Imagine sometime in the near future republicans take both the house and the senate

[Clintonista2]

Are we still in favor of abolishing the filibuster?

[bluestateguy]

1. I would do it the way they do it with time outs in football

Each party would get 3 filibusters a year. Use them as you see fit, but when they are gone, no more filibusters for the year.

[opihimoimoi]

2. Why in the world would sane Americans go for a GOP control when

they have proven beyond a doubt they are toxic to the Health of the Nation?

[Clintonista2]

3. Because they're lazy and apathetic

[opihimoimoi]

4. yup, easily fooled too

[RC]

7. Sane Americans?

Wadat?
For almost 400 years we have been proving to the world we are insane. First with our treatment of the aboriginals. Then, when genociding the locals proved to be too taxing, we expanded to importing other groups from Africa to practice on. When we got tired of that, we expanded our genociding to Asia (Japan/Korea/Viet Nam/Cambodia) and later to the Middle East (Iraq/Afghanistan), as if we had some right to even be there - which we do not.
We are a very war loving and egotistical country. And that will be our down fall. History says so. We do not remember history, we re-write it to suit the occasion.

[opihimoimoi]

15. Sanity, Clarity, Reality should be applied when voting to effect good odds for good gov't

Obviously, we are not consistent in application...

[Vinca]

5. The idea of Republicans in control is terrifying.

It would be time to start looking at Canadian real estate again.

[tabbycat31]

32. instead of looking at Canadian real estate

you should channel that energy into getting Democrats elected. Knock on doors, make phone calls, register voters, stuff envelopes, etc. We need all hands on deck.

The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.

[Robert DAH Bruce]

6. The point is moot

The GOP won't be taking either chamber anytime soon!

[Clintonista2]

11. The point is NOT moot, because republicans will eventually take back the senate/house

When the rethugs were last in power and they tried to abolish the filibuster, I thought they were idiots. Didn't they realize that one day they would be in the minority? Now dems are doing exactly the same thing... they're the ones in power and they're not looking at the long term consequences.

[Robert DAH Bruce]

12. Not when they nominate the likes of Sharron Angle!

Harry Reid is privately spelling her name "Angel," by the way.

[Clintonista2]

13. So you believe that from now until the time the nation of America ceases to exist,

republicans will never win either chamber? :rofl::rofl: Your reasoning is based on delusion.

[Ter]

21. It may cease to exist in a few years

If we go in a deep recession, states could break away.

[Gordan Shumway]

22. No.

[Ter]

26. I'd be suprised if there aren't breakaway states by 2020

With the anti-fed hysteria, probably sooner.

[Gordan Shumway]

28. It's laughable

Think of the repercussions. What will they use as currency? Who will pay for the public services? Not to mention the probable civil war it would create. You can't be serious.

[Ter]

29. I'm not supporting this, just saying I think it's likely

I doubt it would cause a Civil War either. If a state breaks free, using deadly force to get them back may cause sympathy. It's not like the 1860's anymore, Brother vs. Brother is not gonna fly.

[Gordan Shumway]

30. It's brother vs brother in that state

You think the 30 to 45 percent of people against succession in that state are going to sit idly by. Give me a break.

[totodeinhere]

20. I'm in Nevada. Do not underestimate how much many Nevadans loath Reid.

I think that Angle has at least a 50-50 shot, and the latest polls confirm that. The latest RCP average has it as a virtual dead heat.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_nevada_senate_race.html

[totodeinhere]

19. Politics is always cyclical. In a two party system, power always alternates between the

two parties. Under unusual circumstances such as the great depression and WWII, it might take longer. But even in that case after their big defeat in 1932 the Republicans eventually retook power. And it will happen again. We just don't know when.

[rucky]

8. My bigger fear would be Obama not using the veto.

[Jennicut]

9. No, but it needs to be reformed.

"Under the Harkin proposal, the first vote for cloture (the term for ending a filibuster) would require 60 votes, as is current practice. But after a few days had passed, cloture would only require 57 votes. After a few more days, it would require 54, and so on. Eventually a bare majority of 51 votes would be enough." http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0212/Bill-to-rein-in-filibuster-introduced.-Long-shot

But it requires 67 votes to change it, not happening.

[DrToast]

24. Only to change it in mid-session

In January they can change it with a majority vote.

[treestar]

10. Good point. Maybe that is why Democrats leave it in place

When they are out of power, they can prevent the worst R excesses.

[harun]

14. Yes, we are.

[jefferson_dem]

16. No then (heaven forbid) and no now.

Sure the filibuster sucks when we are in the majority but it should remain a necessary, final legislative failsafe. Thing is, the obstructionist gNOp have strategically employed it as a routine. Sucks indeed, and they should be held accountable, but that doesn't warrant blowing up Senate procedure.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

17. How about just electing more than 60 principled Dem senators?

[RBInMaine]

18. Nice, but the problem in regionalism. Some areas of this country WILL NOT vote progressive.

[DrToast]

23. Are you in favor of Democracy?

Yes, I'm in favor of abolishing the filibuster. How are you not? This country is falling apart at the seams because of it.

[WI_DEM]

25. Except it seems like the Dems are wimps and don't use it like the GOP do.

[Vampire Knight]

27. Someone with foresight.

I like it. Very few people have the wisdom to think about what will happen when the pendulum inevitably swings back the other way. The conservatives were so much for the Patriot Act when they thought that it would just be used against Muslims, but some of them eventually realized what they'd done when groups with which they were at least sympathetic ended up on Napolitano's list. People here don't seem to realize that if you get rid of the filibuster and the Republicans retake Congress this fall, you could probably kiss HC goodbye along with most of the rest of Obama's agenda. They wouldn't hesitate to use that power, because Obama has them panicked.

[TheKentuckian]

31. Yep, when the Republicans go crazy, overreach and get booted then

there will be far fewer excuses for in action when we get the keys back.

I'm tired of reactive, fear based politics. Wringing our hands and trying to placate bullies is not going to save our country and it's people.

At the minimum the filibuster should be "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" style and our worthless old fucks can bust out the depends and cots.
If their is a maneuver to force such action, then it should be used right now and I believe there is because they did something similar with the Wealthcare Act bill and the pukes folded right up.