Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 6
Have they got around to discussing the Jan 6th GQP insurrection yet or the upcoming investigations/prosecutions of those involved?

I understand there's been limited talk about COVID (mostly whining about masks?), but has anyone been discussing the 500K+ dead which will forevermore be linked to Pinocchio and the GQP?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Trumplicans regard the 500k dead as a gross exaggeration by Big Hospital/liberal doctors/lying bureaucrats and the fake news media.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
We are forced to live with democracy's blood cancer.

Let's work on a curative steps in 2022 and again in 2024.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Have they got around to discussing the Jan 6th GQP insurrection yet or the upcoming investigations/prosecutions of those involved?

I understand there's been limited talk about COVID (mostly whining about masks?), but has anyone been discussing the 500K+ dead which will forevermore be linked to Pinocchio and the GQP?


I looked at the agenda and I didn't see anything about the insurrection or Covid. It's like they didn't happen.

I think that Trump is scheduled at 345PM today. This should be good.

MAQA!!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
We are forced to live with democracy's blood cancer.

Let's work on a curative steps in 2022 and again in 2024.


I'm not sure that disease is the best analogy here. Trump GQP is not a cult of disease. It is an army on attack. We are at war against a terrorist army of dunces and nincompoops.

I really worry that most Washington Democrats are still trying to find a way to compromise with an internal terrorist army. Republicans need to be treated like enemy soldiers. They are actively working to take over our government and transform it into a fascist state. There really is no other reasonable way to view the Trump cult.

Many of us devoted a significant amount of time, energy and money to making sure that Democrats gained the Presidency and majorities in both Houses. Why bother to do that if the Democrats are simply going to give Mitch McConnell the filibuster so that the minority Trump cult can continue to rule? If Democrats do not eliminate the filibuster and begin to pass serious legislation to put a halt to the ongoing GQP revolution, then they deserve the serious losses they are going to suffer in 2022. This is a Democratic Republic. Democrats won the elections and hold a majority giving them the right to rule. Now Democrats need to stop being so timid and start ruling. Accepting Mitch McConnell as the King of Legislation by giving him the filibuster is simply too stupid to respect. Democrats must get aggressive and start to fix the things that a majority of Americans are demanding or they deserve to fail again.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Democrats are simply going to give Mitch McConnell the filibuster so that the minority Trump cult can continue to rule? If Democrats do not eliminate the filibuster and begin to pass serious legislation to put a halt to the ongoing GQP revolution, then they deserve the serious losses they are going to suffer in 2022.

I couldn't agree more. But I think the priorities should be to 1}Pass the economic package, and 2)Get Covid under control.

I can see from the QPAC meeting that we are going to have a real battle....in fact I think that WAR isn't too strong a word. Unfortunately, unlike previous wars, only about half of the country will be on the side of the USA. The rest will fight for the Kingdom of Trump.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just curious. How do you propose we kill the filibuster at present? What with Manchin and Sinema?

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If Democrats do not...begin to pass serious legislation to put a halt to the ongoing GQP revolution, then they deserve the serious losses they are going to suffer in 2022.

The single most important piece of legislation needed may well be the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. The state efforts (see Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota) to reduce, disguise, and even eliminate votes is truly scary.

Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Just curious. How do you propose we kill the filibuster at present? What with Manchin and Sinema?

Offer them better committee assignments.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Just curious. How do you propose we kill the filibuster at present? What with Manchin and Sinema?

I'm from AZ and have already kicked off an effort to change Sinema's vote. She is getting a lot of pressure and hearing threats of primaring her if she doesn't re-consider.

But look, it doesn't matter that it is going to be difficult to change Sinema's and Manchin's position. That's what has to be done. Ignoring that problem because it will be hard is naive and counterproductive.

Because your question, "How do you propose we kill the filibuster at present? What with Manchin and Sinema?", is not more important than the real question: "How do you propose to pass any meaningful and important legislation if Mitch McConnell holds the filibuster?"

And if Mitch is able to filibuster anything and everything, how do you expect Democrats to avoid losing both the House and Senate in 2022 if they have failed to address America's most important issues?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Because your question, "How do you propose we kill the filibuster at present? What with Manchin and Sinema?", is not more important than the real question: "How do you propose to pass any meaningful and important legislation if Mitch McConnell holds the filibuster?"

And if Mitch is able to filibuster anything and everything, how do you expect Democrats to avoid losing both the House and Senate in 2022 if they have failed to address America's most important issues?


They might not be able to pass "meaningful and important legislation." They might not be able to avoid losing both the House and Senate. Just because the consequences of reality are unpleasant doesn't change reality.

That's not to say that Manchin and Sinema are 100% locked into voting against killing the filibuster. They might change their minds. But if they don't, then the Democrats just aren't going to be able to pass some of their priority legislation in the way they want to pass it. No matter how much they want to pass it, if they don't have the votes they don't have the votes. Winning the smallest possible Senate majority and one of the smallest House majorities gives you control of Congress, which is good, but not an especially powerful position from which to orchestrate very significant legislative changes.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Bring Manchin's priorities up for votes first. Maybe he'll change his mind after those get filibustered.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
They might not be able to pass "meaningful and important legislation."

They might not. But if Democrats do not try to influence Sinema and Manchin, they almost certainly will fail . . . both at passing legislative solutions to America's problems and at getting re-elected in 2022. .

If Democrats want to see meaningful legislative change, they will have to neuter Mitch!!! And the path to neutering Mitch is through elimination of the filibuster. So that's the job in front of any knowlegeable Democrats who are actually motivated to solve America's problems. It may not be an easy job. It may not be a job they will succeed at. But if they fail at that, the entire party will suffer significantly in 2022 and 2024.

They might not be able to avoid losing both the House and Senate. Just because the consequences of reality are unpleasant doesn't change reality.

No one claimed it would be easy, baby. Nor did anyone claim that simply trying to change it will result in success. The claim is that this is the job that must be accomplished to avoid massive election casualties in 2022 and beyond. They might not be able to avoid losing both the House and Senate.

So, that's what Democrats have to deal with. They can either try to change Sinema's and Manchin's filibuster stand, eliminate the filibuster, pass meaningful legislation that will actually address many of the nation's problems brought on by GQP's leaning increasingly fascist . . . . or . . . they can simply say that the job is too hard and accept that they will be deemed unworthy and unable to rule as a majority party by voters in the next election.

I favor trying.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
They might not. But if Democrats do not try to influence Sinema and Manchin, they almost certainly will fail . . . both at passing legislative solutions to America's problems and at getting re-elected in 2022.

Oh, I think there's no doubt they will try. But it's pretty likely they'll fail. Manchin just lashed out at reporters complaining, "Jesus Christ, what don't you understand about 'never'?" - which is staking out a pretty strong public position on the subject:

https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-manchin-says-he-will-nev...

And with Sinema not facing re-election until 2024, it's going to be hard to press her too much to back down from her objections to repealing the filibuster.

So, that's what Democrats have to deal with. They can either try to change Sinema's and Manchin's filibuster stand, eliminate the filibuster, pass meaningful legislation that will actually address many of the nation's problems brought on by GQP's leaning increasingly fascist . . . . or . . . they can simply say that the job is too hard and accept that they will be deemed unworthy and unable to rule as a majority party by voters in the next election.

Those aren't the only two options. Those are actually the two least likely options, IMHO.

The most likely option is that they will both try and fail.

There is zero chance they won't try to change his mind. They're already trying to change his mind. And those efforts will almost certainly fail, because all of Manchin's political incentives are to maintain the filibuster. They're certainly going to make a lot of public shows about trying to repeal the filibuster, and likely make a lot of private entreaties to him - but there's little likelihood those efforts will succeed. And there won't be a vote unless they know that Manchin is on board....so there probably won't be a vote.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Those aren't the only two options. Those are actually the two least likely options, IMHO.

The most likely option is that they will both try and fail.


I mentioned that option. Do you actually read my posts?

So the options we've covered are:

1 - Don't try and simply fail.
2 - Try and
2a - succeed.
or 2b - fail.

I still favor trying. You seem to want to only look at option 2b. Why? Are you looking for a reason to justify doing nothing and failing?

I don't know the actual odds of 2a vs 2b. Neither do you. Also, whatever the odds are today, events and news could change them tomorrow. The only real issue for Democrats is whether they want to succeed badly enough to try . . . and keep trying. Because the option of giving up is stupid.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You seem to want to only look at option 2b. Why? Are you looking for a reason to justify doing nothing and failing?

I never said that I wanted only to look at option 2b. To quote something I heard recently, "Do you actually read my posts?"

Of course the Democrats should try. They should also keep front of mind that it will almost certainly fail, and plan accordingly.

The only real issue for Democrats is whether they want to succeed badly enough to try . . . and keep trying. Because the option of giving up is stupid.

Well, at some point you should stop trying. Political energy, pressure, and just "oxygen" for an issue are limited - so once you know you can't change his mind, you don't want to waste them on beating a dead horse. If you can't get Manchin and Sinema on board after a serious and full-throated effort, at some point you have to cut your losses and move on.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They should also keep front of mind that it will almost certainly fail, and plan accordingly.

I don't know what that means . . . plan accordingly. There is one single issue that is allowing Mitch McConnell and the GQP to continue to rule Washington and force Democratic party failure - the filibuster. Without it, Democrats stand a chance of righting a lot of wrongs. With it, they will not pass a single piece of meaningful legislation.

So what plan do they have if they don't block the filibuster? Run and hide? Mount an insurrection of their own? Ask Trump for help?

There are many paths to success, but they all start with an absolute requirement to overcome the filibuster hurdle that now allows Mitch and the GQP to stop all legislation. Does anyone actually believe that Mitch and the Senate GQP is going to allow any bill that Democrats initiate to pass? Does anyone actually believe that the GQP Senators are going to participate in meaningful negotiation and compromise? I would love to see it happen, but I find it virtually impossible to believe it will having watched the Republicans in Washington for the past decade or more become increasingly uncoupled to reality and ready to simply lie and blame Democrats even for their own actions.

Well, at some point you should stop trying. Political energy, pressure, and just "oxygen" for an issue are limited - so once you know you can't change his mind, you don't want to waste them on beating a dead horse.

When there is only one horse that matters, you better keep on beating it until you die. Because if you stop, you're dead anyway.

If you can't get Manchin and Sinema on board after a serious and full-throated effort, at some point you have to cut your losses and move on.

Move on to what? Failure? Becoming a Republican? State some specific options that you think are viable. Stop spewing vague warnings about alternatives that don't exist.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
So what plan do they have if they don't block the filibuster? Run and hide? Mount an insurrection of their own? Ask Trump for help?

Plan an agenda that doesn't require stand-alone legislative action in the Senate. Focus on executive matters, pursue appointments and policy (getting the right personnel into the federal government to further your goals), get as much as you can into must-pass bills (like defense authorization) and reconciliation measures, focus on winning more power in the upcoming elections, and see if there's anything where you can get 10 votes from the opposition party. You know, like both political parties have been doing for the last decade or so, save for the brief period when Democrats had 60 Senate votes.

Move on to what? Failure? Becoming a Republican? State some specific options that you think are viable. Stop spewing vague warnings about alternatives that don't exist.

Move on to governing within the strictures of the filibuster, like nearly every other President and majority-holding party has had to do for decades. Focus on the things that either don't need 60 votes (appointments, reconciliation bills) and the things that can get 60 votes (must-pass items and true compromise legislation, if it's possible)....and focus on getting more success in future elections.

The Democrats have a solid position, but this isn't 2009. They have a tiny majority in the House and a razor-thin majority in the Senate. There are things they can get done, but big sweeping legislative changes are probably not among them.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I still favor trying.

I agree. The question becomes when to try.

I think now is not the time. The time to strike will be when there is sufficient pressure on a couple of Senators from their constituents combined with the right deal.

Therefore, the job right now is to figure out how to make that pressure happen. How do you put pressure on the couple of Senators who are hesitant to agree to remove the filibuster? Grass roots campaigns? Letter writing campaigns? The beginnings of a primary challenge? Something else?

Then, in the background, you have to figure out how to accomplish the horse trading necessary to get them to change their positions. What carrots can you offer? Better committee assignment? More help from the DNC? A bit of pork for the folks back home?

My last thought is that removing the filibuster is a two way street. If you successfully remove the filibuster and still lose the Senate in 2022, you have the worst of both worlds. There's no way a Republican Senate would agree to reinstate the filibuster in that setting.

It might make more sense to work on the filibuster later this year or early next year, when the crystal ball about the 2022 election isn't so hazy.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It might make more sense to work on the filibuster later this year or early next year, when the crystal ball about the 2022 election isn't so hazy.

I kind of disagree with this.

I think that the Democrats are very aware that they might lose either the House or Senate in 2022 (or both). The President's party almost always loses seats in the midterm elections, and the Democrats have super-thin margins in both chambers. There are exceptions, and of course the Democrats could hold onto both - but they aren't guaranteed to hold both Chambers in the next Congress, and they're not likely to be able to get much through once the 2022 election 'silly season' takes hold. So if they're going to go nuclear and go big, this year - and soon - is the time to do it if it's going to happen during the Biden Administration.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think now is not the time. The time to strike will be when there is sufficient pressure on a couple of Senators from their constituents combined with the right deal.

When I said, "try", I assumed it was understood that you "try" by establishing a plan and implementing it. Many Democrats in AZ are already contacting Sinema and starting to put pressure on her to reconsider. That's "trying". Her office is being contacted by phone, mail and email by Democrats who want to hold her accountable for giving Mitch McConnell the filibuster.

Therefore, the job right now is to figure out how to make that pressure happen.

That would also come under the label, "trying". No one has suggested that figuring out how to best apply pressure is not part of the job of trying. For now, in AZ, constituents are trying to gain momentum for an effort to overwhelm Sinema's office with requests for her to reconsider. But other efforts will likely follow.

Then, in the background, you have to figure out how to accomplish the horse trading necessary to get them to change their positions. What carrots can you offer? Better committee assignment? More help from the DNC? A bit of pork for the folks back home?

Again, that would come under the label of "trying". What did you think "trying" meant? I mean, you consider your options. You select the options you want to try and prioritize. Then you execute. I'm not sure how else this would work.

My last thought is that removing the filibuster is a two way street. If you successfully remove the filibuster and still lose the Senate in 2022, you have the worst of both worlds. There's no way a Republican Senate would agree to reinstate the filibuster in that setting.

The Senate itself is a compromise that is not Democratic. Today Republicans (the minority party) enjoy massive over-representation in the Senate already. Adding the filibuster gives them the power to entirely stop the majority rule principle fundamental to the concept of Democracy. And that is exactly what they have been doing and intend on continuing to do. So while the filibuster might seem like a great tool, it is clearly destroying this country's ability to adopt and advance in a changing world. The US is falling behind because the government no longer functions. And modification of our laws and regulations is impossible in the divisive culture we've created when the filibuster exists. In fact, the filibuster is largely responsible for the depth of division we are seeing. We will have no progress of any kind as long as we allow a tiny minority of people to elect a group of Senators who are given the power to say, "NO!" That is tyranny of the minority.

It might make more sense to work on the filibuster later this year or early next year, when the crystal ball about the 2022 election isn't so hazy.

That's stupid. Because events and issues will change the environment sometimes on a daily basis. What if one of the Democrats in the Senate dies or resigns before then and gets replaced by a Republican? And what do you propose Washington Senators do between now and later in this year or next? ...twiddle their thumbs? ...watch every bill enter the Senate then be filibustered to death? Plus, if you wait until next year, any legislation to address problems you finally pass is unlikely to see complete implementation prior to the 2022 election. This is especially true of the federal election laws that need to be passed right now to avoid 100's of GQP anti-democracy voter laws being placed in effect for 2022 - all designed to give the Republican minority more representation and power. It will be too late. There is a very short window of opportunity to fix some of the issues this nation faces before the next election.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Move on to governing within the strictures of the filibuster, like nearly every other President and majority-holding party has had to do for decades. Focus on the things that either don't need 60 votes (appointments, reconciliation bills) and the things that can get 60 votes (must-pass items and true compromise legislation, if it's possible)....and focus on getting more success in future elections.

That is surrender to the GQP propaganda machine and the Republican strategy of simply opposing and attacking the other side. Honestly, the fact that you say this seriously tells me you still refuse to see how our country, government, Press, and political parties have evolved into the current dysfunctional mess we are in. If Democrats follow this prescription, then two years from now the Republicans will again have power and 4 years from now, all of it - not because they are the majority party, but because the majority party decided to give up on governing and simply keep playing their game.

I seriously hope no Democrat in Washington actually believes this is a smart strategy. It's not. It is a strategy for complete failure of the Democratic party and the US government.

And as far as getting more success in future elections, that's exactly what the first bill that McConnell is going to filibuster is intended to do. Instead, we will have hundreds of new GOP anti-Democracy bills at the state level insuring that the minority GQP party continues to rule over the majority. No thanks. What a stupid strategy. Let's keep playing the Republican game so that they can maintain power even though they are a minority.

The political environment has evolved. The Democrat strategy has not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What a stupid strategy. Let's keep playing the Republican game so that they can maintain power even though they are a minority.

albaby is just pragmatically talking about what the options are if you can't get the votes to end the filibuster, as seems to be the case.

You have a conservative-leaning Democrat representing a staunchly conservative state who's emphatically said 'never' to the ending the filibuster. Nobody can just wish that obstacle away, no matter how good idea they may think it is to end that antiquated custom.

In the absence of ability to end it outright. I wonder if there might be some possibility of making it less easy to filibuster, like in the past. Require that the filibustering Senator(s) hold the floor and speak so long as they want to prevent a given bill from being considered. Maybe Manchin could get on board with that, though I doubt it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That is surrender to the GQP propaganda machine and the Republican strategy of simply opposing and attacking the other side. Honestly, the fact that you say this seriously tells me you still refuse to see how our country, government, Press, and political parties have evolved into the current dysfunctional mess we are in. If Democrats follow this prescription, then two years from now the Republicans will again have power and 4 years from now, all of it - not because they are the majority party, but because the majority party decided to give up on governing and simply keep playing their game.

But how do you get all 50 Democrats to agree?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Today Republicans (the minority party) enjoy massive over-representation in the Senate already. Adding the filibuster gives them the power to entirely stop the majority rule principle fundamental to the concept of Democracy.

Yes. And I guess what I'm saying is that the filibuster is the only thing that democrats in the Senate have to contain republicans when republicans - representing a minority of American voters - have majority control of the Senate.

What is better? To eliminate the filibuster now to get some things passed in the Senate. Or to keep the filibuster and have a tool to reign in republicans when they are in control of the Senate.

I'm not so sure the choice is as clear cut as you make it, especially when you consider the very real possibility of Senate control switching back to republicans in 2022.

Rather than spend tons of energy and political capital on moving two democratic senators into the "yes" column, that energy and capital might better be spent on things that have a better chance of passing with some bipartisan support.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If Democrats follow this prescription, then two years from now the Republicans will again have power and 4 years from now, all of it - not because they are the majority party, but because the majority party decided to give up on governing and simply keep playing their game.

If you don't have the votes to eliminate the filibuster, then you have to govern with the filibuster in place. You can't just wish it away or ignore it. Democrats have a majority in both chambers and control of the Presidency - and that's valuable political power to make changes that Democrats want, even within the confines of the filibuster.

Democrats don't have the votes to eliminate the filibuster. Again, try to change Manchin's mind. But it's likely to fail. He doesn't support eliminating the filibuster. He doesn't even support raising the minimum wage to $15, which is the pinch point in the current fight. The politics aren't on the Democrats' side in trying to move him.

It's not a choice. It's not the majority party 'giving up' on governing (unless they were to spend the next two years doing nothing but try to change Manchin's mind, but I think they'll certainly move on if they fail). It's governing within the limits of what they were unable to change.

What do you think the Democrats should do if they can't get Manchin and Sinema to change their minds?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So you are against the fundamental principle of Democracy that provides one vote per person because you want to benefit from the filibuster at some unspecified time in the future. I favor Democracy and believe that if we move closer toward it, Democrats will win more elections and advance the nation today. If not, then the nation gets what it deserves.

Your approach to this will insure Democratic failure to pass any meaningful legislation for the next 2 years, providing Republicans with a huge advantage in the next election. Since nothing will change, they will use the same old lies and attacks they have been using blaming Democrats for being unable to govern. Only this time they will be correct. If Democrats cannot figure out how to rule with majorities in the House and Senate along with holding the White House, they (and the nation) deserve the defeat they are going to suffer in 2022 and 2024.

The filibuster never should have been part of our legislative process. I have no loyalty to the long and tortured history of how the filibuster was established, evolved and used. I have loyalty to people - people who gave significant amounts of time and money to see Democrats elected to a majority in Washington. Sinema and Manchin have decided that they have more loyalty to a tradition than they do to their constituents. You apparently agree with them. Screw that. Support people and the legislation that is needed to support American citizens who are suffering from unfair financial and tax structures, discriminatory election laws, corrupt police forces, etc. There is only one way that support can happen right now. Either admit that the filibuster is nothing but a hindrance to today's government, or admit that you don't care about people as much as you care about this arcane and undemocratic practice.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What do you think the Democrats should do if they can't get Manchin and Sinema to change their minds?

When? Today? They should put more pressure on them. They should help organize Democrats to bombard their offices with letters, emails and phone calls; show up at any of their public appearances with protest posters; provide reporters with talking points and questions for them, etc. etc. They can also offer them some sort of perk or appointment that they want in exchange.

Next month? Same thing.

Month after that? Same thing.

What you are asking is, "When will it be safe to just keep letting Mitch McConnell filibuster every single piece of legislation in support of Biden's agenda?" And my answer to that, is, "Never." That's not why we elected them. We elected them to pass legislation. So either Mitch and the Senate GOP needs to change (Do you honestly think that will happen?) or Democrats need to take control and govern.

I am not and never have said that they shouldn't keep doing whatever they can through executive actions or compromise/negotiation with Republicans. But that will not gain them re-election. I honestly do not believe that they will have any success ruling under the thumb of Mitch McConnell while he holds the filibuster. So unless they see a change in GOP Senator actions, every single path to success has to go through the elimination of the filibuster. And the longer they wait to take that step, the less success the Democrats are going to have.

Without action to eliminate the filibuster, DEMs FAIL - Period
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But how do you get all 50 Democrats to agree?

Have none of you ever taken on a task that needed to get done even if it was difficult? The first time you hit a snag, do you simply quit and throw up your hands in despair?

In my experience, sometimes you have to work long and hard to change people's minds. But if specific people have a mindset and authority that stops you from achieving the desired goal, then you don't simply quit. You accept the interim goal of changing their minds and go to work at doing that... day-after-day, year-after-year, if necessary. Because that is what has to happen to make progress.

In my professional career, my greatest accomplishments involved changing the mind-set of a corporation. I am comfortable with focusing on whatever issues must be addressed to achieve a final goal - even if those efforts take years. Because the alternative is failure.

The question I have for all of the, "But-what-if-they-don't-want-to-do-it?" people is, "What level of success do you envision happening if Mitch McConnell still holds the power to say, "No!" to every piece of legislation?" Do you honestly believe that you will get 80 million people to turn out to defeat the GQP for the next election if that is all Democrats accomplish in the next 2 years?

The approach of simply accepting Mitch as King of the Senate because it will be hard to change sounds like complete surrender to me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The first time you hit a snag, do you simply quit and throw up your hands in despair?

That's why I'm not President. But that's just me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's why I'm not President. But that's just me.

LOL. No. It's not just you. I'm not President. And while I can't be certain, I'm pretty sure that none of the other posters on TMF are President either.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What you are asking is, "When will it be safe to just keep letting Mitch McConnell filibuster every single piece of legislation in support of Biden's agenda?"

I'm not asking that question. The issue isn't whether it's good to let McConnell filibuster progressive legislation, the issue is whether it's possible to change that. So I'm asking when the cost/benefit ratio of spending resources getting Democrats to "bombard their offices with letters, emails and phone calls; show up at any of their public appearances with protest posters; provide reporters with talking points and questions for them, etc. etc." changes.

Right now, sure - you want to see if there's any possibility of movement. But once they've said "no" a hundred times, and locked themselves in very publicly, the chances of success fade to near-zero pretty quickly.

And there's other things you need to do. Not least, you need to lobby Manchin and Sinema on other things. In just the COVID bill, there's fierce internal debate over the size of extra unemployment support, the length of time that extra unemployment will be offered, the income levels for supplemental checks phase-outs, the size (or even the presence) of child tax credits for low income families, and a host of other issues that the progressives are bargaining with the centrist Democrats over just to get to 50 votes. They've already defected on one appointment, and you need to keep them in line for other appointments going forward. If you're bombarding them over the filibuster all the time, it makes it harder to bombard them on other issues. If everything's a priority, nothing is - so if filibuster is the number one priority, then other things get moved down the list.

You need his vote on every single action that you want to take during the next two years with or without the filibuster. At some point, you have to 'bombard' him with other things.

So while it's possible they might change their mind with some new pressure, then great. But once you've exhausted that effort, you're almost certainly not going to get a different result.

Without action to eliminate the filibuster, DEMs FAIL - Period

Then the Democrats are almost certainly going to fail. There's almost no chance Manchin's going to relent on eliminating the filibuster. It's probably a longshot he'd even consider a tweak to it, but almost certainly not eliminate it.

So the question becomes, what do Democrats do then?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
So you are against the fundamental principle of Democracy ...

Absolutely not. It appears that it's necessary to remind you that our federal government is not a pure democracy. It is a democratic republic. We elect people to represent us at the federal level, and those representatives are completely free to act in whatever way they feel best represents us. If we don't like they way they represent us, our recourse is to elect a different representative at the next election.

Further, the Senate was deliberately set up to give equal power to each state, no matter how large or small. There are pros and cons to that choice. We can debate those until the cows come home, but it won't change the fact that that is how we are currently organized. That is the reality we must deal with here and now. Its possible to change that organization, but that change is simply not going to happen during this Congressional session. We can work to change it, but we have to continue to deal with the current state of affairs to deal with current issues.

In the same way, we have a filibuster rule in the Senate. There are pros and cons. It can be changed. However, that change is not going to happen during the current Congressional session. There simply aren't enough votes to change it. Once again, working to change the rule is well and good, but we have to deal with current issues within the framework of the filibuster.

Your approach to this will insure Democratic failure to pass any meaningful legislation for the next 2 years,

No, it does not. There are likely several bits of meaningful legislation that can get passed in the next 2 years. We are almost certain to get another covid relief bill passed in the next few weeks. That is meaningful legislation. And it will pass in spite of the filibuster. Will it be slightly different because of the filibuster? Probably. But it is still legislation and it is still meaningful.

providing Republicans with a huge advantage in the next election.

It only provides republicans with an advantage if the democrats fail to make their case with the electorate. There is nothing to stop democrats from pointing at failed legislation and politically blaming republicans for the failure. And circling back to the democratic republic principles at the top, it is possible and even likely that some of those who elected republicans will see their blockage of certain legislation as doing a good job of representing their interests. They may see their representatives as doing what they were sent to Washington DC to do.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Absolutely not. It appears that it's necessary to remind you that our federal government is not a pure democracy.

Yes Absolutely, the Senate is not Democratically elected by the whole nation. I am well aware of why. And if it were, then you wouldn't need to remind anyone of anything. So you acknowledge that the Senate is not elected by the nation in a manner consistent with Democracy, but still embrace that no matter how un-Democratic it has become. You don't see a problem with that. I do.

Further, the Senate was deliberately set up to give equal power to each state, no matter how large or small.

Of course. And at the time of the Constitution, the largest state was almost 3 times larger than the smallest. Today, that is closer to six times. The nation has evolved, the election of Senators has not. It no longer works. Or do you think the Senate has been working just fine for the last 10 or 12 years? Perhaps that is where we disagree. I find what happened with Obama's Supreme Court Nominee, Garland, to be almost criminal. I find the actions of the US Senate in recent years to be appalling and destructive to our government. And the reason is largely because of this massive over-representation of a minority party funded by billionaires in the Senate. However well the Senate has served the US in the past, that time is long over. It is time to adopt or die.

In the same way, we have a filibuster rule in the Senate. There are pros and cons. It can be changed. However, that change is not going to happen during the current Congressional session. There simply aren't enough votes to change it. Once again, working to change the rule is well and good, but we have to deal with current issues within the framework of the filibuster.

I don't give up that easily on something so important to success and survival. It is a shame that you are so willing to submit to Mitch McConnell rather than work hard to change.

There are likely several bits of meaningful legislation that can get passed in the next 2 years. We are almost certain to get another covid relief bill passed in the next few weeks. That is meaningful legislation. And it will pass in spite of the filibuster. Will it be slightly different because of the filibuster?

Not different . . . worse. And it hasn't passed yet. Let's see how much worse before you start running victory laps. Plus, please name one other piece of legislation that addresses something other than a global pandemic that will be both significant and get passed while Mitch holds the filibuster.

It only provides republicans with an advantage if the democrats fail to make their case with the electorate. There is nothing to stop democrats from pointing at failed legislation and politically blaming republicans for the failure.

LOL. Let's talk again in early 2022. You are surrendering to Mitch even if you refuse to admit it. You are abandoning people in favor of a procedure that never should have ever existed. Timid Democrats will hold as much responsibility as Trump Republicans in the demise of our nation that is going on and has been going on for several years now.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't know why everyone else isn't President.
I'm just saying that I'm not President because I'm a quitter.
I'm a great quitter. It's one of the few things I do well. I come form a long line of quitters. My father was a quitter, my grandfather was a quitter... I was raised to give up
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There's almost no chance Manchin's going to relent on eliminating the filibuster.

Today. . . and "almost". People can be convinced to change their minds. I have never seen that characteristic in you, perhaps, but people do change sometimes.

And the question I stated is really what you are asking. "When will it be safe to just keep letting Mitch McConnell filibuster every single piece of legislation in support of Biden's agenda?" You are asking when is it okay to give up fighting against the primary obstacle to Democratic party survival and success. I have heard your answer. You have heard mine.

You are willing to fail now.

I am not willing to embrace failure as long as I am able to try.

If only you would try to address actual political obstacles with the same tenacity that you attack me and my posts on this board. You might actually be effective in bringing about political change.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm a great quitter. It's one of the few things I do well. I come form a long line of quitters. My father was a quitter, my grandfather was a quitter... I was raised to give up

LOL. Oh . . . quit it. :-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You are willing to fail now.

Oh, pshaw. I'm not advocating not trying. And certainly you can keep trying for long enough to know where Manchin stands, and whether there's any meaningful change of getting him off that position. Don't fail now - but after a while, you might have to accept that he's not going to change.

And that's because unlike nagging a major company or Andy Dufresne writing a letter a week, there's a downside to asking over and over again. At some point, it will start to compromise other efforts. The chance of Manchin supporting a change in the filibuster a month from now, after a month of saying no both privately and publicly (if that's what happens), is infinitesimal. Meanwhile, Manchin's the marginal vote in the Senate, and he knows it. You need his vote for everything in the Covid relief bill. The GOP's already starting to lobby him on the Becerra appointment, which means that Biden needs to lobby him on that, too. You might be willing to lose some issues on the Covid package and maybe an appointment or too because you're focusing on the filibuster now - but if it becomes clear that the answer remains, "Never!"?

Plus, let's be honest - repealing the filibuster doesn't mean that the progressives are going to be able to pass their agenda. It means they'll be able to pass whatever part of their agenda Joe Manchin and Krystal Sinema are both willing to vote for. That's certainly not the entirety of what progressives promised their voters (certainly no $15 minimum wage, and no Green New Deal in any form that progressives would be happy with). I suspect it's not enough for you to thin the Democrats won't fail in 2022.

Which is what makes the current focus on the filibuster so perplexing from a strategy point (I understand the politics of it). If the Democrats had 54-55 Senators and actually had a shot at adopting the real progressive platform, I could see it being worthwhile to suffer the likely loss of non-discretionary appropriation for Medicaid, limits on Supreme Court jurisdiction on challenges to state laws, and repealing portions of the Voting Rights Act (which will be towards the top of the GOP action items the first time they get unified control with no filibuster. But for the tiny slice of the platform that Joe Manchin would vote for? I dunno...

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is all getting a bit crazy. You are hung up on a single issue and focusing on that to the exclusion of anything else. I'm going to make one more response and then let this go.

So you acknowledge that the Senate is not elected by the nation in a manner consistent with Democracy,

From a certain point of view, it is absolutely in line with Democracy. One state, one vote. Or in this case two votes. It is highly democratic, but at the state level and not at the individual level.

And at the time of the Constitution, the largest state was almost 3 times larger than the smallest. Today, that is closer to six times.

I didn't check the historical population numbers. (They can get a bit tricky anyway due to the counting/not-counting/partial counting of slaves.) But you're way off on the current figures. The largest state by population is closer to 80 times the smallest. Perhaps you're talking about area, where that would be along the lines of 600 times, and just slipped the decimal point a couple of places. And for the record, I am a resident of that most populous state.

I find what happened with Obama's Supreme Court Nominee, Garland, to be almost criminal. I find the actions of the US Senate in recent years to be appalling and destructive to our government. And the reason is largely because of this massive over-representation of a minority party funded by billionaires in the Senate. However well the Senate has served the US in the past, that time is long over. It is time to adopt or die.

I don't disagree. (Well, except perhaps the Senate should adapt instead of adopt.) But now your slipping from the filibuster to constitutional level changes. And I don't disagree with that, either. It may be appropriate to consider a change regarding the Senate. But again, that's not something that will happen in the next year or two. Or ten. So in the meantime, democrats have to figure out how to accomplish their goals within the current framework while also working on that framework.

Not different . . . worse.

That's a value judgement. I'm trying to stick to facts to find points of agreement. Legislation that passes the Senate is undeniably different because of the filibuster.

Plus, please name one other piece of legislation that addresses something other than a global pandemic that will be both significant and get passed while Mitch holds the filibuster.

It's not legislation - and I don't think it's subject to filibuster - but Biden's nominees are, somewhat slowly, getting approved with bipartisan support. And often it's very significant bipartisan support - in the 70%-90+% of the full Senate range of support. So it's not like agreement is impossible. Agreement is happening in the here and now. The trick is to find ways to move that support from nominees to legislation. If it can be done for nominees, it CAN be done for legislation.

Is it going to be the sweeping reform kind of legislation? No. On the other hand, any progress is progress. Sometimes the steps forward are small. No - most of the time the steps are small. Broad reform is rare. But keep chipping away at the edges and eventually you can make a lot of progress.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Plus, please name one other piece of legislation that addresses something other than a global pandemic that will be both significant and get passed while Mitch holds the filibuster.

I missed this comment that was addressed to ptheland, but I'm very interested in salaryguru's thoughts on the flip side to it:

What piece of legislation that addresses something other than a global pandemic will be both significant and get passed while Joe Manchin holds the marginal vote?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top