Wait! Wait! STOP! Somebody explain to me why suddenly we need 60 votes to do anything. I've been paying some reasonable amount of attention to politics for ... oh, 40-45 years now and I do not ever recall a situation where the senate needed 60 votes to do just about anything.

What the bleep is going on?

I worry about how many of Obama's initiatives will survive even simple majority votes anyway with the likes of blue dog Democrat Evan Bayh, whose wife sits on the boards of 5 health care companies and our bail out dollars to the banks are being used as campaign contributions to Republican and Democratic members of the TARP commission.

We've reached the point at which this very idea is literally offensive -- indeed, it's un-American -- to conservatives.

And for the last eight years, it was un-American to be against the Republican president and his cohorts.

Steve, Steve, Steve.

Don't you understand by now that ANY system that doesn't allow the ReTaliban to rule is unAmerican?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

A republican said "honest debate."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

"We've reached the point at which this very idea is literally offensive -- indeed, it's un-American -- to conservatives"

After 200+ years of American government, 43 previous presidents and, more importantly, after 8 years of a Republican presidency isn't it funny how they just started noticing how the budget reconciliation process works? And just when a Democrat is elected into office.

Of course the Republicans in office and the Republicans in the media knew about this process before. But complaining about it before didn't offer them anything they didn't already have with the Democrats out of power.

Fox News and the rest of the Republican establishment still have a credibility problem

We've reached the point at which this very idea is literally offensive -- indeed, it's un-American -- to conservatives.

Of course it is, Steve, because they don't get their way.
.

One of the easiest ways that I can think of to limit how often the filibuster threat is used is to actually make the minority filibuster. You know, get out the cots, read the phone book, whatever. They would then get their opportunity to go on the news and explain their point of view, and why they are haltinig the government from working. Then the American people would have the opportunity to weigh the competing ideas, and give a collective thumbs up or STFU. Knowing where the majority of the people are on most issues makes this a difficult play for the R's though.
I would think that most R's would love to get a chance at the bully pulpit that the filibuster would bring, if they have the courage of their convictions.
Oops, I have R's, courage and convictions in the same sentance. I don't know how that happened. Sorry.

In their eyes, it's "un-American," but only when it's Democrats that are in the majority. The budget reconciliation process, as a tool to include legislation that could not be filibustered, was absolutely standard practice during the Bush administration.

This reminds me of several years back when McCain said the soldiers in Iraq wanted us to "let them win". I pictured a bunch of whiny babies flipping the chessboard crying, "let us win! You have to let us win!"

Now it's congressmen, crying for the same thing, to be allowed to fulfill the delusion that in an honest debate, their "ideas" would suddenly reign just as democracy has reigned in Iraq. Even if you lose, you just scorch the earth and call it victory.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) blasted the idea, calling it "the Chicago approach to governing." Gregg added, "You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River."

I guess he preferred the Texas approach to governing, where they dragged the minority behind a pickup truck and then threw them into the Rio Grande?

Uhh, Steve, considering that a non-Blue Dog Dem (and self-appointed custodian of Senate tradition) like Robert Byrd also is iffy, at best, about using the reconciliation process, I'd say this post is incomplete at best and misleading at worst.

Try again.

Given that every piece of legislation is about something that the Federal Government eventually has to foot the bill for, and that every penny spent by the federal Government is now affecting the deficit, the national debt, and the overall budget, it might be a good idea to just start running EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION through the budget reconciliation process.

I'm sorry---what was that? Republicans are crying like spoiled children? Let me get my tiny violin....

There's two possibilities here: Either the Republicans believed that the Democrats didn't have the balls to use the tools at their disposal to get the job done, and are genuinely surpised about this. Or they're just mugging for the "bipartisan" bridage.

The correct response is the same either way: To quote Dick Cheney (although not, of course, on the actual floor of the US Senate).

"Mike Huckabee believes it undermines the 'entire system of the American government' if a piece of legislation passes with the support of congressional majorities."

It only undermines the entire system of government on RightWing Bizarro World.

...a system in which 41 votes defeat 58 votes.

Of course, the reason why it's not 41 votes to 59 votes is because majority rule is offensive to Republicans in Minnesota.

We've reached the point at which this very idea is literally offensive -- indeed, it's un-American -- to conservatives.

Why do we need to keep trying to live in the same country with these people?

I would suggest that every problem we face as a nation could be solved by repatriating conservatives and Republicans to places they can understand, like Mexico, western Pakistan or Alaska.

It's too bad that it will probably take Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, to mash up some video clips that show the Republicans on the floor bloviating about the 'nuclear option' and how EVERYTHING deserves an up-or-down vote.

Make sure there are plenty of clips showing the hypocritical Republicans - including Fox personalities defending it.

Then show the current crop of Republican personalities railing against it and how it is against American Government, etc...

Conclusion: Republicans really are UN-American and against the "entire system of American government"

Hmmm something to think about... Some Move-on ads? any ideas?

The filibuster was never meant to be abused, but the Republicans have taken it to a whole new level. Last year they used it 101 times as compared to a little over half the year before.

The original purpose was to give the minority party a voice, but instead the filibuster is has been used to prevent legislation from passing -- ergo hold the majority hostage.

I do not want to see the filibuster abolished. I re_member all too well when the Dems were in the minority. If they even so much mentioned the idea of a filibuster the Republicans [Frist, DeLay, Santorum, et al] threatened to do away with the filibuster altogether -- better known as the "nuclear option."

The Republicans will go to any lengths, no matter the cost, to stop Democrats from passing any legislation the people want because that is what gets Democrats elected to office, god forbid!

As Obama says, "Opposition is easy; saying no is easy. Saying yes and figuring out how to solve problems and governing -- that is hard."

Apparently conservatives would rather take the easy road.

So as long as the GOP caucus continues abusing the filibuster, then the Democrats should prudently use the budget reconciliation process.

Otherwise the chance of getting important legislation passed will be slim at best.

Hey Alan - we have enough far-tight fringe dwellers in Alaska already - more than is fair. Ask the wolves. Ask the villagers in Western Alaska who are spending as much as $20K or more a year on heat and electricity and being forced to go without sufficient food while Sarah Palin gets on her rickety soapbox and turns down economic aid.

The big problem with the Republicans is that there hasn't been a strong, principled Democratic Party in living memory. The Democrats spend nearly all their time trying to figure out how to avoid being painted as "liberals" by the right. Hence allowing 58 to be overruled by 41 over and over - to the cost of the nation as a whole. If there were only 20 Republicans in the Senate, the story would be no different.

When Hannity talks about having an "opportunity" to vote, he means protecting a system in which 41 votes defeat 58 votes.

It's even worse than that... I did a breakdown of how many constituents each party has back when the 'publicans were in charge, and they were screaming about ending the filibuster for judges. (Back then, Democrats represented a little over 51% of the people in the US, even though they were in the minority.)

I just did another one for this Senate. Guess what, Republicans represent a tad over 38% of the people in the US. So Hannity is talking about protecting a system where 62% of the population are overruled.

The usual caveats apply. Yes, the Senate isn't meant to be proportional representation. No, not all of the people in any given Senate election voted for the winning candidate. But Senators are supposed to be representing all of the people of their state, so in terms of constituents, it's 62% to 38% (counting the populations of each state (except Minnesota) twice - once for each Senator). And yes, 13 states have one Senator from each party - but they cancel each other out, so even taking those states out of the equation, the percentage split remains the same.

This sort of process, forcing votes on secret legislation, is how you got the AIG bonuses. You folks never seem to learn. Democracy needs debate or it is fascism. Dorgan, this morning, agreed that the reconciliation process is NOT appropriate for legislation. The last time I checked, he was a Democrat and chair of the Senate Budget committee.

I'm not even sure it's constitutional, at least not until Obama gets to add a few leftists to the USSC.

Mike K from the conspiracy theory wing.

There's nothing secret about the 'reconciliation procedure. It is absolutely the same way of voting for any legislation; EXCEPT obstructionist Republicans can't filibuster.

Isn't that what Republicans wanted before? A fair up-or-down vote for everything? What about a political mandate from the people, Republicans were so eager to talk about during the Bush years?

Now you have a chance to experience what a public mandate truly is and what a simple up-or-down vote is all about.

All you, and your fellow conservatives/republicans can do is throw a tantrum, what changed?

Silly me. It's no longer republicans at the helm. How could I forget. It's only OK when the GOP does it, not when liberals do it. I got it!

You are mistaken about one thing, bruno. I don't mind Democrats taking exclusive "credit" for these bills as I think they are unmitigated disasters. What I am worried about is the country.

We will see what 2010 brings. The entire NY Times columnist corps dumped on your boy today and those seven Democrat Senators he wants to exclude from debate are the ones running for reelection next year.

I think there are enough non-suicidal Democrats left to stop the bill so the recon ploy is as much to keep them out as the Republicans.

Mike K, the only unmitigated disaster was 8 years of Republican rule. You assholes really don't have any right to say anything about the current situation of this country except "We're sorry and we take responsibility". It is all your fault. Scumbags.