Replies

We hear this line parroted on here alot, most from folks who hear it from someone else and not having the slightest understanding of the parliamentary procedures in the Senate. It's getting tiresome and some of you should look and listen rather than post unless you actually know what is entailed in using the “Nuclear Option”. It's not some trick that can be invoked willy nilly and is fraught with all kinds of other parliamentary tricks that could be used against it. In theory could it work to get some massive entitlement passed, sure, but then again I could run into Cindy Crawford getting dinner and she could want to snogger with me. Plus the consensus is that the Senate will not go this route, not enough Senators want to open that ball of whoop as*. So can we talk about real plausible scenarios, not wild musings of cranks and MSM wish-casters wanting Obamacare to pass.

Senator Jim Demint probably knows the procedures better than all of us and he agrees with the analysis by FReeper xkaydet65. He says if this gets to the floor, it’s over.

It involves a vote to change the rules of the Senate on voting for cloture. In this case it involves a single vote, not as in the past a permanent change from 2/3 to 60 votes. As the filibusters of my youth involved 67 yes votes to call for cloture.

Of course this is fraught with consequences. The maneuver can be used against the Dems if they are in the minority. But there is a belief on the far left that healthcare will solidify Dem support among more than enough of the voting public so as to never be in the minority again. It's been a truism of the left Dems since Harry Hopkins and the New Deal chortled, "Tax tax tax. Spend spend spend. Elect elect elect." A party with that thought process may not be in fear of the consequences you cite.