I am seriously disappointed (again) with the Dems. They apparently could have removed the 60 vote requirement, and only needed 51 votes to do it. They could have demanded someone be on the floor blabbing to have a filibuster. With 51 votes. Instead Reid "compromised" (why?), and sold us all out.Because Senators don't want to be like Representatives.In the House, if your party isn't in power, you're relatively weak. Sure, you can do a lot of constituent services, have influence over regulatory agencies, and try to work your way up in party leadership. But being a backbencher in the House means you have very little leverage over the legislative process.Not so in the the Senate. The filibuster gives the minority party power over the legislative process, which means that even minority party Senators have a really big voice (once they have seniority - junior Senators don't count for as much in either the majority/minority). Most Democratic Senators have been there long enough to remember being in the minority. They don't want to be reduced to the same lowly status as House Democrats should the wheel turn again. Albaby
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra