The Senate is functioning precisely the way it's been designed to function: to frustrate and defeat egalitarian movements from generating law. It's not broken. It's the House of Lords. In America it's the corporations that are the lords. Lieberman is the Duke of Hartford.

but why is

However, the earliest date that we could really address the filibuster is probably 2011, when the 112th Congress convenes. At that time, provided that the Dems still have control of the Senate, they could change the Senate filibuster rules with a bare majority.

that period so special that it only takes a majority? Is it because the Senate is first starting the session and nothing else is on the table?

Thoughts on Harkin's proposal?

It says that on the first vote, you need 60. Then you have to wait two days, and on the third day, you need 57 votes. And then you need to wait two days, and on the third day, it's 54 votes. And then you'd wait another two days, and on the third day, it would be 51 votes.

  ..."and what do we have to do in 2010 to pave the way for doing away with the filibuster in 2011?"

   So, then, what say you?  What do "we" have to do on that point, hmmm?

"What was truly impressive about the decade past, however, was our unwillingness, as a nation, to learn from our mistakes."

What the rules in CT for filling a vacancy? Does the gov. have to appoint someone from the same party?

________
The Raptor of Spain: A Webserial
From Muslim Prince to Christian King (Updated Nov. 24)

Ultimately the problem is that in the event that the situation is reversed, and the Republicans were in power again (much like what we had with Bush Jr.), many Democrats could view the filibuster as a useful tool to obstruct some of the nonsense.

I wasn't aware of this loophole regarding the Senate rules, and I am a little baffled as to why if this is so easy that this wasn't corrected at the start of the current session.  If all of this were true, the majority in any Senate session could rule out the filibuster as it is generally only of use to the minority - so the question remains why it is that the filibuster has continued this long?  Bureaucratic inertia perhaps?  But the current level of Senate dysfunction has reached a level that something has to change.

There is a certain mindset that believes in elves, Santa Clause, the East Bunny and other kindly lies.

There is another mindset that is caused by a lifetime of propaganda.  To wit: the US is Not one of the most evil countries to have ever existed.

There are honest politicians.  No politician ever took a bribe, a payoff, a noshow job, an underpriced piece of land. The loan of a car. Etc.

This mindset leads to being of two minds.  There should be only one.  Start at the top and work down.  Obama has commited over 11 months of war crimes, impeach him in return for single payer.  I'd even throw in a show trial and an execution for the killings in Pakistan and Yemen for the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You just have to think in human think not in political babble and it becomes real clear real fast.


I don't care what your momma told you, your papa told you, the teacher told you or the preacher told you, you ain't getting out of here alive.

BTW, TPM story reporting possibility of Senate movement on Climate Change is pretty slim.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/with-health-care-winding-down-senate-dems-can-soon-focus- on-climate-change-right-wrong.php

________
The Raptor of Spain: A Webserial
From Muslim Prince to Christian King (Updated Nov. 24)

With the parameters you set, the only thing to do is to gear every bill so that it can pass under budget reconciliation rules.  If the Dem caucus isn't goingt to (or can't - take your pick) punish wayward members by stripping committee assignments, then a major lever to enforce discipline is gone.  The President and the party committees have little leverage because only a third (approximately) of senators are up for re-election.  Thus most don't need crunch-time fundraising efforts or joint campaign appearances.  And it is unlikely that money would be withheld in any case.  Voters have little leverage against the worst Dems because the senators are not up for re-election this cycle, or because the senators just don't really give a damn about their constituents.

As for the other side, beyond the duo from Maine, there doesn't seem to be anybody that could be convinced on important bills.  McCain, Voinovich, and Gregg have the 63-65th lifetime PP scores, but McCain and Gregg are much worse this session.

That leaves reconciliation.

I think the filibuster is unlikely to be killed this session, but to rule out the nuclear option from the get-go makes no sense for two reasons.  First, it is unlikely there will be any major accomplishments otherwise.  And second, it's a lousy bargaining tactic.