If you have "no place to go," come here!

Five fucking years too late, the Democrats choose to nuke the filibuster

DC is wetting itself. Nomination filibusters only, of course.

No, not for a decent stimulus package.

No, not for single payer Medicare for All

No, not for doing one single fucking thing about the banksters.

For some judges. And they might have considered doing that five years ago, too.

Wowsers, Dems. Profiles in courage and all that.

NOTE The little puppies Big Orange are wetting themselves too. Will there be ponies now? There could have been ponies. I like ponies.

Average: 5 (1 vote)


jo6pac's picture
Submitted by jo6pac on

I love the fact that it is all over the so-called professional progressives sites but they leave out the small print that you supplied. It's narrow coverage reminds me of aca. It's a big a do about nothing just more theater from the belt way.

I had a pony called Chubby when I was 7, so I think I want a Unicorn this time;)

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

And "blow their excuse" for not passing truly progressive legislation!


Not in my lifetime!


letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

I had the same thought myself. I facebooked this:

About 5 years too late.

Also, too little, since it doesn't cover the Supreme Court and legislation. Ask yourself, what would have happened to the Recovery Act if the Democrats needed only 50 + 1 votes to pass it? Do you think it would have been limited to $800 B, and been tax cut heavy, rather than infrastructure spending heavy? Or do you think it would have been about $1.6 Trillion in deficit spending with very little in tax cuts and a far greater fiscal multiplier?

Next, if the Democrats didn't have to compromise with Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, and other blue dogs, do you think the PPACA would have been a bailout for the insurance companies, or would it have been much closer to a straightforward Medicare for All bill?

And how about, Dodd-Frank? Do you think the bill would have coddled the banks and Wall Street quite so much as it did? How about the credit reform act? Do you think it would have given the CC companies quite so much time to raise interest rates before the bill took effect as the bill gave them?

Also, if only 50 plus 1 votes were necessary, don't you think the health care reform could have been passed by June 2009, or even in March of that year, giving the Democrats plenty of time to get to education reform, energy reinvention, and environmental legislation before the year 2009 was out.

And if they passed all that, do you really think there would have been a tea-party -fueled Republican sweep in 2010 at all levels of Government?

Without the filibuster, the history of the whole last 5 years would have been different. Obama, Reid, and the Democrats blew it. And still, they're retaining the damned thing for Supreme Court appointments and Legislation. Will gutless wonders never cease?

Cujo359's picture
Submitted by Cujo359 on

The Democrats were compromising with themselves back then, not the GOP. My guess is that little would have changed. They had 60 votes long enough to pass the Baucus version of the ACA, and make the House vote on that one. They could just as easily have passed the Dodd version, if all they needed was enough votes for cloture, which at least was more like what the House passed, and a little better in some material ways.

Ditto most of that other stuff, I'm sure. Maybe I give them too much credit, but I always thought the Democrats would rather have the Republicans to blame, because they don't want to cross the people who finance their campaigns. Unlike the Republicans, unfortunately for them, the Democrats pretend otherwise.