Originally Posted By Sport Goofy <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/72461-pelosi-to-shield-vulnerable-members-from-tough-votes" target="_blank">http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...gh-votes</a> It seems Speaker Pelosi has decided that it's just too hard to get re-elected if they actually pass legislation in Congress. So much for any sort of progressive agenda in 2010. The sad things is that the window for change is very small. The mid-terms are already shaping up to be an anti-incumbent referendum on the sour economy. There is nothing Democrats can do to preserve seats. They'll either see their majorities diminish or lose them outright. Then we can go back to the same backward policies of the past decade, not that we've ventured very far from them during the past year.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I for one think they deserve this break.<< Why? You're paying their salaries with all your taxes.
Originally Posted By DAR You didn't honestly believe I was sincere, have not the last few years, heck the last few hours taught you how I feel about the folks in Washington.
Originally Posted By andyll I don't blame her. The house has passed: 1) Health care reform. 2) Cap & Trade. 3) Financail Regulatory reform. One was screwed up by the Senate, One is dead in the Senate, and the last will be dead in the Senate. It's time for the democrats in the Senate to start stepping up.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << It's time for the democrats in the Senate to start stepping up. >> Harry Reid is, perhaps, the most untalented majority leader I've ever witnessed. Nancy Pelosi isn't much better as Speaker of the House. Coupled with a President who won't forcefully advocate for Congress to do anything substantial, we end up with more of the same Washington politics.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 I don't have a huge problem with the House right now. They have gotten some things done and are really working on some others. I at least give them props for their efforts. The Senators on the other hand need to start stepping it up. They have achieved nothing useful to the American people this year and now they are not even trying. I am so frustrated with them I could scream. But hey, I guess getting nothing done means you deserve a vacation. I am sure all of our bosses would feel the same way, right? I am sure all of us get large salaries and benefits and don't actually have to produce results to keep our jobs.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Many senators are trying. But they're being held hostage by the peculiar rules of the filibuster, which means the Democrats need 60 votes rather than just 51 to pass anything. So the GOP just has to hold steady and then just get ONE Democrat (like Nelson) or "independent" like Lieberman to derail the whole thing, or water it down beyond recognition. I DO blame Reid and others in the Senate leadership for not playing hardball and holding out reconciliation (in which they'd only need 51 votes) as a real threat. The GOP would have howled, but they'll howl anyway. With only 51 votes needed, we could have gotten a public option and/or expansion of medicare, and/or tougher rules on the insurance companies and/or collective bargaining with the drug companies...
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << But they're being held hostage by the peculiar rules of the filibuster, which means the Democrats need 60 votes rather than just 51 to pass anything. >> Sorry, Dabob, but I think they've suckered you into this whole filibuster myth. It's true that the filibuster is a powerful tool for a minority to control legislation in the Senate, but our Senate leadership isn't really responding to an honest to goodness filibuster. Under traditional filibuster rules, the opposition would need to hold the Senate floor in continuous speeches for the duration of their debate on the subject. The most famous instances of this were back during the civil rights movement when you had folks like Strom Thurmond reading from phone books for hours on end. There are also rules to the filibuster that limit the number of times a Senator can speak on a topic during the course of the debate. Once they've used their time and left the floor, they can't necessarily come back. If the Senate leadership actually allowed the GOP (and opposition) to filibuster this whole episode would be over with in a couple of weeks and they could go on to a vote. There are only a limited number of opposition Senators and the filibuster rules would provide that time eventually runs out on the debate (that's what happened when civil rights won out in the end). Of course, no one is enforcing these filibuster rules. The opposition Senators are going home in the evening. No one is reading from phone books. No one is enforcing the limits on debate. It seems our current politicians now use the idea of a filibuster as an excuse to not pass legislation, or to water it down to a point where it's not effective. If the opposition actually had to filibuster legislation to hold it up in the Senate, you would find that they get tired of that process pretty quickly and lot more bills would be coming up for a vote. Our politicians don't expect most Americans to understand the filibuster rules, though, so they go through this charade as a cowardly excuse for doing nothing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Sorry, Dabob, but I think they've suckered you into this whole filibuster myth. It's true that the filibuster is a powerful tool for a minority to control legislation in the Senate, but our Senate leadership isn't really responding to an honest to goodness filibuster. > No, I understand all that. There's a "gentlemen's agreement" that you don't actually have to filibuster in order to filibuster. This is a fairly modern understanding, and was reinforced by the "gang of 14" when Democrats were threatening to filibuster a possible Bush supreme court nominee if he had nominated someone particularly noxious. I think they made a bad rule worse when they agreed to this "gentlemen's agreement," but there you are. The fact remains that if they don't have the guts to go the reconciliation route (which I argue they should), they need 60 votes. And while I think there are probably some who are posturing about wanting a strong bill but secretly happy enough to let it be watered down (possibly including Reid - I'm not quite sure if he's that sneaky, or just inept), there are unquestionably senators who really do want a strong bill and aren't just posturing... Sanders, Feingold, Franken, Levin, Wyden, Mikulski, Brown, are just some of the names at the top of my head.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I think they made a bad rule worse when they agreed to this "gentlemen's agreement," but there you are. >> I find it deplorable that they have gone this route. I think the filibuster is a valuable tool in the Senate, but not when perverted to the point that you can't pass anything without 60 votes and Senators don't actually have to filibuster to make it work.
