into more research. :)

hear that shit over and over every day and night 24/7. Heh. Fun.

with impunity because they have the backing of the president.

Because of Red State Democrats. Sorry, but not every Dem follows the Progressive agenda, and they have their own constituencies to deal with. Since there are way more rural states than urban states, it is incredibly difficult for the left to ever successful pull off a filibuster in the Senate.

Because too many Democrats are middle-of-the-road types who lack vision beyond simply the next election cycle.