PLEASE stop calling it a "Filibuster-Proof Senate" - It's not even with 60 Dems/dem-align in senate

[LynneSin]

We are being made to look foolish claiming that the senate is "Filibuster Proof" once Franken gets seated. That is the biggest joke and will make us look like fools first time there is a filibuster and we can't stop it.

To be 'filibuster-proof' means that all 60 democrat senators (and 2 dem-aligned) will vote in unison when there is a filibuster. But we have too many moderates on our team that pretty much means that getting all 60 is going to be a rarity.

When someone talks about the senate being "Filibuster-Proof" please remind him/her that this is only if all 60 vote alike and highly unlikely with the makeup of the democrats. We aren't the republican party - we don't demand ideological purity.

thank you!

[BlooInBloo]

1. (shrug) It's not really possible to prevent People Who Don't Like Obama from lying about that shit.

[LynneSin]

5. But it is possible to correct it here in DU when it's used

[BlooInBloo]

6. Sure - but they won't stop saying it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. And thank you -

I've been saying the same thing. All the '60' number is, for Democrats, is a lazy pundit's benchmark. It reality it means little.

[phleshdef]

3. There is validity to it. The Stimilus bill was proof of that.

[LynneSin]

4. We still needed Collins and Snowe to make that happen

Three republicans had to cross the aisle to pass that bill. I don't see Snowe or Collins harping about switching parties yet.

[phleshdef]

20. If Franken were seated and Specter had all ready switched, we would have needed no Republican votes.

[yardwork]

7. It's not meant to be taken literally. The point is that it is an important benchmark.

It does give Obama more power to push things through Congress. Politics is all about perception. The perception of having 60 Democratic votes in Congress is powerful.

It's also remarkable given the short time it's been since Democrats were in the minority and Republicans held majorities in all three federal branches. It's a reason to celebrate, and a reminder that we have some power now. Some political clout.

[LynneSin]

9. Perception - what a foolish thing to rely on

When we assume stuff will get pass and then the Blue Dogs/DLC/DINOS and names like Nelson (either one), Pryor, Lieberman, Bayh, Carper and others don't fullfill what we expect of them.

Sure I'd like a new car for Xmas and I know a few family members that could easily give me one. But I'm not going to be unrealistic that it will happen.

[namahage]

14. Perception: California is a solid-blue, liberal state.

A measure like Prop 8 would NEVER pass there.

:sarcasm:

[LynneSin]

17. best example

I would have thought Prop 8 didn't have a chance in a state like California.

Boy were we all wrong!

[yardwork]

16. Who said anything about relying on it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. That is what they (media, pundits) are harping on -

so that when the Dems fail to steamroller EVERYTHING through, they can crow about how the Democrats are disorganized FAILURES who cannot be trusted to run the country.

It's a strawman being set up to be used against us every time even a single blue dog does not give us that 60th vote -- "It passed with only 59 votes, therefore it WILL NOT survive a (hypothetical) republican filibuster!"

[yardwork]

30. I never watch the pundits. They lie all the time. They're against humanity.

The corporate owners of the media will say or do anything to hold onto corporate power. I ignore them. Doesn't matter what we say or do - they have their script.

Personally, I'm happy that we now have 60 people caucusing as Dems in Congress. It's a good thing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. As am I - but I'm not going to pretend it will solve all our problems

and sweep away all opposition, particularly when there is no much opposition within the party itself.

60 dems does not mean we are going to get government supported single payer national health care. Or anything even close to it.

[yardwork]

33. Nobody is asking anyone to pretend anything. Sheesh.

[sampsonblk]

8. K & R

Word.

[Clio the Leo]

10. Yes, when a prominent Senator who's been in the GOP for 40 years ....

... leave the Republicans and becomes a Democrat, WE are the ones who look foolish.

Sure, thing. ;)

And yes, I understand that's not your point .... what I'm saying is that, ultimately, it doesn't matter. The GOP is hemorrhaging members and everyone knows it.

If the fools in the GOP (by that I mean the voters) want to worry that the Democrats have full control of the Senate even if it's not technically true .... well, I'm certainly not going to let them know. ;)

[cwcwmack]

11. YES

there are DEM Senators that won't vote for "certain issues" because they'll get smoked in '10 or '12...

Guns and stuff like that.

[salguine]

12. YES! Thanks you for pointing that out, finally. I haven't been able to

understand all the triumphant crowing going on here, for that reason.

[AtomicKitten]

13. It's technically true and thus a milestone.

When Sen. Franken is sworn in as the 59th vote, maybe we'll have an opportunity to see exactly what deal Sen. Specter struck with the Democrats. Lo and behold, maybe he'll be that 60th vote after all on particular pieces of legislation. Time will tell.

[LynneSin]

18. Being feasible and actually happening are two very different things

Technically we could filibuster anything but calling it "Filibuster Proof" assumes that everything Obama sends to congress is safe. Very foolish to believe that!

[AtomicKitten]

19. Good grief! That statement does not imply "everything Obama sends to Congress is safe."

You are incorporating hyperbole to try to make a point, but the point is a bit more complex than you seem to think.

Pres Obama will have a 60-vote technically filibuster-proof Congress. That is a true statement. Also true is that herding the Blue Dogs and ConservaDems makes his "filibuster-proof" 60-seat majority moot.

I really do think most here at DU understand the implications of this, your lecture notwithstanding.

* edited for underline that went berserk

[LynneSin]

24. Well they don't

I've seen enough threads with the "WOOHOO WE ARE FILIBUSTER PROOF" going on and well I just like to bring folks back to reality.

We have 60 - I think that is a great number but NOT filibuster proof

[AtomicKitten]

26. They do if they vote en bloc - which is possible - ergo potentially filibuster-busting. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

15. We couldn't get 59 (60 soon) Dems to vote yes on a "Puppies are Cute!" non-binding resolution

Nelson (NE) would say that he thinks kittens are better.

Landrieu would say that she prefers swamp gators.

[leftofthedial]

22. please don't use the fascsist euphemism "moderate"

when what you mean is "right-wing nutjob extremist."

[Better Believe It]

23. What Republican "filibusters" do you have in mind?

They don't engage in real filibusters against progressive legislation or appointments.

They don't have to.

The mere threat of a filibuster is enough to scare the living crap out of Senator Reid and company so it seems.

The idea that the leadership of the Democratic Party in the Senate would actually force the Republicans to engage in a real filibuster is silly at best.

[sofa king]

25. All 59 members of the Democratic Caucus can feel the lash of the whip.

All of them have pet legislation which will be shitcanned if they fall out of line. Most of them seek reelection within five and a half years, and require support and funding for that. All of them have Committee assignments, which are highly important to them, and which can be changed or revoked. None of them can afford to have pet funding projects for their states slashed.

The Democratic Party does not attempt to force its members to march in lock-step on every issue, as the goose-steppers across the aisle do. But when it's really important, the same rules apply: toe the line or you're fucked. Even Joe Lieberman knows and understands that, and he votes for cloture just like all the Dems do.

[TheKentuckian]

27. We need to be more hardball in our cat herding

Conservative state Senators need to get with the understanding that they may VOTE to represent their constituents/conscience but voting for/against closure with the party is required, otherwise prepare to have funds cut off and to be primaried.

We don't need their every vote but we must require them to compromise with the caucus to this extent.

[bc3000]

28. If we are going to try and be technically accurate...

Shouldn't we be talking about a "filibuster threat" rather than a "filibuster"? They never actually make them filibuster do they?

Maybe someone can explain this to me, but it seems like it works like this: Republicans say "you don't have 60 votes, we can filibuster." And the democrats say, "Oh well, you win then, we're not going to actually make you filibuster the bill. We wouldn't want you to get any bad press or anything."

[Dragonfli]

34. You need no explanation, your understanding is unfortunately correct.

Welcome. :hi:

[Better Believe It]

29. We must stop those damn Republican filibusters that only exist in someones imagination!

The mere threat of a Republican filibuster, even a fake phantom one, is enough to get Senator Reid and company to fly the surrender flag.

Oh boy. I saw this coming. The biggest lame excuse yet for inaction.

Excuse #1 2005 version The Republicans control the Senate so we need to elect 51 Democratic Senators in order to get progressive legislation passed. And we can't filibuster Bush appointments because Republicans might change Senate rules ending filibusters with a "nuclear option".

Excuse #2 2006 version We now control the Senate but we need to elect a Democratic veto-proof President in order to get progressive legislation signed.

Excuse #3 2008 version We control the Senate and have a Democratic president but need to elect 60 Democratic Senators in order to have a "filibuster proof" Senate.

Excuse #4 2009 version We control the Senate with 60 votes but some Democrats will filibuster against appointments and legislation so we need to elect a super-duper majority of 70 Democratic Senators to have a "filibuster proof" Senate.

Excuse #5 2010 version We now control the Senate with 70 Democrats and "We almost did it! But we need to elect just five more Democratic Senators in 2012, giving us 75 Democrats in the Senate. If we do that, we'll probably be able to get 60 of them to vote cloture ending a Republican/Democratic filibusters!"

Excuse #6 2012 version Well, we couldn't get much accomplished because of those damn Republican led filibusters. That's why the Republicans were able to regain control of the House, Senate and the White House. But, if we regain control of the Senate and House in the 2114 election we'll be able to get progressive legislation passed .... if the Republicans don't threaten a filibuster in the Senate.

[freddie mertz]

32. Hilarious, but true.

Personally I have come to reluctant conclusion that NONE of the "real" progressive legislation (EFCA, single-payer, etc) will EVER get passed by ANY American congress during what remains of my life on Earth.

Banker/finance/insurance lobbyists, corporate media, and organized criminals of all sorts will make sure of that.

It is a tragedy.

[Danascot]

35. Face it, if we had 100% in both houses

our fearless leaders in Congress would still find a way to be terrified of the big bad GOP.