As long as they can get 50 Democratic votes, those "prominent GOP supporters" can go pound sand.

Does every bill automatically get filibustered if it doesn't get 60 votes?

Senators from red-state centrist Max Baucus (D-MT) to rust-belt liberal Sherrod Brown (D-OH) are on record as unconvinced of the merits of cap-and-trade, so setting a 50-vote rather than 60-vote margin for passage is likely to make the difference between passing a bill and doing nothing.

Sounds like it's not a matter of just enough obstructionists in the Senate, but rather actual legitimate policy differences.

Cap-and-Trade isn't the only option out there. Maybe this is a good opportunity for the Senate to actually live up to its "most deliberative body in the world" (or whatever) motto and debate the merits of different approaches.

It takes 51 votes to pass. Period. The GOP is acting as if it;s a 51-49 split in the senate and Reid is letting them get away with it. The GOP is essentially forcing a super majority vote for every bill.

How did so much get done during the Bush years? How did the Senate get so many cloture votes with much less than 58 seats? Because Dems would vote for clouture respecting the initial vote much more often than not?

Look, Reid is evading responsibility. If a cloture vote fails because it lacks 60 ayes, then Reid can just say: You don't want to end debate? Then we'll continue debating until you have said all you want to say. Debate will continue on a twenty-four/seven basis.

A vote against cloture is a vote for a filibuster (that is, more debate). All Reid has to do is force those who don't want to stop debating to debate. Reid controls the Senate schedule all by himself.

The problem is not that Republicans are abusing a Senate tradition. The problem is that Democrats are not carrying out their own part in the tradition.

"Are Democrats damned if they do and damned if they don't?"

Yes.

As Atrios would say, this has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.

(What was the article about, anyway?)

If they can't get to 60 they should consider this. Requiring a supermajority on all votes is an abuse of democracy that has been institionalized by the Republicans.

As for the merits of cap-and-trade vesus a carbon tax cap-and-trade is the only game in town right now. Waiting for a better policy is functionally the equivalent of doing nothing at all.

The Democratic waiverers have a lot to answer for. They fall roughly speaking into two camps: Senators from the Rust Belt and from the northern Plains. (think Brown, Conrad and Johnson among others)

For the rustbelters: The old model of manufacturing seems to have been destroying rust belt economies anyway. It's time to stop fighting the future, because doing so is always a losing propsition in the end. Trying to stick to a dirty energy model for a state like Ohio will only lead to collapse in the end.

For the Upper Plains Senators: your opposition to cap-and-trade makes even less sense becauase your states are primed to capitalize on wind energy. North Dakota is number one for wind energy potential within the United States, and Montana and South Dakota are both inthe top five. (http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pdf/Top_20_States_with_Wind_Energy_Potential.pdf)

For the rustbelters: The old model of manufacturing seems to have been destroying rust belt economies anyway. It's time to stop fighting the future, because doing so is always a losing propsition in the end. Trying to stick to a dirty energy model for a state like Ohio will only lead to collapse in the end.