In Senate, 59 Votes Can Still Deliver

Wall Street Journal ^ | 1-21-10 | NAFTALI BENDAVID And COREY BOLES

[truthandlife]

Democrats won't have 60 votes in the Senate any more, but they will have 59, which is a wider majority than presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush needed to win significant legislative victories.

Republican Scott Brown's election to a Massachusetts Senate seat Tuesday means that Democrats will have to craft proposals for spurring job creation, new financial regulations and other priorities to win at least some Republican votes.

"We have to get broader coalitions and support for legislation," said Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.).

Republicans said they would welcome a bipartisan approach from the Democrats, but doubted they would get it. "Maybe they should step back, take a good look at those things, look to some of the folks who really are willing to work with them, and see if they can work something out," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah.). "But I don't think they're going to do that." Democrats say they are equally skeptical Republicans will agree to work with them to fashion legislative compromises.

Although Senate rules require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, only once in the past 40 years, until last year, has one party held that number of seats, when Democrats controlled that many in the post-Watergate period. Recent presidents managed to pass sweeping bills with smaller majorities or even when their party was in the minority.

Mr. Reagan, for example, pushed through a major revision of the tax code in 1986 by working with then-Sen. Bill Bradley (D., N.J.). President Bill Clinton enacted a big crime bill in 1994 and a welfare overhaul two years later. Mr. Bush pushed through tax cuts and his No Child Left Behind law. President Barack Obama won a $787 billion stimulus bill early last year when Democrats held 58 seats.

[equalitybeforethelaw]

Sure there is a lot of dem votes, unfortunately for them and us, they are led by bammy, nancy, and harry.

[Disciplinemisanthropy]

Jay Sekulow from ALCJ radio is saying that Reid said it could take up to ten days to seat Brown.

[rod1]

They can pass Tort Reform first as a show of good faith, then talks, maybe.

[Fedupwithit]

Yeah, and did any of those bills that Reagan and Bush put forward try and hijack 1/6th of the economy? I didn’t think so..

[copaliscrossing]

This needs to be the message!!!! I have a feeling that the Dems are going to try and put the blame for all their failures on the “obstructionist Republicans”. We need to keep reminding everyone every chance we get that they have a huge majority and are responsible for ALL the failures since last January.

[Dixie Yooper]

With all the Democratic Senators that are up for reelection this fall, I bet if Harry forced the vote today, with or without Brown, they wouldn’t have 45.

[Servant of the Cross]

59 is a very temporary situation and these 59 Dems know it. As Ann Coulter says ...

But this was "Teddy Kennedy's seat." And it was in Massachusetts.

Now, no Democrat is safe.

But the country just got a lot safer.

[goldstategop]

Republicans should say "NO" to measures that raise taxes and spending and involve a government takeover of the economy. I'm not interested in bipartisanship to push us further in the direction of a European social welfare state.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

[political1]

All they need is 50 votes then Joe Biden would be the tie breaker.

[OneWingedShark]

Tort reform? That might draw attention to the legal arena... a place where they are so logically outgunned that it would be a minefield to venture there.

{The Constitution is THE supreme law of the land, correct? Yet it flatly forbids: Bills of attainder, ex post facto (or retroactive) laws, AND laws interfering with contractual obligations; the 11th Congress has ignored and violated ALL of these.}

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Jay Sekulow from ALCJ radio is saying that Reid said it could take up to ten days to seat Brown.

We'll tie up Brown until after we ram Obamacare down your throats!

[ari-freedom]

“Democrats won’t have 60 votes in the Senate any more, but they will have 59, which is a wider majority than presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush needed to win significant legislative victories. “

true but the dems want to F-— people over and America doesn’t want their crap

[ari-freedom]

yes, tort reform is a bad move...stick to interstate commerce

[sport]

If they do that, then we need to fight. How we fight is up to them.

I know that most on this forum do not think so, but, the obama thugs are of the same ilk that imprisoned and then killed millions of those that opposed them in the 1030’s in Germany, In Russia frpm the 1919 until the Soviet Union failed, In China fromthe 1930’s to the present, The Easatern Bloc of Europe, Camdodia [sp?],Cuba,North Korea.

We are fighting for our lives and when we are on the wrong side of the barb wire is too late to learn this.

[verity]

That is quite a melodramatic statement.

You are overlooking the fact that the populace is much better armed than those of the countries you mention.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"We have to get broader coalitions and support for legislation," said Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.). Republicans said they would welcome a bipartisan approach from the Democrats..."

Oh, for heaven' sake, shut up, you "bipartisan" ninnies. Surely we can stop before they go off and do something stupid.

Goldstate, you are right. I only hope Obama and the Democrats will keep talking about"the core bipartisan healthcare principles," "limited healthcare", "Healthcare 2.0", "more modest health reform goals", etc. from now til Easter--- hopefully, from now til November. That way they will keep their restless prying hands OFF of "the economy" and "jobs", and let the market recover the only way it ever does recover: by letting 300 million free people go freely about their normal economic business.

If the Dems do nothing but drive around in circles til November, by that time 100% of voters will be disgusted enough to throw them out on their keisters. Every blessed one of them.

[OneWingedShark]

>You are overlooking the fact that the populace is much better armed than those of the countries you mention.

Being better armed means jack-shit, to be blunt, without the will to use said arms.

[OneWingedShark]

>>“Democrats won’t have 60 votes in the Senate any more, but they will have 59, which is a wider majority than presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush needed to win significant legislative victories. “
>
>true but the dems want to F-— people over and America doesn’t want their crap

If I recall, America didn’t want TARP either....

[Conservative Vermont Vet]

So, in other words, anything Dear Leader and Dingy Harry want, they can count on 59 sure votes and yet it's the Republicans who are "unwilling to compromise?"

Now that's funny, I don't care who the Leftist Moonbats are which are advancing that dissimulating premise!

Of course the authors know what we all know; that with the number of RINO's in the Senate, it will probably be easy to pick up one vote on any given legislation

I am still stunned that Demo-Rats have not managed to convince one of the usual turncoats (such as Voino-Bitch or one of the other 2 Witches from Maine) to stab their fellow R's in the back and vote for Death Care!