Bigots rejoice! DADT repeal dies in Senate at Republican hands.

[Sgt. McGee 27]

Neither.

But it wasn't 59-41, was it?

Who didn't "fall in line", eh?

Sorry. I meant 56-42, apparently. I forgot that the Dems didn't hold on to Obama's old seat (and the 2 I's caucus with the Dems, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).

[Pooky 3,825]

The only way we're going to end these kinds of obstructions to government functioning (something the far right is quite content with), is change the rules on filibustering.

Better still, single item measures in the House and Senate, avoiding the political manoeuvering that both parties are so in love with in their games to pin "blame" on the other side.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Better still, single item measures in the House and Senate, avoiding the political manoeuvering that both parties are so in love with in their games to pin "blame" on the other side.

Exactly and I argue this all the time..

What the hell did the Matthew Shepard Act have to do with Military Appropriations??? Absolutely nothing, yet it was put in there because it wouldn't stand on its own.....

Piling on to a bill should be 100% illegal.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sorry. I meant 56-42, apparently. I forgot that the Dems didn't hold on to Obama's old seat (and the 2 I's caucus with the Dems, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).

Right now it's 58-42 including the two independent Senators who caucus with the Democrats. One Democrat (the newly elected Sen from WV) voted against, all others and Susan Collins as the lone Republican voted for cloture. The other three Republicans who support the repeal (Murkowski, Brown and Snowe) voted against cloture because they stick with McConnell's obstruction doctrine until the richest Americans get what they paid them for.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Right now it's 58-42 including the two independent Senators who caucus with the Democrats. One Democrat (the newly elected Sen from WV) voted against, all others and Susan Collins as the lone Republican voted for cloture. The other three Republicans who support the repeal (Murkowski, Brown and Snowe) voted against cloture because they stick with McConnell's obstruction doctrine until the richest Americans get what they paid them for.

Things heated up about 35 years ago, when the Senate voted to change its cloture rules, lowering the filibuster-ending requirement from 67 votes to 60.

At the same time, the Senate was becoming more partisan than it had ever been, Ritchie said. Before the cloture change, strict party-line votes were relatively rare. But in the years that followed, the ideological spectrum of each party began to shrink, leading up to today, when, as Ritchie put it, "we have much more party discipline right now than we've ever had."

With senators closely toeing the party line in a way that Ritchie said they rarely had before, senate majority leaders of both parties have in recent decades begun filing for cloture more and more frequently -- largely as a way to gauge whether they have 60 votes for a bill before they expend time and effort on it on the Senate floor.

While Ritchie went to great pains in our discussion Monday to paint the rise of cloture as a bipartisan phenomenon, it's not entirely clear that's true. For instance, the two largest spikes in cloture filings in the last 20 years seem to be motivated, at least in part, by Republican obstructionism.

When Republicans were a Senate minority in 1991-1992, there were 59 cloture filings. When President Clinton took office, with Republicans remaining the minority in the Senate, that number shot up to 80 in 1993-1994.

When Democrats reclaimed the Senate majority in the 2006 midterm elections, cloture filings shot up from 68 in 2005-2006 to a record 139 in 2007-2008.

It's important to note that there's not a direct and complete correlation between cloture and filibusters.

"We don't know, always, whether these jumps in cloture are because there's more obstruction or because majority leaders need it to lend some degree of predictability to the floor," Binder said. "In reality, it's probably a bit of both."

But clearly, Binder said, "the behavior of the minority is largely responsible for what the majority is doing here."

So while it isn't the whole picture, the rise of party-line filibuster threats has at least contributed to the increasing frequency with which majority leaders have employed cloture.

"Nothing in the Senate changed," Ritchie said. "It's just that the people that voters elected have changed."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-cloture-how-gop-filibuster-threats-have-changed-the-senate.php

[Ban Hammer 13,474]

The only way we're going to end these kinds of obstructions to government functioning (something the far right is quite content with), is change the rules on filibustering.

might makes right, eh? the minority can stfu and sit down!

[^_^ 5,021]

The only way we're going to end these kinds of obstructions to government functioning (something the far right is quite content with), is change the rules on filibustering.

Bad idea. 40 is a significant number, if 40% of Senators don't like something then it ought to be allowed to die.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

might makes right, eh? the minority can stfu and sit down!

Steven is a Commie Pinko like most liberals these days and feels that you're too stupid to know what's best for you so they should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bad idea. 40 is a significant number, if 40% of Senators don't like something then it ought to be allowed to die.

Look how well that's worked for the state of California.

ETA: Requiring a 2/3 majority.

Edited December 10, 2010 by 8TBVBN

[^_^ 5,021]

Look how well that's worked for the state of California.

ETA: Requiring a 2/3 majority.

Look, one day there will be a RWN in the White House again and when that day comes I'd like to see 40 D Senators be able to obstruct the inevitable lurch to the right.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Look, one day there will be a RWN in the White House again and when that day comes I'd like to see 40 D Senators be able to obstruct the inevitable lurch to the right.

The threat to filibuster should be use with restraint and not as a political power grab. Polls during November's elections indicate that most voters want the gridlock to stop. A super majority should not be required for every piece of legislature that is brought forward for a vote.

[^_^ 5,021]

The threat to filibuster should be use with restraint and not as a political power grab.

Should, yes. But if one abuses that privilege, do we just get rid of it? No, because one day we will want to abuse it ourselves. What, did you think Democrats have a perpetual majority in the Senate?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Should, yes. But if one abuses that privilege, do we just get rid of it? No, because one day we will want to abuse it ourselves. What, did you think Democrats have a perpetual majority in the Senate?

No, I wouldn't get rid of it - just change the procedure.

[^_^ 5,021]

No, I wouldn't get rid of it - just change the procedure.

Whatever change you make will apply to everyone. So no, just leave it be. DADT isn't that big a deal anyway.

Although the 9/11 bill was.

[Captain Oates 911]

This was a bad idea all the way around, with Blood flowing as it does in War time and Homosexual men being like 50 times more likely to have aids.......

Put 2 N 2 together.

That's a canard

There was opposition to this long before AIDS appeared

Let's hope they don't ban gay barbers or I will end up walking around looking like a bloody violinist