Realpolitik 101: 41 needed to filibuster; Senate has 44 Dems + 1 Ind [View All]

[AlGore-08.com]

Between the 2002 and 2004 elections, we had 48 Dems in the Senate + 1 Independent.

Between the 2000 election and May 2001, we had 50 Dems in the Senate.

Between May 2001 and the 2002 elections, we had 50 Dems + 1 Independent.

During the last six years, there have been 7 Republicans who are considered "Moderate" or "Maverick" because they vote against the party line a reasonable amount of the time: Snowe, Collins, Chafee, McCain, Spector, Hagel and Voinavich. (I'm not saying these Republicans always vote the way we want them or that they are paragons of virtue. I'm saying that they are persuadable, at least some of the time.)

The fact that there hasn't ever been 41 Senators who agree to filibuster anything during the last six years means one of three things. Either:

1.) It's completely impossible to persuade Republicans to vote against the party line on anything. Or

2.) Every single Democrat in the Senate agrees that short term political gain is always more important than stopping harmful legislation. Or

3.) There is a complete and total lack of political and leadership skills among the current Senate Democrats.

Number 1 is just not true. Republicans around the country - - even Senate Republicans - - routinely vote for individual progressive and moderate bills.

Number 2 is possible, but it's unlikely that every single Democrat always agrees with the party leadership on tactics. (I don't think that's ever happened in the history of the Democratic party.)

Number 3 is the most likely, IMNSHO. Republicans routinely get Democrats - - even the "good" Democrats who vote the party line most of the time - - to vote with them on issues that infuriate the Dem base. But the Dems currently in the Senate can't figure out how to get 40 other Democrats to vote the party line, or how to get 40 other Senators, regardless of party, to agree to non-partisan ideas like "torture is bad". Even though Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet and Republicans are scoring political points by voting against him, the Dems currently in the Senate can't figure out how to get 40 Senators to stand together against Bush. On anything.

I'm not saying we should ignore the Realpolitik that a Republican controlled Senate is worse than a Dem controlled Senate. I'm not saying we shouldn't vote for Democrats and try to get at least 51 in the Senate so that we can control the committee chairs. I am saying that the political pressures to support the conservative and corporate interests won't magically go away this November when we have the majority. I'm saying that once we hold those committee chairs, those committee chairs are still going to have a tough time figuring out when to take a stand and when to "bipartisan". I'm saying we're still going to have to hound them 24/7 to do the right thing.

I'm saying we should all keep this failure of leadership in mind during the 2008 primaries, when the Senate Dems who run brag about voting the right way on bad bills, rather than bragging about organizing filibusters - - or better still, organizing a majority of Senators to vote against those bad bills and stopping them from becoming laws. I'm saying we need to wonder: if they couldn't get 40 other Senators to agree that torture is a bad thing, how on earth are they going to get a progressive or even moderate agenda through Congress?

The current Senate Dems don't deserve a promotion. That's all I'm saying.