We can give Obama a Filibuster- proof Senate majority in 2008

[unapatriciated]

Run time: 01:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4bzwY8x9B8   Posted on YouTube: August 04, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 08, 2008 By DU Member: unapatriciated Views on DU: 313

 

[Mojambo]

1. If we do we'll be expecting FDR style iniative from President Obama.

Hope he's up to it.

[David Dunham]

2. No. Bill Clinton's going to introduce Bayh as VP, and a Rep will fill Bayh's seat.

[DuaneBidoux]

3. Although you never know. Obama might win. Do we need one then?

[Better Believe It]

4. Why Did The Republicans Only Need 51 Votes To Pass Their Agenda When They Ran The Senate?

So in order to get anything done Democrats need 60 votes in the Senate.

And the Republicans only needed 51 votes in the Senate to get their agenda passed when they controlled the Senate!

We need 60 and the Republicans only need 51 Senate votes.

Help me figure out the math here.

Oh.

I think I get it.

We gave up the right to filibuster when the Republicans ran the Senate (didn't filibuster on any Bush appointments or legislation during his entire two terms) and the Republicans might filibuster if the Democratic party controls the Senate and elects Obama!

Well if we lack 60 votes, let the Republicans filibuster as long as they like against legislation that helps the working people. Why let them make fools of themselves and risk losing what little support they may have as they talk, and talk and talk to the wee hours of the morning in defense of the Wall Street corporate tycoons, the oil trusts and billionaire bankers.

Filibusters don't last forever. At some point they will have to cave. Let them hang themselves with filibusters!

And don't use the "threat" of a Republican filibuster as an excuse to surrender and compromise with enemies of the people rather than fight for a progressive agenda.

No weak excuses or alibis this time around!

With a President Obama we need 51 votes .... period. If we have more, perhaps even 60 that would be terrific. But, don't anyone claim that getting 60 Senate votes is an absolute requirement to achieve a progressive agenda. That's hogwash!