should the Senate repeal filibuster rule and end secret holds?

[yurbud]

Poll question: should the Senate repeal filibuster rule and end secret holds?

For those of us who think the Dems haven't gone far enough, it is frustrating to see them hide behind the skirts of Republican filibusters and secret holds, especially since Dems rarely used such tactics themselves.

What good is it if one side uses it constantly and the other side never uses it?

If Democrats refuse to do away with these antidemocratic rules, they will continue to look impotent at best and at worst like they are glad the GOP is giving them a way to escape enacting the fundamental changes the public wants.

Should the Senate vote to do away with the filibuster and secret hold at the beginning of the next session?

If you think so, sign this petition too:
http://www.credoaction.com/campaign/senate_fix/

[customerserviceguy]

1. No

In the next two to six years, we're going to need those filibuster rules.

[Demoiselle]

5. Wouldn't it be better to let dreadful things pass and hope that the

American people see clearly how stupid and destructive right wing notions are?
Might it not make sense to force the Repukes to prove their pudding, as it were?
(Just asking.)

And, of course, the opposite side of it is that we'd be able to test our own ideas in practice far more easily and quickly.
And I think we'd win the argument.
Just sitting still is death and decay, it seems to me. There's a reason they call it "deadlock."

[customerserviceguy]

12. You're about to see what the American people think

about right wing notions in just about five weeks.

Those rules have served, and will serve, to protect us from the excesses of the other side, just as they have used them to deal with things that we have proposed that they thought were excessive.

[Demoiselle]

16. I hope that the MSM is wrong...and I'm thinking of long term lessons, I guess.

Right wing notions make a certain amount theoretical sense, as long as you don't have to live them. If they put the right back in power, they will see the results.
And what, exactly have we proposed that they thought was excessive? Social Security? Medicare and Medicaid? Thorough government health monitoring of, oh, let's say, big egg producers?
I could go on.

[customerserviceguy]

20. HCR was the tipping point for many

Fear over it, inspired by greedy insurance companies raising premiums, has been magnified by the Rethugs. They're running on repeal, and they're likely to do well with that theme. Fear of deficit spending is another issue, although while the establishment Repukes have no track record to run on in this area, the tea partiers have seized on it as a winning strategy.

[Tesha]

17. They didn't protect us from Scalia, Alito, Thomas, or Roberts.

And in not doing so, they didn't protect use from Bush v Gore.

Democrats *DO NOT* use the Fillibuster effectively against the
Republicans but the Republicans use it very effectively against
the Democrats.

Tesha

[customerserviceguy]

21. I've long said

figure our our enemy's best tactics, and use them. Maybe we'll get some real progressives on the ballot in 2012, using the techniques that the tea partiers used to give their candidates some visibility.

[yurbud]

9. If Democrats didn't use them during Bush, why would they now?

[customerserviceguy]

13. Bush managed to get what he wanted

by being a 'wartime' president. Since we're doing a better job of keeping an eye on the extremists, it's not terribly likely to happen again, unless we let our guard down in a couple decades or so.

[vi5]

2. You know when the Dems will support it and push for it?

When the republicans are in charge and have a slim majority in the senate instead of when they had a 59 seat majority themselves.

[Dr Morbius]

3. Other: Yes AND No.

End secret holds. Period.

But restrict the filibuster, as opposed to eliminating it. The filibuster is not something I'd simply do away with because it's being misused by the GOP. I am absolutely certain of one thing: if they got the majority again, the GOP would abuse the power they would then possess; I'm really nervous about letting go of the filibuster for that reason. Restrict it, though; make the SOB's stand up and talk for fourteen straight hours if they want to filibuster. Make 'em do it the hard way.

[Wwagsthedog]

7. +1

[howaboutme]

4. It's a club and you ain't in it

If they filibuster then require them to actually filibuster. No more secret holds. No more taking the easy way out. Both Parties are all about getting reelected, staying on the gravy train, not rocking the corporate/Wall St boat, and keeping the lobbyist money pouring in, and not voting on controversial (to the elite) issues even if it is what the people want.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[hendo]

6. No

The filibuster rule allows an individual to push off the vote on an issue that they do not support. It is an important tool for the minority to use in order to get their view across.

You cannot end something just because you disagree with how the republicans are using it now.

[Bitwit1234]

8. Hello--- the need 60 votes to bring it to the floor or 67

to override cloture. think they can do it. NO>

[yurbud]

10. they just need a simple majority for rule changes at beginning of each session

[Kringle]

11. are you sure about that?

my understanding is,

the Senate never adjourns,
so it never needs to
adopt new rules

[onenote]

15. the senate adjourns at the end of a session

[USArmyParatrooper]

18. Can you source that?

Something that isn't a claim in an editorial.

[pipoman]

14. It always sounds good when

our party is the majority...it is far less appealing when we lose majority status. We will lose majority status, hopefully later rather than sooner, but we will lose it. It is a bad idea.

[librechik]

19. Dems don't know how to use the filibuster. Why should we let Pukkkes be the only ones who can?

get rid of it!