Anyone surprised by this is a bigger fool than Bush.

Obama should nominate Sotomayor. That way, when Kyl goes after her, we can completely fuck up the GOP in AZ with the Latino vote.
.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what happened to the days where they actually had to filibuster instead of just saying they were going to? Maybe if the American public actually saw them up there reading the phone book, or recipes, or whatever nonsense it is that they're spouting they'd have far less tolerance for this. The same can be said for the person threatening to filibuster. Maybe if he or she know they had to actually stand up there in front of the American people and let them see them filibuster they would be less inclined to threaten it.

Make them actually do it!

What NHct said. Obama sure had better not believe his bipartisan rhetoric.

And way to go, Senate Dems! Roll over when in the minority, roll over when in the majority. You are all my heroes!

Any chance Democrats can recycle the 'obstructionist' campaign so successfully run by the GOP 8-10 years ago?

The Obama team might have a real shot at picking up support from a few moderate Republicans, like the two senators from Maine or Arlen Spector. This country will be dealing with some major economic issues and I don't think there is that much sympathy for obstruction that is supposedly in defense of our "wonderful" free market system.

McConnell released a letter signed by the entire GOP Conference to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) calling on him to use a more open process for advancing legislation in the 111th...

Reid will surely reply, "Okay. Is there anything else I can do for you sir? Wouldn't you like a committee chair?"

I'm with kanopsis. Reid needs to call McConnell's bluff and actually make the Republican's filibuster. Make them stand there for a week talking while the budget doesn't pass. Shut down the government.

There have been two government shutdowns in the last twenty years. The first when a Democratic congress stared down Bush over taxes and the second with Clinton stared down Gingrich over the budget. Both times the Democrats WON.

They won by showing strength and actually FIGHTING for what they claim to believe in. Until the Democrats learn to stand and fight they will always be the weaker party, regardless of how many seats they hold in congress or whether they hold the Presidency.

By wide margins the public believes in the Democratic policies. What they do not believe is that Democratic policy makers will fight for the those policies when it matters.

ole mitch and the gop aren't really in a position to demand anything these days. if i was a republican from a blue state, especially in the n.e., i'd think about my own scalp before holding party line with a colleague who barely won reelection in a red state. and kyl might want to be a little more judicious himself, considering the demographic and political changes going on in his home state.

I think this really gets at the heart of why Democrats run government well and Republicans run it so poorly. Bipartisanship is actually important in that there's supposed to be a genuine debate that results in compromise on major legislation. That's the way our government is supposed to work.

Democrats do this. Republicans do not.

More than anything else, if the Republicans keep running government badly, they'll run themselves out of power for good. They'll usher in a party that doesn't reflexively believe that good government = no government, since a majority of Americans no longer believe in that equation. Hopefully Democrats will have learned from their liberal excesses and apply some creativity to our social ills. Move away from welfare welfare and towards EITC. Subsidize college for everybody. Put someone in charge of UI insurance that would bring some new ideas to the table. Millions of people shouldn't sit idle at home looking for work that likely isn't there and collecting a paycheck while they do it. They shouldn't have their benefits reduced if they find part time work to help bridge the gap until they find full time work as part time work can often lead to full time. These things don't seem so hard.

I'm having a hard time containing my excitement that with smart people finally in charge we can make government run well.

as g. powell noted, the key is peeling off snowe and collins (and conceivably spector). unless that can be done, the gop will filibuster its heart out: as i'm hardly the first to note, the zealots will continue to control gop decision-making.

and doubtful will go to his grave convinced that it's really all harry reid's doing....

The Republican leadership is delusional. Most obviously, they don't have 42 senators. They have 40, with Minnesota in a recount, and Georgia awaiting a runoff.

And then even if they *do* get to 42 senators, it's vastly harder to get the necessary 41 out of 42 to sustain a filibuster than it used to be to get 41 out of 49. Specter, Collins, Snowe are obvious targets for persuasion. And Lugar - who conspicuously failed to campaign for McCain in Indiana - is likely to be friendly on many issues.

And finally, they filibustered repeatedly for 2 years, and lost 7+ seats - do they really want to stand against a popular President and obstruct everything ? Maybe McConnell wants to, but are 41 Republican senators going to follow him over that cliff ? The leadership is delusional, but I'm pretty damn sure there are a few Senators left with enough common sense and instinct for self-preservation to act more sensibly.

See, this is why Mitch McConnell's real nickname is "Fulminating Pussbucket."

Richard is on to something. The reason filibustering worked so well for the Republicans for the 110th was because they successfully bet on Americans not understanding arcane Senate procedural rules. Democrats were voted in to end Iraq and obstruct Bush, but its hard to do when you are, functionally, 9 votes short. It didn't help that the media sort of forgot about the word "filibuster", instead portraying it as a loss for Democrats. I swear I saw some, "Democrats lose vote that Americans wanted 57-42" or something like that. So it looks like Democrats are doing nothing.

But now, all it will take is the President stepping in front of the mic and pointing out that Americans want it and Democrats want it but a stubborn minority of Republicans are keeping Americans from having it. This is very different from having milquetoast Reid stammer in front of the mic about "not having the votes". Americans said, "you have 57 why is that not enough?".

If Obama leverages his email list and web site the way the ywere saying post-election, those guys will get hounded into submission.

This is something that, by the way, I wouldn't normally be a fan of. Bush bullied Democrats for 8 years while enacting a radical right wing agenda Americans didn't vote for. But these Republicans don't want to get anything done, they just want to obstruct and keep America from getting the change it voted for. So to hell with them.

I think you saw more successful filibusters in the 110th because there was little incentive to break them - even if the Democrats broke the filibuster, Bush would likely veto the bill and the votes certainly wouldn't be there for an override.

Now, if the Dems want something in the Senate, no veto would likely be forthcoming. I predict this will lead to a situation more like the 108th than the 110th.

I like Richard C.'s point about the Republican Senator's pursuing these tactics and losing seven or more seats.

Everytime the Senate Republican Leadership makes noise about obstructing the Obama agenda let them yammer as loud as they want to the public but quietly hammer that fact home to every other Republican in the Senate. I bet after a few times of failure to pull off a filibuster they would shut up.

I tend to agree with doubtful, Reid is a crappy leader. He may be alright as a rank and file Senator, but he is definitely not the right person to lead the Senate at this time.

"The 42 Republican Senators represent 157 million Americans.

That's rich. A lot of those states representing the 157 million more recently elected a Dem Senator. I would guess the total number of people who voted for the 40 plus Chambliss and Coleman is closer to 40 million than 50.

MAKE. THEM. FILIBUSTER.

Don't allow the threat. Make them stand up and bitch, whine and moan for 48 hours straight.

They will do it once...possibly twice. If you show them that they will have to filibuster, they will cut out this bullshit.

I would guess the total number of people who voted for the 40 plus Chambliss and Coleman is closer to 40 million than 50.

Actually. closer yet to 25 million.

waitaminnit -- are they double-counting all state pops, or only in the split states? because if it's 157 million double-counted voters out of 600 million double-citizens, wow, that's double lame.

I think you saw more successful filibusters in the 110th because there was little incentive to break them - even if the Democrats broke the filibuster, Bush would likely veto the bill and the votes certainly wouldn't be there for an override.

I suppose one could call this a salvo, but it sounds more like he's simply passing gas.

Also on some sites I am reading that the Napatilano pick for the cabinet will also set here up to stay in the public eye while preparing for a 2012 run against Kyl who is much more disliked and who would be much easier to defeat than McCain in 2010

McConnell is talking smack.

Let's say the GOP wins in MN and GA. How many votes will they have? 42?

Let's assume the GOP able to get Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu or Joe Lieberman. This seems unlikely, but let's assume.

So Reid and Obama have to peal off three Republicans to break a filibuster.

Candidates:

Running in 2010 in states won by Obama
Mel Martinez
Kit Bond
Judd Gregg
Richard Burr
George Voinovich
Arlen Specter
Chuck Grassley

Add on the guys running in McCain states who are vulnerable for other reasons:

David Vitter
Jim Bunning

Senators who are likely to side with Obama along ideological lines:

Susan Collins
Olympia Snowe
Arlen Specter

Senators who want to put nasty partisanship behind them:

Dick Lugar
Voinovich
John McCain?
Lindsey Graham?
Lamar Alexander?
Richard Shelby?
John Thune?
Mike Johanns?

Senators who are quirky and therefore unreliable for McConnell:

McCain
Grassley
Coburn
Bunning?

Obama and Reid only need to peal off three (including the assumed Dem I've given them). And if Franken wins Obama and Reid only need two (assuming there's a Dem traitor). If Franken wins and there's no traitor, Obama and Reid just need one.

The GOP has been drubbed two elections in a row. If Obama is reasonably popular and the Republican brand stays in the crapper, McConnell will never hold onto his caucus.

And once Reid breaks McConnell once then McConnell will have little credibility.

McConnell is talking smack. Absent something egregiously partisan he hasn't got the votes to filibuster.

And after the 2010 elections the GOP won't even have 41 votes.

'Maybe if the American public actually saw them up there reading the phone book, or recipes, or whatever nonsense it is that they're spouting they'd have far less tolerance for this.'

No maybe about it, especially in these desperate times. If the Dems let the thugs get away with filibuster-lite, they run the risk of alienating/radicalizing a generation of Americans. To do so might jeopardize our democracy at least as much Bush's unconstitutional behavior. Obama would do well to heed his own words about this election not being just about him or his campaign, because it wasn't.

As for McConnell, It seems that Obama has a plan for every possible contingency so I would bet that there is a plan somewhere on how to deal with republican obstruction and perhaps some hard balling with the obstructionists. I am constantly amazed with the fore site and planning that leaves nothing to chance, so it is not likely that a major block to his agenda would not be planned for. Probably part of the reason for all the bi partisanship that we are seeing and the making nice with Lieberman and Mac. Petty revenge is not part of the big picture and the long range planning

We need to have Senate Bill #1 be the "Republicans are Hypocrites" bill.

There were 48 Republican senators who were in favor of the Nuclear Option a few years ago. Many have been defeated or retired. McCain, to his credit, was part of the Gang of 14.

Senator Reid should require at least 75% of the Senators who favored the Nuclear Option to go to the well of the Senate ad repeat the following:

I "Mitch McConnell" do publicly admit that I am a hypocrite. I was wrong when I supported the Nuclear Option for my own crass political purposes. I have seen the error of my ways and I think the Nuclear Option was wrong then and I think it is wrong now.

I pledge to work honestly with the majority on the other side of the isle and hope that the new DemocratIC majority treats the minority better that the Democrats were treated when we were in the majority.

Of course, if the Republicans actually admitted they were hypocrites and treated the Democrats badly then the Democrats would have to meet them PART WAY.

The Republicans have earned obscurity. Let them hyperventilate. Richard's analysis is absolutely correct. WATBs.

I suspect that the Republicans care far more about regaining power than they do about how the nation will fare over the next four years. And I also suspect that they know Obama will accomplish a great deal, and almost certainly succeed if they cooperate with him.

So I expect them to obstruct everything they can get away with politically. It's up to the Democrats to expose them for what they are. They did a pretty poor job of it in the 110th.

"Jon Kyl... publicly vowed to filibuster any prospective Supreme Court nominee he deemed to be too liberal."

That'll be all of them, then.

And isn't it weird how *Democrats* never had this power, nor this determination, nor this willingness to use it for such partisan ends. Despite never having this few Senators in *their* caucus during any of the Bush years.

Guess we'll find out whether the Obama/Reid post-partisan gamble works.

He's not double-counting his Senators. Total population of states with at least 1 republican in the 111th Senate is 157 million (this includes 5.2 million people from Minnesota that would disappear if Franken wins). Dems, using the same metric, "represent" 236 million.

Double counting would come up with 233 million for the Rs and 389 for the Ds (and that's counting Coleman as a victor).

Population isn't something that Rs should be talking about...

The Republican's ability to maintain their solid phalanx depends upon their ability, on the grassroots, to maintain a solid ideological noise machine.

One aspect of this is right wing control of local news outlets. One such right wing news font is Ogden Newspapers, headquartered in Wheeling, WV, which runs 40-odd small newspapers.

The West Virginia Blue blog has recently included a call for a boycott of Ogden subscriptions.

Commentators have noted that Ogden Papers is economically related to Seven Springs ski resort, which also might be boycotted.

So long as the local yokels continue to pound their drums, the filibuster in Senate will go on. Only when, on the local level, liberals take conservatives aside and tell them directly to can the noise, will these filibusters cease.

The time has come to take a hard look at how the Republicans operate at the local level.

I would love to see them try to filibuster, but I agree with the skeptics who see Reid as caving, caving, caving. What a wimp.

Why not eliminate the undemocratic filibuster and custom of a "hold". Neither is consistent with a democratic process and should be eliminated. When the Republicans retake the Senate, which they surely will, they should also be allowed to enact their program.

I've suggested this before.

Codify the filibuster to mandate constant talking so no "nuclear option" can remove it when the Democrats are, someday, inevitably, in the minority again.

Secondly, Democrats should join the filibuster and take turns quoting specious GOP arguments against the bills and attributing them appropriately and then another Democrat will humiliate same Senator by obliterating the specious logic and lambasting that Senator for holding up Senate business.

Just because the GOP knows they can't defend their obstruction doesn't mean the Dems can't do it for them.

Senator Kerry: "Senator Cornyn says this health care bill cannot come up for a vote because it is socialized medicine and would undermine private insurance. Thank you."

Senator Dodd: "Senator Cornyn overlooks the fact that the current bill merely requires all Americans to be insured and only thopse unable to afford private health insurance are to be covered by Medicare. This is a far cry from the socialized systems of Canada or the UK. For better, for worse, Senator Cornyn is either woefully misinformed or doesn't care enough to pay attention to the wording of the bills and Texas has its share of uninsured people who are currently being poorly served by this filibuster he is performing."

On and on, no other business taking place. Cloture vote every day.

Constant exposure of the obstructionism. If they refuse to speak, Democrats can in their place.

I'm with twfo on this. Don't just quit after calling a cloture vote, make those dirty pig-fucking Republicans actually haul their skanky asses up on the podium and filibuster. If they care soooooo much about these issues, then they damn well better be prepared to risk their health, well-being, and delicate little tootsies for them.

"Obama and Reid only need to peal off three (including the assumed Dem I've given them). And if Franken wins Obama and Reid only need two (assuming there's a Dem traitor). If Franken wins and there's no traitor, Obama and Reid just need one."

There won't be any consistent traitor. On particular issues conservative Dems like Ben Nelson may cause trouble, but I think it's much more likely such issues will be resolved with quiet backroom deals rather than having them side with Republicans on a cloture vote. It doesn't seem like Reid's style - nor "No-Drama" Obama's - to have dramatic votes. And with a 58+ vote supermajority, there shouldn't be much need for drama.

McConnell is just blowing smoke. Though he may be too stupid to do the math and realize it.

Apropos of my last comment, the real solution to this issue, of course, is to amend the constitution and do away with the Senate alltogether. Why do we rely on this archaic, outmoded, and altogether undemocratic institution? We don't need it, we didn't need it when the R's controlled everything, and we won't need it in the future regardless of who runs the country.

Remember when the dems were the minority and the republicans constantly bandied about the "Nuclear Option" that would have forbid democrats filibustering judicial appointments?
Good times indeed.

"The 42 Republican Senators represent 157 million Americans."

Setting aside the validity of the phantom two Senators, either of the following two statements is much, much truer:

The 42 Republican Senators represent all 300 million plus Americans, or

The 42 Republican Senators represent 42 Americans.

I know which I think is the truest of all, but hey, McConnell, you pathetic little whipped bully, surprise me.

It's pretty obvious that the Republican Senate leadership is as clueless about the Nov. 4 election as the rest of the party leadership. Obama won in part because the American public is sick and tired of the fear and smear politics of division the Republicans pursued during the campaign and the last 40 years. They want open discussion of issues; not the blind application of political ideologies. Obama knows it. Some Democratic leaders know it, but the Republicans are blind to how strongly the public rejects their brand of politics.

Agree with posts above that say make the Republican Senators actually filibuster. Make them stand there spouting nonsense like the petty individuals they are.

Remember when there were only 40 Republican senators elect. Wasn't that just yesterday ? Oh no you mean that was today and tomorrow too.

Seems that Senator McConnell is counting his chickens before they hatch. There is still a recount and a runoff between us and 42 Republican Senators.

Also how does he count constitutents ? If one state has two Republican senators does he count them twice ? That is, by his count, how many Americans are represented by Democratic Senators ?

Remember when ...

Calls for my perfect ReThuglican response: "That's different."

Remember the guy who ran on the Contract on America" but decided to run after the "term limits" in the Contract were up, and explained without any apparent self-awareness that term limits weren't necessary now that ReThuglicans (execept he called them Republicans) were in power?

You keep thinking ReThuglicans have actual positions on these kind of things. What they have is hypocrisy -- thick and deep.

"Obama and Reid only need to peal off three (including the assumed Dem I've given them).

Posted by: Richard Cownie on November 21, 2008

So you're saying, "Ask not for whom this bill peals, it peals for you."?