Realpolitik 101: 41 needed to filibuster; Senate has 44 Dems + 1 Ind

[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.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. You miss one enormous point.

Democrats will CONTROL THE AGENDA. Period.

Does the torture bill ever come up in the first place in a Democratic Senate? NO! Case closed.

[LynneSin]

3. Think about the time saved by not having to pressure for filibuster...

on activist judges!

Patrick Leahy's Judicial Committee blocked over TEN activist judges from EVER getting a floor vote. I'd rather focus on swaying a committee to keep those judges from getting floor votes than trying to persuade 41 senators to filibuster!

[LynneSin]

2. So we should keep the republicans in office

:shrug:

You're right, they don't deserve it. But six weeks before the game is not the time to start looking for options. We had all year to find the right candidates to run for office. The primaries are overwith and I'm voting for the democrats.

I find the democrats a disappointment on their best days and heartbreaking on their worse - but they still are a better choice than republicans.

[AlGore-08.com]

8. I specifically said that we should vote for Dems and get committee control

I specifically said that a Republican controlled Senate is worse than a Democratic controlled Senate.

My two main points are:

1.) Getting a Dem majority is not going to solve all our problems and

2.) The Senate Dems running for President don't have the skills that the office demands.

I feel very strongly about both those points.

[LynneSin]

10. I do too - sign me up for your team

I'd rather fight the democratic majority than a republican one

:pals:

[pat_k]

4. At least they still believe in Democracy. . .

. . .We must find and run strong candidates in primaries, but when it is a choice between a fascist and an anti-fascist, we must defeat the fascist.

Members of the Democratic Party at least still believe in the principles of our constitutional democracy. We have a shot at pulling their heads out of the beltway sphincter."

With fascists, there is no shot.

Don't keep the outrage to yourself!!

http://voiceoutrage.com">voiceoutrage.com

Call this abomination what it is: The War Criminals Protection Act

[tnlurker]

5. Another possibility

I think blackmail is the answer. There is no way that many democratic senators and reps would vote on the torture bill (or the Bankruptcy Bill) or any other bill unless somebody has incriminating evidence against them. They have all been in the halls of power long enough to do something stupid that is on tape or recorded somewhere. Thus every time a critical vote comes up enough of them are reminded of their little indiscretions and are told to vote the correct way or be exposed.

[acmejack]

6. One can never be sure.

There is no way I put anything past these people. We know they broke into the server, we know they tried to break into watergate, these are only the things we know of. The history is clear, they will stoop to underhanded tactics at any opportunity, so I am sure they would be more than happy to force our Congress to vote their way.

[pnwmom]

7. You're forgetting one other thing.

The Republicans have already told us what they plan to do if we use the filibuster -- end it. I do think the detainee bill would have been the appropriate time to filibuster anyway. But chances are the Rethugs would have taken the "nuclear option" -- either now or the very next time we used it.

So essentially, we've lost that option, too.

[AlGore-08.com]

9. Again, the "Nuclear Option" just proves my point

The "Nuclear Option" was defused because 14 Senators agreed it was more important to keep the ability to filibuster than to vote party lines. It proves that it's possible to get at least some of the Republican Senators to act against the short term interests of the Bush administration and the GOP some of the time.

What I'm saying is that almost all of the Senate Democrats have had six long years to figure out a way to convince 40 other Senators to agree to filibuster the really, really important stuff. They have had six long years to figure out a way to convince 50 other Senators to vote with them on the really, really important stuff. They have not been able to do so, and that is a failure of leadership.

Again, I'm not saying abandon the party or don't vote for Democrats.

I'm saying that this particular bunch of Democrats in the Senate do not have what it takes to be President.

I'm saying that even when we have control over the Congress and/or the White House, our work will be far from over.