oudeis on 30/6/2009 at 22:15
The Minnesota State Supreme Court has declared Al Franken the (
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31667236) winner of the 2008 senatorial election. This, on top of the story that Sanford pursued other women (
besides his Argentine mistress), well,
religiously, probably has the Republican National Committee longing for the Golden Age of the first half of the decade. I wonder how many pain pills Limbaugh had to slam before he started spinning the news?
Aerothorn on 30/6/2009 at 23:39
It's worth noting that 60 isn't a magic number that makes all Democratic legislation pass - the whole "filibuster-proof" thing only works if every single senator votes on party lines, which (by my understanding) happens very rarely. It's a bonus for them, of course, make no mistake, but it's hardly the MASSIVE DESTABILIZATION that the right-wing news outlets will inevitably spin it as.
Also, Coleman can technically appeal this to federal court. We'll see if he (and the party) wants to or not.
Pyrian on 1/7/2009 at 01:00
My understanding is that Coleman has conceded and will not be pursuing further appeals.
And it's true that the 60-magic-number only applies if party discipline holds, which is particularly unlikely for Democrats, especially as the 60 includes, for instance, recently Republican Arlen Spector and independent Joe Leiberman.
Starrfall on 1/7/2009 at 01:54
The 60 vote thing only gets legislation to the actual vote. Look for the blue dogs to vote yes on cloture, no on the bill if they don't like it.
Pyrian on 1/7/2009 at 15:43
Quote Posted by Starrfall
The 60 vote thing only gets legislation to the actual vote. Look for the blue dogs to vote yes on cloture, no on the bill if they don't like it.
Since it takes 60 votes for cloture and only a majority to pass, several Democrats can vote for cloture and against the bill and it will thereby pass, even though if they'd voted against cloture it would've stalled. ...Silly system, really...
Starrfall on 1/7/2009 at 16:34
It's only silly if you think that not wanting to vote in favor of legislation must equal the desire to kill it entirely before it even goes to a vote. (Or if you think there are never circumstances in which legislators might want to get a vote on the record even if they personally plan to vote no.)
Look at something like the upcoming healthcare debates: if a blue dog doesn't like the plan that is actually on the table, but thinks that in general something must be done now, voting yes on cloture and no on the bill is perfect. (Especially if you are of a practical mind and would like some support when you run for re-election.)
Trivia time: the cloture vote used to require a supermajority (67), but it was basically impossible to invoke it, so the senate reduced it to 3/5ths (which is 60), with the additional limit that it's 3/5ths of all current senators, not just the ones who show up for the vote, so if they can't get Kennedy and Bird in there (both have health issues) they won't have the necessary votes.
It should also be pointed out that this means the democrats are running out of excuses for not being better.
Pyrian on 1/7/2009 at 19:45
Quote Posted by Starrfall
It's only silly if you think that not wanting to vote in favor of legislation must equal the desire to kill it entirely before it even goes to a vote.
It's only silly if I think opposing a given piece of legislation means opposing it whereever possible? Yes, then, that's
exactly what I mean. It's silly because overcoming a filibuster has become the de facto criteria for passing legislation through the U.S. Senate. The actual vote is little more than a formality in comparison to cloture.
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Look at something like the upcoming healthcare debates: if a blue dog doesn't like the plan that is actually on the table, but thinks that in general something must be done now, voting yes on cloture and no on the bill is perfect. (Especially if you are of a practical mind and would like some support when you run for re-election.)
Because "I voted for it before I voted against it" worked so well for Kerry. There's a lot of nuance in the legislative process, but the
interest groups won't be fooled by something like that.
Starrfall on 1/7/2009 at 20:01
You're not really correct in saying that overcoming a filibuster is de facto. They are threatened more than they are actually brought and there are plenty of bills that get to a vote without a filibuster even being considered because they're just not contentious/high profile enough.
It's not really that hard to understand that "not being in favor" doesn't necessarily mean "against at all costs".
You're also not correct if you think enough voters give a shit about cloture votes to make a difference in a campaign. For example you apparently don't know that Joe Lieberman has done the "yes on cloture no on the vote" thing before, going by your comment that because he's an independent getting cloture is "particularly unlikely".
And if you understand all of that then you know why your Kerry comparison is dumb!
edit: again, the biggest thing in the way of cloture is probably the health of Kennedy and Byrd
Pyrian on 1/7/2009 at 20:20
Quote Posted by Starrfall
You're not really correct in saying that overcoming a filibuster is de facto.
It was hyperbole - I wouldn't say that's
always the case - but not by very much. In matters of import and controversy where strong feelings are generated both sides - i.e., in the things people really
care about - the primary impediment is reaching cloture.
Quote Posted by Starrfall
They are threatened more than they are actually brought and there are plenty of bills that get to a vote without a filibuster even being considered because they're just not contentious/high profile enough.
And there are plenty of of bills which never go anywhere near a vote because they know they can't get cloture and don't bother forcing a filibuster. The difference between a session with lots of long filibusters and a session without any is primarily in whether the majority leadership wants to make hay over the issue. The Republicans a few years back, largely unwilling to accept any limitations on their power, went to great effort to "bust" the filibuster. The Democrats recently, largely just move on if the whip doesn't count cloture.
Quote Posted by Starrfall
It's not really that hard to understand that "not being in favor" doesn't necessarily mean "against at all costs".
It's not that it's hard to understand. It's that it doesn't
mean anything. If you have it in your power to stop it and you don't, nobody who really cares is going to be satisfied that you technically voted against it in the vote that
wasn't dependent on your support.
Quote Posted by Starrfall
You're also not correct if you think enough voters give a shit about cloture votes to make a difference in a campaign. For example you apparently don't know that Joe Lieberman has done the "yes on cloture no on the vote" thing before, going by your comment that because he's an independent getting cloture is "particularly unlikely".
I think the voters understand that that's nothing more than covering his ass and that he'll happily spin it whatever way he wants to in the election.
Starrfall on 1/7/2009 at 20:35
Quote Posted by Pyrian
The difference between a session with lots of long filibusters and a session without any is primarily in whether the majority leadership wants to make hay over the issue. The Republicans a few years back, largely unwilling to accept any limitations on their power, went to great effort to "bust" the filibuster. The Democrats recently, largely just move on if the whip doesn't count cloture.
Actually cloture votes at least have been on the rise since about 2004 ish and dramatically so since 2006.
Here's a recent example (note the date - they didn't even need franken): (
http://washingtonindependent.com/48260/democrats-file-for-cloture-on-harold-koh) The senate voted 65-31 for cloture and 62-35 to confirm. So 3 republicans (or lieberman or specter) didn't want to confirm him but thought that holding up the vote was bullshit. It happens a lot. Voters don't care. (except you but you can be special if you want to)
