i hope folks in some of those mobs have health insurance, they might not receive a happy welcome if they get all rude and shit...

I think the problem right now is the moving target - Harry Reid first said we need 60 votes, even though he actually only needs 51. When he got 60, he said well we only have 58 since Kennedy and Byrd are sick.

The GOP can only throw tantrums because Harry Reid listens to what they are shouting.

And teabaggers can take over town halls because the organizers are not enforcing rules of civility, and the media is treating the astroturf as some sort of uprising.

It's kind of strange for a liberal like myself to be a part of the so-called silent majority. But in fact, the anti-war crowd in Nixon's day (and Bush's for that matter) had the numbers. This crowd doesn't. What they lack in numbers, they make up for with volume.

It's also interesting to note how old and white the protesters are. They don't trust the government (regardless of the facts regarding Medicare), they don't trust young people ("no common sense") and they don't trust non-whites ("they're taking over the country".) They are truly the dwindling minority.

People keep saying "abolish the filibuster." But why not just force actual filibusters? When the debate ends, it ends.

Crazed and running amok. Didn't realize so many Oakland Raiders fans cared about healthcare issues.

What Christopher said. I don't know when it become OK for the threat of the filibuster to take the place of an actual filibuster, but it seems that what we have. As a result, Republicans are obstructing as much legislation as they would if they actually had to get on the floor and speechify (because the time they engaged in an actual filibuster is the time NOT spent debating or voting on other pieces of legislation). BUT they're doing more than obstructing, they're eliminating. A bill that has to "wait its turn" because it's being held up by a previous bill is still a bill that's in the running. I'd rather Republicans have to spend all of their time and effort blocking ONE piece of legislation, than have to strengthen their resolve for the net piece of legislation to be debated they want to destroy, than threatening to filibuster 10 in the same amount of time, and get all of them tossed out.

The Dems in the Senate are cowards, beholden to the same money people as the Republicans, or both. MAKE THE REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY FILIBUSTER. MAKE THEM EXHAUST THEMSELVES. And then make them do it all over again on the next bill.

It is not as if we are opposed to majority rule in the senate. After we republicans regain a majority, we will again fully endorse and insist upon majority rule. Until then, we and our corporate media echo chamber will continue to insist that a supermajority be required to pass any major legislation.

It is only fair that republicans, as the rightful rulers of our country, should have the final say on legislation. That is so regardless of which party has the majority in the senate.

I'm sure that when the Democrats once again become the minority party, they will show the majority Republicans how to properly save the usage of the filibuster to only those rare occasions when it is absolutely necessary.

Amazing what a little losing can do to wig out old white people. After listening to Republicans and "independents" calling C-SPAN this morning with cranky, loud, obnoxious voices of spite and ignorance, I wonder what's next. Probably Republican congressmen will start literally tripping Democrats as they walk down the aisles of the House and Senate. Then they'll start popping Democrats with towels and calling them "sissy socialists."

"The rise of the filibuster should give constitutional originalists some pause...."

Why? It's right there in Article 1, section 5: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...." That, and no explicit mention of a simple majority in section 7 on how bills are passed. Oops!

First of all I think people should stop using the term "mob." Its not like hoards of people are turning out for these things. Its a pretty small groups of people. Notice how tv coverage frames the event to give the impression of more people than there really is. When the camera pulls back the "mob" is pretty thin.

Remember during the primaries we heard non-stop about Obama's "white problem." He stopped the Clinton juggernaut dead in its tracks. During the general election, once again, the hot topic was Obama's "white problem." He steamrolled right over McCain and the Republicans. His victory wasn't slim or a fluke. He won handily across the American spectrum. What Obama has is a "white trash problem." Look at the people showing up to these events. does that look like mainstream America to you?

The media's breathless devotion to covering every move these people make is misleading and doing a disservice. The attention skews reality and just encourages the behavior. This is a media created issue, nothing more. If they didn't get attention they'd go away.

Meanwhile, an intelligent debate about the real issues is left by the side of the curd to chase this paltry circus.

Whatever you think of the filibuster, it does not mean "that the Senate now runs by minority rule."

It often means that you need a super majority to get things done. But that is a far cry from "minority rule".

Capt Kirk, while scenes of tripping or even wedgies might happen, beware of the return of an emulator of Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina, who entered the Senate, in 1856, and beat Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts savagely over his head and shoulders with a metal tipped cane.

I hate this belly-aching about senate rules and nut-job mobs. The fact is that the GOP is a broken party and the Dems have the power to put in place a progressive agenda.

Bush was actually quite effective in his first term. I didn't like what he did of course, but the man knew how to play Congress back then, which the GOP held with a much slimmer margin. He of course lost it in the second term, fortunately, but lots of damage had already been done.

Obama could learn a thing or two from him.

Don't you remember? the entire Republican playbook during 1993-1994 was to do anything to deny the Democrats any legislative victories at all. Nevermind about anything being "good for the nation". Nevermind such wonderful things as "comity" and "bi-partisanship". They played hardball. And won bigtime.

and meanwhile they kept talking and talking and talking about Clinton "scandals" - nothing there, but it gave the media something to talk about other than the Democratic agenda and the media completely took the bait.

It's all happening all over again. That's their M.O.

Ross Douthat writes a column about CA vs. Texas in the NY Times that people then cite (although some admittedly critically) as somehow having some sense to it in explaining CA's decline.

Here's all you need to know from a CA native. The cause of CA's decline: MINORITY RULE

I sincerely hope those in the Senate leadership can learn that lesson before the US goes the way of my home state.

Be careful what you wish for. The No-Cajoles party has a large margin in the house and senate plus the white house and whines about its inability to pass popular legislation. Next time anyone entertains the idea of lowering the bar even further, consider this. Given all that stands in the way of spectacularly intrusive legislation is a conservative SCOTUS, think WWCD (What Would Cheney Do?). Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

I know you all think I am some sort of troll but....

If the Republican party is so out of touch then how come it appears they will win the governor races in two states carried by Obama?

It does seem to me that the wing nuts are running the party but it also appears to me that my home state of Jersey will elect someone who wasn't fired by the Bush Justice department because he launched a public investigation against Senator Menedez before the election and dropped it after the election when it could no longer affect the outcome.

Perception is everything. Even Congressman Jim McGovern was shouted down in Worcester, Mass. this week. If the Democrats and organizations like Move On don't quickly organize people to attend all the same events the tea baggers are at, the health issue is going to tip away from us. There really is no time to delay.

Republicans on the Hill and the Republicans in the base seem to be operating under a bizarre assumption: he who throws the biggest tantrum wins.

Which is why I say, in the same way that Republicans insist on referring to the Democratic party as 'the Democrat party', we should start routinely referring to the Republican party as 'the Shithead party'.

The real issue is that, as divided as we are, the country is ungovernable. Plus the Rethugs are much better organized, in a fascist way, to obstruct, out shout, and obfuscate any legislation the dim-Dems propose. Why the dim-Dems don't jettison Harry Reid, or send him to a nursing home, or both, is a mystery. He is the most ineffective majority leader the Senate has seen in at least 50 years. With Reid constantly leading the retreat it doesn't matter how many votes the dim-Dems have. The Rethugs will always outmaneuver them.

It's totally disgusting.

The rise of the filibuster should give constitutional originalists some pause.

The Constitution gives to the houses of Congress the sole authority to write their own rules of procedure. When the Republicans had majorities in both houses the liberal press was unanimously opposed to proposals to eliminate the filibuster.

The majority does rule in the long run, but when there is a dedicated minority, the majority has to be at least as dedicated. In the present instance, the majority (so claimed) in favor of the health care reform should at least have enough dedication to read the whole law before voting on it, and to speak and write about the confusing, obfuscatory, contradictory and fanciful provisions in the law.

If the goal is to provide insurance to an additional 47 million people, why not do something simple like create a sort of minimalist insurance program without restricting the private insurers out there, and add the payroll tax necessary to fund it? To keep down costs, it could, like Oregon, list the procedures that it will and will not cover, without prohibiting Americans, or their employers, from purchasing additional coverage. That would be transparent.

As written, the bills seem to imply that over time the government insurance would eventually drive all other insurance out of the market. That would achieve one of Obama's stated goals, and a goal of some progressives. Proponents say that's not so, but they haven't yet shown sufficient dedication to read the bills through and explain how the public and private plans could co-exist with all the restrictions placed on them, and the usual government practice of extending the subsidies to its own programs.

"When the Republicans had majorities in both houses the liberal press was unanimously opposed to proposals to eliminate the filibuster."

Bullshit. Not true.

"to keep down costs, it could, like Oregon, list the procedures that it will and will not cover"

Nice try. One of the main problems, both Oregon and Washington have had with their early '90s Basic Healthcare programs, is that they were blindsided when the Clinton plan fell through. They expected help from the Federal government. Left on their own, the reason, they, both, have had to pare the coverage of the program and, on occasion, cut off new enrollment, is due to the RepuGs in both state legislatures cutting funding for the programs. Thus, the RepuGs can claim and bray, "See, it doesn't work". It has been tough enough for Oregon to expand coverage to children. Various special interest groups howl when asked to help pay for the coverage. This cutting funding is akin to the Reaganauts cutting funding for the Great Society programs, and even such as OHSA, then talking about the waste of such useless programs. The Reaganauts learned very early that you don't have to overturn a program in order to stop it in its tracks. Just cut funding.

Note Matthew's other "nice tries," as well, like where he pretends that we have to show where the legislation *won't* do something, as compared to him having to show that it will. And then there's the lovely little game he's playing where, if the government at some future time does something, then that could affect insurance companies, even though the current legislation contains no such "something."

In short, and as usual, he's full of shit.

Whatever you think of the filibuster, it does not mean "that the Senate now runs by minority rule."

It often means that you need a super majority to get things done. But that is a far cry from "minority rule".

When even routine votes on presidential appointments can be blocked by a minority faction, or when ordinary legislation "requires" 60% support for passage, you've got "minority rule."

Èíòåðåñíàÿ ñòàòåéêà, àâòîðó ðåñïåêò, ãû ìîãó ïîìî÷ ñ ðàçâèòèåì, ïèøè icq 222546

In response to slappy magoo's comments about the filibuster:

Under Senate rules, there are two ways for a normal bill to be put to a vote. One if for the Senate to agree, unanimously, to vote on the bill. The second is for a cloture motion to be passed. So, to maintain a filibuster when the majority lacks 60 votes, the minority doesn't have to "speechify." All it has to do is to arrange to have one Senator from the minority on the floor at all times in order to block a unanimous agreement to bring the bill to a vote.

I have a question for us (I definitely am one) lefties: what would have happened during the Bush Administration (plus Republican majorities in Senate) if there had been no filibuster or threat of filibuster? What would have passed?

Hilzoy had it right.
Have the filibuster, but make it burdensome so that "mobilizing" actually requires some level of effort.

It's easy to be passionate about everything when the passion you claim to have requires no work or time but makes your opponents remain "on-call" 24-7.

Anyone who missed it should read it:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016905.php

Äà óæ, ïðî÷èòàë ñòàòüþ, àâòîð, à Âû ãäå âçÿëè ýòè âûâîäû è öèòàòû? Åñëè ýòî Âàøå ìíåíèå, òî Âû ïðîñòî ãåíèé.

Óâëåêàòåëüíûé ìàòåðèàë, ñêàæó áåç ëèøíåé ñêðîìíîñòè. Ñïàñèáî àâòîðó