A SMALL BAND OF MODERATES Could Be Key To The Republican Senate’s Success

[Segami]

With the help of some Dems, reTHUGS are now preaching an air of 'working together' in order to push forward a reTHUG agenda.......



Some of the most influential senators in the new Congress are neither in the majority nor among the longest-serving. They don’t show up on the Sunday-morning talk shows, and they aren’t talking about running for president in 2016. Instead, they’re a pack of Democrats from mostly smaller, rural states who are inclined to work with Republicans on legislation President Obama doesn’t support. They may even be willing to help the GOP override his vetoes. Some of them support building the Keystone XL oil pipeline and are expected to be active as the Senate begins to debate the issue this week. Others want Congress to pass tougher sanctions against Iran, and all are open to making changes to Obama’s health-care law. All three issues have drawn veto threats from the White House in recent days. One of the biggest unanswered questions about the week-old Congress is whether the new Republican majority will be able to overcome Capitol Hill’s culture of stifling partisanship and cultivate enough Democratic support to challenge Obama.



These moderate Democrats say they will cooperate if Republicans don’t use the Senate floor to score political points — as Democrats have done over the past several years. They have big expectations for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who will need to keep his larger conference unified while sustaining his promise to allow a more open and nonpartisan debate process. Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), who is firmly planted in the middle of both parties, said he’ll support bills “that both Republicans and Democrats who sit down and talk to each other think will make things better for us. I think you’ll see that extreme legislation — whether right or left — is going to go nowhere.” Their influence could get an early test this week as the Senate begins debating the Keystone pipeline again. Despite an Obama veto threat, the House voted Friday to authorize the long-delayed project, with the support of 28 moderate Democrats. McConnell has promised a Keystone debate of several days, with time set aside to debate proposed amendments from both parties. Passage of those amendments likely will rest with moderate Democrats.


Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and his leadership team plan to give the moderates time and space to work with Republicans on some issues, especially since many of them ran on a promise to do so. But that doesn’t mean Reid won’t play hardball. He warned last week that “any attempt to erode protections for working American families . . . will be met with a swift and unified Democratic opposition.” Conversations with more than a dozen senators and senior aides in both parties revealed that several moderate Democrats are likely targets as Republicans begin work on their early legislative priorities. Three names came up in every conversation: Donnelly, Heitkamp and Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), a former governor who got his first taste of high-stakes dealmaking during the 2013 gun-control debate. The next mentioned most are a trio of former governors, Sens. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine) and Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), who are from states that expect their lawmakers to negotiate with the other side.



~snip~


- “There will be a group of about 15 Democrats who are willing to work with [Republicans] on any given issue,” Kaine predicted in an interview. He is eager to work with the GOP on authorizing military action against the Islamic State and to revamp presidential war powers. Fifteen is an encouraging number to Republicans, who now have 54 seats. If every Republican agrees on a piece of legislation, they will need to find at least six Democrats to help a bill clear the chamber’s arcane procedural hurdles and pass. If a few Republicans peel away — which is likely given the inflexibly conservative views of some GOP senators — McConnell might need to rely on even more Democrats. Sixty-seven senators will be needed if Republicans want to override an Obama veto.




cont'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-small-band-of-moderate-democrats-could-be-key-to-the-gop-senates-success/2015/01/11/5172dfdc-9748-11e4-8005-1924ede3e54a_story.html?hpid=z3

[onehandle]

1. The only 'success' this Senate will have is blocking the President's nominees. nt

[Fred Sanders]

2. 67 votes to override a Presidential veto proves Senate Republicans can not do math.

And since Obama has only pulled out the veto pen all of two times in 6 years he has a ton of ink to use.

[Segami]

3. 2015....interesting times ahead...

A two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate is required to override a presidential veto. The exact number depends on how many representatives vote; therefore, the actual number is subject to change.

If all 435 members of the House of Representatives votes, then at least 290 must vote to override. If all 100 Senate members vote, then at least 67 must vote for the veto. A two-thirds vote is technically considered a supermajority, which is much more difficult to get than a traditional simple majority. Fewer than 10 percent of all presidential vetoes have been overridden by a vote in the chambers of Congress.

http://www.ask.com/government-politics/many-votes-congress-need-override-veto-e225da986010a42e

[onecaliberal]

4. Those so called dems need to get the boot

[Jake Stern]

5. Gotta vote fer 'em dontcha know?

They may kneecap the president but they still voted with him 15% of the time!

What do you want, an R Senator that votes with the president 0% of the time or the Blue Dog who votes with Obama 15% of the time!?!?

[villager]

6. Why do these center/right assholes maintain this myth of "far left" legislation?

What possible "far left" legislation has even made it to the floor of the House or Senate for a vote in the last several decades?

Did I miss the vote on the bill to nationalize the banks? Fine the oil companies billions for global warming? Return the public airwaves to the public?