It's all up to Franken now!

[Apollo]

Question: Does "the magic number" of 60 really mean anything? I never thought that filibusters were common occurrences anymore. Is there any other benefit of having 60 seats? It seems like the Dems are already controlling most of the legislation as it is...

Originally Posted by Apollo

Question: Does "the magic number" of 60 really mean anything? I never thought that filibusters were common occurrences anymore. Is there any other benefit of having 60 seats? It seems like the Dems are already controlling most of the legislation as it is...

The Republicans set a record number cloture votes last session of Congress ...more than doubling any previous Congress.

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/18218.html

I think the final count last session was over 110.

And this was with a Republican in the White House with veto power.

At one time, not too long ago, filibusters were used primarily to block controversial judicial appointments and/or sweeping legislative initiatives that seriously divided the country. For the Republicans now in the minority, it has become routine to force a vote to cut-off debate.

It is not illegal or unethical....just hypocritical on the part of Republicans, particularly when it thwarts the will of a more than narrow will of the American people.

Yes it matters.

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Apollo

Question: Does "the magic number" of 60 really mean anything? I never thought that filibusters were common occurrences anymore. Is there any other benefit of having 60 seats? It seems like the Dems are already controlling most of the legislation as it is...

It's important in that, if the democrats want to pass a bill in the senate, they can do it no matter if every republican is against it. And the repubs can't filibuster (which happens a lot) to block the vote.

Of course, all this is assuming that the Dems all vote together too.

[Apollo]

I see, I see. Yeah I always knew that the magic number blocked filibusters, so obviously it would be significant. My real question was whether anybody uses filibusters anymore, which Redux pretty much answered for me.

I had no idea that there that many cloture votes!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Apollo

I see, I see. Yeah I always knew that the magic number blocked filibusters, so obviously it would be significant. My real question was whether anybody uses filibusters anymore, which Redux pretty much answered for me.

Taking the same problem from another level. Republican party has a serious internal problem. It has no leader. It has too many members entrenched in political agendas. Infighting has become so heated as to drive many (especially moderate Republicans) out and to alienate the troops. As a result, the party is not able to compromise with Democrats. That is the worst situations for anyone who is more interested in America. The deadlock and infighting makes it impossible for moderate Democrats, Republicans, and those of independent stature to solve any problems. Any Republican who even looks like he has compromised with a Democrat is beaten and destroyed by what is now a raging mob.

Two ways around this. First Republicans find someone with leadership abilities. Or Democrats get sufficient votes to quash any filibuster. The latter situation would force Republicans to settle their differences, find a leader, and start working for America. Which means cooperating with Democrats again.

A politican must eventually decide whether he works for America or for party extremists. This exclusive OR condition applies to both parties.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by wolf

Does anybody else find this statement scary?

At least he's now properly labelled.

wolf, what he meant by that statement is, the Republican Party has been backing hard right wing candidates in rebublican primaries against moderate incumbants. The moderate incumbant ends up losing to the hard right candidate, but then the republicans lose in the general election because the candidates are too extreme and people vote for the democrat. It makes no sense. They are giving up seats in order to "purify the party." They were backing another candidate against Specter in the upcoming primaries in 2010. Arlen Specter wasn't willing to just let his seat go. (Primaries never have the number of people voting as the general elections.) In the general election against an extreme candidate he will probably be able to hold on to his seat as a democrat.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Apollo

... Is there any other benefit of having 60 seats? ...

The Democrats get to leave early on Fridays, and get an extra serving of ice cream at lunch.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Arlen Specter wasn't willing to just let his seat go.

Because it is about his desire to hang on to power and not losing his job. And for no other reason.

[Undertoad]

The Club for "Growth" ran an unelectable candidate against him in the primary.

The party pushed him out and said good riddance and did a little dance afterwards.

It's exactly what the Ds did to Lieberman. Nobody ever learns.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Because it is about his desire to hang on to power and not losing his job. And for no other reason.

Maybe he learned that from Richard Shelby, the Senator from Alabama who switched from D to R in the 90s for fear of losing his reelection.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Maybe he learned that from Richard Shelby, the Senator from Alabama who switched from D to R in the 90s for fear of losing his reelection.

Maybe he just took a page from his own history instead:

After graduating from Yale Law School, Specter opened a law practice, Specter & Katz, with Marvin Katz, who is now a Federal District Court Judge in Philadelphia. Specter became an assistant district attorney under District Attorney James Crumlish, and was a Democrat.

In 1965, Specter ran for District Attorney, on the Republican ticket as a registered Democrat. He handily beat incumbent Jim Crumlish, and subsequently changed his registration to Republican.

It is all about him wanting to stay in the Senate and keep the power in his hands.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The Club for "Growth" ran an unelectable candidate against him in the primary.

The party pushed him out and said good riddance and did a little dance afterwards.

It's exactly what the Ds did to Lieberman. Nobody ever learns.

It would have been more interesting if he had just become an Independent. Then he could truely say no one owned him and he owed no one. But of course he would never be bank rolled in a re-elections like the Dems can do for him.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Maybe he just took a page from his own history instead:



It is all about him wanting to stay in the Senate and keep the power in his hands.

Okay.

And now you're down a senator. If Franken makes it, you can't even filibuster. Obama can appoint anyone he likes.

But you've established ideological purity. Congratulations.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Okay.

And now you're down a senator. If Franken makes it, you can't even filibuster. Obama can appoint anyone he likes.

But you've established ideological purity. Congratulations.

WTF are you talking about. I'm not down shit. The Republickins are down one the Demoncrats are up one.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

WTF are you talking about. I'm not down shit. The Republickins are down one the Demoncrats are up one.

Of course. Because you're "independent".

Even though you spend all your time defending Bush and his policies.