So talk to me about this 'Filibuster Proof Senate' - I'm not buying it

[LynneSin]

(first this is assuming that Franken wins his seat)

Isn't the point of a Filibuster Proof Senate is the concept that all senators agree to ending the filibuster. We're not the republican party - we don't demand ideological purity. On paper we have the numbers but do you honestly believe that'll stop the filibuster?

I just hate calling it Filibuster-Proof when I know there are senators on our team that tend to play it in the middle.

OR, is this just some rule I've overlooked that says "Once one team has 60 you are not allowed to filibuster whether or not all 60 of those members would vote to end the filibuster"

[Eric J in MN]

1. Senators can vote Yes or No regardless of party.

60 Democrats isn't a magical number.

[LynneSin]

3. They why do we call it that like it is

Honestly - we need to have realistic expectation when, after Franken is seated, we see our first filibuster.

[Joe the Liberal]

2. Not to mention all the Conservadems.........

who make it much harder to actually get a 'Filibuster Proof Senate', I don't buy it either.

[Duer 157099]

4. I agree. It's a concept that works for their side

Our side, not so much

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. With Evan Bayh's posse working to the detriment of the administration, I don't buy

the 'Filibuster Proof' rhetoric, either.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. It's easier to whip votes in your own party than in the opposition party

Opposition party leaders fight tooth and nail to make sure their rank and file don't break ranks and vote for cloture on the President's key programs. They sometimes even threaten to help you raise money for re-election if you break ranks (like they stupidly did with Specter).

Yes 60 votes is arbitrary because Democrats can still defect. But if it's a crucial vote and we are determined to get to 60 then the costs of doing so are generally lower than the large chunks of the legislation we have to give to the other side in a "compromise bill" to get Republicans on board for 60 votes.

And in terms of political strategy, Democrats will do better on the whole if the President succeeds and Republicans will do better on the whole if he fails. Thus Specter now has an incentive to see the President succeed rather than fail. The problem is that some Democrats (like Evan Bayh) easily forget that fact and need some serious nudging to be reminded of it.

[Better Believe It]

7. So how many Democratic Senators do we need to end fake phantom filibusters?

[w4rma]

8. Now he has to do what Democratic primary voters want, rather listen to Republican primary voters.

That's what it means, and it's pretty much all it means.

[LynneSin]

9. Specter is solved - what about the other 59 Dem/Dem-aligned senators

:shrug:

[tekisui]

10. Those Dems who do not join will suffer public scrutiny.

I know that doesn't sound like much, but until now, they never actually had any skin in cloture vote fights. Now, they will be exposed, and more reluctant to be the one or two to hold up Dem legislation. If cloture is blocked, it will have to be with a 'turncoat team'.

[endarkenment]

11. it isn't filibuster proof - but it is 'cloture enabled'.

By which I mean that on a party line basis we can end a filibuster. It does not meant we will always be successful, it means that they will have to work to peal off Democrats to block legislation instead of just holding their own in line. Their job is now a lot harder than it was, their strategy of 'obstruct and attack', or as that fat fuck put it 'we hope they fail' is now much harder for them to implement.

[sofa king]

17. Yes, I like that turn of phrase.

What it does is it makes the gangsters have to work even harder to interrupt the legislative process. What's more, the timing of the event is fortuitous, whether or not Al Franken is seated soon. All Republican Senators must now be in town and on call, for the next eighteen months.

And that's assuming none of the Republican Senators are forced to stand tall before the man for their years of unsupervised behavior, which is an unwise assumption. My guess is that before 2010, the Senate will be securely under Democratic control, with excellent prospects of improving in 2011.

[Two Americas]

12. "ideological purity"

There is no ideology in the Republican party.

The only imaginable alternative to the continual betrayal of principles and ideals by Democrats is not "ideological purity."

Both of those uses of the term are based on false premises.

I suggest we retire that phrase, since it can only help the right wing.


...

[ClarkUSA]

13. "Spector's Switch - Why It Matters" (link-->)

Sixty is the magic number in the Senate -- but only if the party can muster 60 votes. Sixty members alone doesn't do it, a point emphasized by conservative Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska when asked by the Huffington Post what Specter's move does to his own position as a power broker in the Senate.

"Nothing. Sixty members doesn't translate to 60 votes, so it doesn't really change anything for me," he said. "The automatic assumption that people will take from this is, 'Ah, things are changing.' And maybe they will, but it's not automatic."

There is, however, one automatic change that comes with having 60 votes. The greatest power that the minority has in the Senate is the power to grind things to a halt. By filibustering, the GOP not only blocks the piece of legislation it's opposing, but also any other action that is bottle-necked behind it. The threat to grind things to a halt is one that the majority takes seriously. It gives the minority veto power over small (but important) pieces of legislation that the majority wants but can't afford to lose several weeks pushing. With 60 votes, the majority can push through those smaller measures over the objections of the GOP.

It's a point Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the third-ranking Democrat, underscored. "The bottom line is, it's still not going to be easy. This is a bold, comprehensive agenda. But the sort-of-just-doing-a-filibuster-at-every-whim to block us is not there and that makes legislating a lot easier," he said.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. It will be filibuster proof on bills which every Democratic Senator supports

[Sebastian Doyle]

15. 60 Democratic Senators would indeed be filibuster proof.

But 45 Democratic senators and 15 DLC Blueballed cowardly pieces of shit sadly is not. :evilfrown:

[izzybeans]

16. At best we have more leverage with Specter.

It's not a guarantee to be Fillibuster proof, however we now have a direct route to influence a supermajority through inner party deliberation and strategy sessions. That's a good thing, not a certain thing.

[backwoodsbob]

18. at best we have SOME leverage till his seat comes up

Unless he stuns me and gets full bore behind the Prez I dont see any way he wins back his seat.

Dems will be so so with him and he has surely pissed off the repukes big time in penn.

[sampsonblk]

19. That filibuster-proof stuff was just a silly meme

It was always hogwash.

Having 59 or having 60 are only symbolically different. There is no functional difference. After all, we are not Republicans.

I'd rather have 55 reliable senators than to have 60 senators that are unreliable - which is what we are about to have.

But its better than the position the GOP is in! LOL