Perhaps the question is whether we should abolish the 60-vote filibuster rule. For all you “constitution waving” tea bag party people, please take up the cause the fight this unconstitutional monstrosity! Isn’t this the real obstacle to reform?

The cloture rule is NOT in the Constitution. It’s a set of rules adopted by the Senate themselves, dating back to the Woodrow Wilson administration (though greatly modified since then).

Nobody wants to totally abolish cloture. It’s insurance against being in the minority and being powerless.

If Blue Dogs thought that there is refuge for them in the GOP from retribution by Pelosi or Reid … this should cinch the deal.

I already told you why that’s ridiculous. A strawman.

That thought hasn’t entered their minds even once.

Why on earth would any Democrat anywhere join a powerless Republican party, a party without the ability to filibuster anything, when the Dems have the White House and both houses of Congress?

Why defect and join a bunch of losers?

The only time the GOP got a number of Dems to switch was years ago when the GOP still seemed ascendant.

The month is early, David. If one thing this Administration has proved to date, it can out-do itself on spinning the absurd.

Well, as I noted earlier … the real obstacle has been the gentleman’s filibusters, where they just count the cloture votes and then let everyone move along to the next item. Filibusters should be public, and lengthy, and give the opportunity (as well as the responsibility) to the filibustering party to explain why it is so important to filibuster this particular bill or nominee.

It’s supposed to be a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington moment … and not just a wink and a nod.

The reason I bring this up is that even as effective as President Bush was, he still had to deal with a peculiar creature called the U.S. Senate where a simple fact remains: presidents can lead, promise, threaten people as much as they want, if they don’t have the magic 60, they can hardly do anything. This explains why the formidable President Bush became a lame duck after 2006, and the high-flying ideal candidate Obama has given way to a more mundane Obama in only a year. This also explains why we now have “presidents” Snowe, Nelson, Lieberman, and whoever wants to be kingmaker.

Perhaps the question is whether we should abolish the 60-vote filibuster rule. For all you “constitution waving” tea bag party people, please take up the cause the fight this unconstitutional monstrosity! Isn’t this the real obstacle to reform?

…….all too true…..but this is strategery…..these days the GOP is all tactics…..most of them ill considered.

And ironically – the NY23 race may well be a part of the reason those things will pass with some level of Blue Dog support.

If Blue Dogs thought that there is refuge for them in the GOP from retribution by Pelosi or Reid … this should cinch the deal. They will realize they have virtually no hope of winning a GOP primary, and even if they do they still could face a third party general election challenge from the right.

If Blue Dogs think that helping block one or two progressive initiatives will get the GOP to back off of harsh attacks on them during the general election – they have only to look at the attacks by the conservatives on a GOPer who doesn’t pass all litmus tests.

Thus – Blue Dogs will start to realize that their only chance of holding their seats will be to energize the Dem base, so they get flooded by contributions and support.

” Bush, not Obama, got TARP passed”

…….Master mind…..who was in control of both houses……these bills got passed because the Democrats passed them because they considered it in the national interest…….Bush had NO leverage with his OWN party…NIL…..NADA…..the only thing that brought a bloc of Republicans in the house over was the stock market collapse which panicked them…….I give the Bush(Paulson really) admin total credit for how they responded to the financial crisis and have said so many times here……. If the Republicans had still been in charge of house and senate this legislation would not have passed.

“All the fighting is taking place between liberal Dems and non-liberal Dems”

……..Of course it’s true…….the Dems have comfortable majorities and basically a much broader coalition than the Republicans…….in the house the Republicans since they have chosen a stance of NO are completely irrelevant…..in the senate procedures and the nature of the Democratic party have made it more complicated……and so much of American politics is dictated by interest that tensions even in governing coalitions with large majorities are inevitable……nevertheless healthcare is going to pass probably with a PO, energy legislation will be next, and then right in the run up to the mid terms it will be immigration reform

To some extent this is true … but the lockstep opposition by the Republicans gives the Blue Dogs considerable leverage here.

Unfortunately, what this leverage is likely to produce in many cases won’t be improved legislation – but worse legislation, as eventually to pass some of the major target legislation some significant pork is going to need to be rolled in to buy those Blue Dog votes. From a Republican POV, I’d think this the worst of both worlds – left-leaning legislation combined with additional pork.