Vote In Costco Poll To Weaken Filibuster

The Costco Connection ^

[Postman]

Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) says "YEA".

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina says "NAY".

The YEA's are ahead. We need to support the NAYS.

the discussion is here: http://www.costcoconnection.com/connection/201007?pg=8&pm=2&fs=1#pg19

The voting link is at the right hand side of the page.

[Postman]

That was a clumsy Headline I created....The Poll is whether the filibuster should be weakened or not.

[incredulous joe]

Costco??

What a surprise; rules should not apply to Dems.

Our overlords can’t seem to do things right, nor in the light of day.

Why bother with troublesome little things such as rules, law or the Constitution, for that matter.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The filibuster has always served only Dems.
When Republicans get inside the margin, Dems trim it.

Until 1917, a single senator could filibuster.
Cloture with 2/3 was invented in 1917 to overcome Republican opposition to Wilson selling ships to France.

Dixiecrats had 35 solid southern votes until the 1970s and the 2/3 cloture protected Dem racists.

Dixiecrats replaced by Republicans lost the ability to filibuster, so Dems decided to buy off Black votes instead.
Republicans meanwhile had 36-38 seats in the 70s.
So Robert Byrd got the RINOs (stealth Dems) to agree to 3/5 vote for cloture, locking out Repubics again.

With 41 Repubics, they are just suckering us again, probably to 55 votes for cloture.

I want to eliminate filibusters. Majority rule. (The House did in 1886.)
You screw it up, and in two years we’ll fix/get rid of it.
No more wratcheting programs up Congress after Congress.
No more playing us for fools.

[JSDude1]

I say restore the filibuster to pre 1917 rules.

[Still Thinking]

Why are procedural issues like this only worth considering when Dems would benefit? When the Pubbies had a majority, the filibuster was an honorable tradition, a vital bulwark against the majority trampling the minority, sacrosanct. It would have been bad for some reason if the majority didn't do in every case what the minority wanted them to do. Now it's "We won the election".

Kind of like before the 2000 Presidential election, the Dems thought the results might be the opposite of the way they actually turned out; they thought they might win the electoral college but lose the popular vote. They kept reminding everyone of the rules (and no objections about how it was so wrong that the popular vote winner might lose the election). Then after the election, the story is suddenly the exact opposite.

[Excellence]

70/30 no