Do PROGRESSIVES in Senate have enough votes to threaten a filibuster?

[yurbud]

The Democrats always cite the threat of a GOP filibuster (and the mostly unspoken threat of the corrupt Blue Dogs joining them).

I would not say it is about cowardice on the part of Democrats but rather the pervasiveness of corruption, and they use the filibuster by the rotting corpse of the GOP as an excuse to carry corporate water.

And you notice there's no problem with the threat of the filibuster for wars, Wall Street bailouts, trade deals, and the like--which makes me wonder if there aren't enough PROGRESSIVE Democrats (along with Bernie Sanders) to threaten a filibuster themselves since Dickless Harry Reid is never going to make the GOP actually take to the floor and do a real filibuster.

While I would not necessarily recommend that on the health care bill, it should be done on any more Wall Street bailouts, trade deals, funding continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and expanding our military presence in Columbia to destabilize the democracies that have shaken off the shackles of Wall Street and international bankers. Instead of overthrowing their governments, we should be emulating their actions in neutering these dangerous financial sociopaths.

Admittedly, the media would treat a progressive threat of a filibuster exactly the opposite of how they treat the conservative ones. When conservatives threaten it, they say it means the Dems have gone too far to the left and they need to be more be more ''moderate.'' A progressive filibuster would not be called a sign that the Democrats have gone too far to the right, but rather as an attack on democracy itself by left wing extremists.

But maybe if they did this selectively a couple of times, they would put the craven corporatist leaders on notice that the majority of Democrats in both the country and Congress can only be ignored at their peril.

Can and should progressives use this to remind their party that they are the majority?

[Xipe Totec]

1. YES--Progressives have enough votes,

but know that half a loaf is better than going hungry.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. A progressive filibuster of the bill gets nothing...

A bill is filibustered for two reasons; (1) to kill it; (2) to force changes on a bill that will pass.

Republicans and a few blue dog dems can kill the bill. They are not going to vote for the bill anyway. If we are lucky, we can 60 votes to allow debate to end (cloture) so that a straight up or down vote can be made.

A progressive filibuster to make it a more progressive and better bill would only kill any chance of even small reform. Thirty-eight Republicans will not vote for a bill of any kind. Two Republicans and Lieberman may vote for a bill if concession are made to them. Any progressive change in the bill would forever shut out forty Republicans and Lieberman. So all a progressive filibuster would do would be to have the most progressive Senators we have join hands with the Republicans to kill health care reform.

Why would they do that? Why would Progessive Dems want to help Republicans make sure that 40,000 people every year die because they have no health care?

[yurbud]

4. I was NOT suggesting a filibuster on health care bill and said so in the OP, but discussion

of the health care reform bill made me think of the the question for other issues.

[NewJeffCT]

3. How many senators voted against the original Iraq War resolution? 20?

I would think that is the base.