Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

60 Votes...I want 60 senators in 2006 so we can tell liberals to "shove it."

Posted on 11/04/2004 5:58:45 PM PST by TortReformer

Anyone think it can happen? Please 60 Votes in '06!!!!!!


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 60in06
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last
To: Katya

Frist said on TV on Tuesday night that at the beginning of a new Congress the rules can be changed by a simple majority. Let's hope he has the fortitude to do so.


21 posted on 11/04/2004 6:07:40 PM PST by wiley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wiley

I thought I had heard that too. If it's that simple, they can also change it back before the next election....just in case.


22 posted on 11/04/2004 7:23:04 PM PST by Katya (Homo Nosce Te Ipsum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Katya

Frist has been talking about the so-called "nuclear option." I think it is a great idea. Don't take it down to 51, but down to 55. That would be just a kick in the teeth wouldn't it? I'm sure Specter could defect on something like that, but there are a couple of Dems who are sick of their party filibustering that have yet to retire. Picking off a couple of them would be of great help.

Though he isn't ideal, Ken Salazar is also a social moderate and somewhat of a maverick. Sure, I'd prefer Coors in CO, but Salazar is no Obama. We need to press the majority for all it is worth right now, but keep in mind that some day the pendulum may swing against us.


23 posted on 11/04/2004 8:48:30 PM PST by AngryMatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Keep in mind y'all, that they can FILIBUSTER THE RULE CHANGES. Now I doubt that will happen, but if it does, I hope Frist has the stones to make them actually sit there and filibuster this. Changing the rule of filibuster to 55 is good in all situations. It allows a distinct majority control, but if there is a serious issue out there that can create some party disunity, then the minority can filibuster if they have under 45 in their party.

Works out in all cases, including if and when we become the party with 45. But 40 is simply too small of a minority to possibly hold up all business in the Senate.


24 posted on 11/04/2004 8:51:19 PM PST by AngryMatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TortReformer

Forget that. Our mantra should be "67 in '06". Just in case liberal activist judges try anything, so we can get a Constitutional Amendment passed.


25 posted on 11/05/2004 2:20:18 PM PST by WinOne4TheGipper (If you always do what you've always done, you're always going to get what you've always gotten.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TortReformer

31 red states=62 Senators.


26 posted on 11/05/2004 2:22:39 PM PST by rightwingcrazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WinOne4TheGipper

FWIW,

I am not a big fan of Constitutioal Ammendments, unless it is target towards a runaway JUDICIARY. (Marriage Ammendment)


27 posted on 03/27/2005 10:51:10 AM PST by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson