Latest Breaking News

adieu

(1,009 posts)

56. I think people here needs to see the strategy behind this

Mon Feb 9, 2015, 02:29 PM

Feb 2015

Several things:

1. The filibuster is mis-used. When the GOP was the minority, there were not enough people to push for filibuster reform (or removal).

2. And doing so then would look like the Democrats were trying to consolidate power.

3. Democrats are now the minority and if they advocate for filibuster, the GOP just may go with it, and if not, the GOP would look like they don't believe in their need to end filibuster during their (most likely brief) period of power.

4. Any legislation passed through Congress that might have been filibustered and reaching Obama's desk will be vetoed, so Obama has the Senate's back. If a law passed with 56-44 with 44 Democratic senators voting no, Obama can kill it with a veto and when the legislation returns to Congress, it will die in the Senate because now, it will require a larger number to pass.

5. And when the Democrats return to Senate power in 2016, filibuster would be dead, and regardless of who will be in the White House, the GOP can't use the filibuster to stall important legislation.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

106 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama: Eliminate The Senate Filibuster [View all] DonViejo Feb 2015 OP

Harry Reid was in favor of keeping it and Democrats just recently used it PoliticAverse Feb 2015 #1

Uh...remove the filibuster *now*? Now that the Republicans control the Senate?? BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #2

My first thought as well fredamae Feb 2015 #5

ditto GeorgeGist Feb 2015 #14

Ditto. And I am not interested in any theories about 3 dimensional chess. He's undermining GoneFishin Feb 2015 #83

Yes, do it now. thesquanderer Feb 2015 #13

I don't understand your reasoning. So you believe filibuster reform can only happen when the Party BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #18

There would have to be debate, open debate lasting several days....and still 67 votes to override veto. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #39

It takes a majority to change the rules. jeff47 Feb 2015 #50

A good explanation and plausible scenario. Thanks, jeff47. eom BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #51

I disagree. It should have been eliminated in 2009. To do it now rhett o rick Feb 2015 #29

Stop the Filibuster oldlib2 Feb 2015 #78

incredible timing. If Dems had done this in Obama's first two years.. yurbud Feb 2015 #22

Is that what he meant by transparency in government? Jackpine Radical Feb 2015 #28

Ouch! Apparently so yurbud Feb 2015 #80

Of course. After six years of disappointment, you still think Obama is a democrat? PSPS Feb 2015 #35

Yes. No doubt about it. eom BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #37

My thoughts too. zeemike Feb 2015 #53

11-dimensional chess, bay-bee! We "win," by losing... blkmusclmachine Feb 2015 #64

Excellent! Octafish Feb 2015 #82

He actually called for eliminating the "routine use" of the filibuster. I agree that his choice of words pnwmom Feb 2015 #87

You're correct. He clearly stated that they should BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #92

WTF? Over rhett o rick Feb 2015 #3

That would have been nice in 2009. But now? Autumn Feb 2015 #4

Hey, didn't Manny get a lot of flack when he made this same suggestion? rhett o rick Feb 2015 #6

Revert to the rules we had before filibuster "reform" in 1975 MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #26

Notthat it's a big deal, but I noticed you had more valentines then me, rhett o rick Feb 2015 #34

Five minutes after Republicans won Congress bigger than they have since 1928, no less. merrily Feb 2015 #42

Filibuster is one thing. Sixty vote cloture rule is another. merrily Feb 2015 #54

NOW? annabanana Feb 2015 #7

Obama, of all people, pitching ending the filibuster now that gop controls the senate. Dont call me Shirley Feb 2015 #8

lol I posted one minute after you! Johnyawl Feb 2015 #10

Good insight MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #24

OMG, that's it. Jackpine Radical Feb 2015 #33

It takes one vote. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #45

He did NOT call for ending the filibuster. pnwmom Feb 2015 #88

You are correct. We must ensure the filibuster will not be crippled for the Democrats to use, Dont call me Shirley Feb 2015 #91

Sounds like he's worried about fast tracking his trade bills... Johnyawl Feb 2015 #9

One word to Dems on TPP and fast track:FILIBUSTER! Dont call me Shirley Feb 2015 #11

YES! And any bi-partisan "grand bargain" on Social Security. Johnyawl Feb 2015 #15

PLUS INFINITY! cascadiance Feb 2015 #20

Yep! n/t n2doc Feb 2015 #19

We NEED to FILIBUSTER the "FAST TRACK". This is a horrible time to talk about eliminating the Faryn Balyncd Feb 2015 #81

Ur foot. U shots it. mwooldri Feb 2015 #12

Except Republican's definition of "horrible legislation" is not the same as yours. jeff47 Feb 2015 #17

It always cuts against a majority of voters these days, though. merrily Feb 2015 #44

The 60 vote rule is not in the constitution. It's mostly a Senate job protection rule. merrily Feb 2015 #40

The filibuster is just a legislative rule. Like a single "hold" on legislation like the VA Act. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #41

Just invert it instead. jeff47 Feb 2015 #16

isn't obama's timing wrong? samsingh Feb 2015 #21

That depends on what his goals are. TPP? Fast-Track Authority? His timing might be perfect. n/t xocet Feb 2015 #31

Be careful what you wish for, PBO meow2u3 Feb 2015 #23

Funny he didn't ask for that when Democrats held the Senate. I guess if Republicans had .... Scuba Feb 2015 #25

MR SMITH Filibuster djnicadress Feb 2015 #27

Why, in a democracy, does the minority have to have some way to stop the majority? merrily Feb 2015 #46

Passage of Proposition 8 didn't answer that question for you? msanthrope Feb 2015 #55

Um no. Filibuster, or rather, the 60 vote rule, is not about the minority asking for redress. merrily Feb 2015 #57

Original intent of filibuster was to keep in check minority population majority in senate... cascadiance Feb 2015 #62

For one thing, your analysis (which sounds like that of No Labels, btw) omits the House entirely. merrily Feb 2015 #63

The one time that the filibuster seems to have merit is NOW, when TPP fast tracking is going through cascadiance Feb 2015 #65

Requiring a supermajority vote for cloture is the issue, not filibustering per se. merrily Feb 2015 #66

I think if enough of us call our senators, we can get enough to do a filibuster... cascadiance Feb 2015 #67

In your opinion, when was the last time calls and emails got Senators to change their votes? merrily Feb 2015 #68

FDR was pushed in to doing a lot of the reforms he did by movement politics... cascadiance Feb 2015 #72

Making up facts do not help your cause. Truthteller3562 Feb 2015 #96

Your link appears to be limited to elections that took place in 2014. arcane1 Feb 2015 #97

"in the House" Truthteller3562 Feb 2015 #104

I didn't specify a year... In 2012, Republicans won when the Democrats got a majority of votes cascadiance Feb 2015 #98

You are corrrect Truthteller3562 Feb 2015 #103

And looking at the raw numbers quoted by yours and 2012 article there was a drop in turnout... cascadiance Feb 2015 #105

Wow! Obama and the GOP really want that Fast Track, don't they? n/t djean111 Feb 2015 #30

Bingo! Mnpaul Feb 2015 #79

Maybe Obama is trying to get McConnell's head to explode. If Obama suggests it first rhett o rick Feb 2015 #32

They don't have to continue disagreeing with him now that they are in the majority. merrily Feb 2015 #48

Wow. Really bad timing. HERVEPA Feb 2015 #36

A day late and a dollar short. forest444 Feb 2015 #52

No. What's needed, as someone else has already said, SheilaT Feb 2015 #38

Obama still has the veto pen, any law requires Senate 67 votes to be law. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #43

No. It does not take 67 votes to pass a law in the Senate. It takes a simple SheilaT Feb 2015 #60

67 votes to be law if Obama returns a bill, not yet a law, to the Senate within 10 days, as not approved. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #101

And how often has that happened so far in Obama's time as President? SheilaT Feb 2015 #106

Please see Replies 40 and 44. For me, hoping media makes Republicans look bad is not enough. merrily Feb 2015 #49

I fought against this in 2005 Omaha Steve Feb 2015 #47

I think people here needs to see the strategy behind this adieu Feb 2015 #56

Eliminating the 60 vote rule in 2009 would have made Democrats look bad? To WHOM? merrily Feb 2015 #58

Gerrymandering doesn't affect adieu Feb 2015 #73

? My post didn't say gerrymandering affected Senatorial races. Also, IMO, the GOP will not focus on merrily Feb 2015 #75

Really? adieu Feb 2015 #76

Yes, really. They have not repealed Obamacare, even once. IMO, all their feints at merrily Feb 2015 #86

Sorry, Don't Buy This Strategy raindaddy Feb 2015 #59

Nonsense. I don't buy this argument at all. GoneFishin Feb 2015 #84

Very good points treestar Feb 2015 #61

Yet, he proposes it. Why? A fondness for wasting his breath? merrily Feb 2015 #70

He's explaining the past. treestar Feb 2015 #85

Fast Track Authority is the ANTI-filibuster which wants a simple majority to pass treaties... cascadiance Feb 2015 #69

Now? Kinda begs the question... dreamnightwind Feb 2015 #71

Pres.Obama needs more 'legacy' quadrature Feb 2015 #74

If wishes were horses...Good luck with that. trof Feb 2015 #77

Eliminating the Filibuster NOW... nikto Feb 2015 #89

Why didn't President take this stand when INdemo Feb 2015 #90

I say keep it, but turn it back to the talking filibuster ck4829 Feb 2015 #93

If the Dems get in charge they should make that change of Merkley's happen then... cascadiance Feb 2015 #99

Why? So the repukes can pass whatever the hell they want?! KamaAina Feb 2015 #94

The President can talk about sadoldgirl Feb 2015 #95

There is nothing wrong with a good filibuster. ManiacJoe Feb 2015 #100

he did *NOT* advocate eliminating the filibuster altogether. unblock Feb 2015 #102