Why aren’t we talking seriously about dumping the filibuster. Past time for the Nuclear Option.

[rhett o rick]

Seriously, the republicants are badly abusing the filibuster rule. It was never intended to be used for all legislation. There is no point in keeping it if they are going to continue. So why wont the Dems do it?

Are they afraid it will be used against them in the future?

Or are they using the 60 votes necessary rule to absolve themselves of any responsibility for passing tough laws.

[spanone]

1. 2 words....harry reid

[rhett o rick]

2. But why arent we talking about it here in DU? Maybe get the ball rolling to pressure

our Senators.

[spanone]

4. because we know reid would never threaten to use it let alone follow through????

:shrug:

[NoPasaran]

9. No energy for it in the middle of the Kucinichocalypse

We could pencil in Filibuster Freakout for Thursday if you wish.

[valerief]

5. 3 words...Harry Reid, Depublican. nt

[timeforpeace]

3. Three words: previous Republican majority. You really want to not have it in the future?

[rhett o rick]

7. We wouldnt be any worse off. We didnt filibuster hardly when we could have. And it is being abused

And thousands are dieing for lack of health care. Why allow that rule to stand in our way.

[WilliamPitt]

6. Checks and balances within the checks and balances

The filibuster is a vital parliamentary tool. We're not always going to have the majority, and in any event, we must always have tools available for one person to be able to act against legislation they don't like, even if that person is a tool themselves (see: Joementum).

It is needed, and should remain. My 2 cents.

[rhett o rick]

8. It is a vital parliamentary tool when used appropriately.

The republicants are abusing the rule. And we failed to use it when we could have. With a few exceptions.

[WilliamPitt]

11. This, too, shall pass.

Some people drive like idiots, but we're not about to roll up the roads because of them. I agree with you on everything you've said, but the rule is there for a reason, and won't always be abused, ignored or dithered with. Better people will come along; that single idea is the whole reason I deal in politics. Hunter Thompson described politics as a long, shallow, plastic trench where the whores run free and good men die like dogs, but it isn't always that way. That shallow trench gave us Wellstone, Stevenson, Teddy, Kucinich, Dean and many others. Their character is the reason keeping tools like the filibuster is required.

[rhett o rick]

12. You know I know you are right. I just get frustrated and want a good fight.

Not with you of course, with the nitwits that seem to have so much power.

[WilliamPitt]

13. Agreed and agreed.

:toast:

[juno jones]

10. OK,

But only after Lieberman has read 24-36 hours worth of DC phone book or "War and Peace" out loud. After all this stress we could use some lulz.

[librechik]

14. I bring up the historic uselessness of the filibuster and the Senate itself

regularly--only to be landed upon by the centrists who have misread "Democratic Underground" to mean "Democrats of Any Stripe Especially Moderates" for some reason who want to scream about how I'll turn off folks with my radical ideas.

Huh? Last time I checked The Senate wasn't even a sure thing back in 1790! I'm scolded now for imagining we can do without the Camera for the Rich Plantation Owners in the 21st century? Feh!

[rhett o rick]

15. Please someone explain to me the difference (keep it nice) between leftists and centrists.

I have asked and asked this question of so-called centrists but most avoid straight answers. I always considered myself moderate but somehow I get called a leftist. I dont mind but cant understand how the groups disagree on the issues.

It is my opinion that there are basically two types of so-called centrists here in DU. Those that agree with the left on all issues but dont like the sigma attached to being on the left. The other group are moderate republicants. They, under the guise of being centrists, attack the left as if the left was damaging the important issues. These are the people that refuse to explain their stands on the issues, because their stands are the same as the republicants.

Maybe the difference is that the so-called centrists are willing to "compromise" with the devil where the left wont. One centrist the other day side winning was more important than maintaining ones principles.

[librechik]

16. the task is made more difficult because Conservatives have tried so hard

over the last 20 years to pull the definition of the American Center over to the right. They are always trying to say "America is a Center Right country" when in fact most polls show that lefty ideas like women's choice and universal health care and free community colleges are preferred by large majorities, which would make them centrist ideas, not leftist. In fact the discourse has become so corrupted by the Newties and the Horowitches that a fair debate can hardly be conductthe Righties insist on defining even mildly left ideas as the worst of the crazy extreme left--you know. like Medicare.

I give up!