Sanders: I Believe There Are 60 Votes To End A Republican Health Care Filibuster
For more than a week now, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has been publicly calling on his colleagues in the Democratic Caucus to vote their conscience on issues--but to vote with the party if and when Republicans filibuster agenda items like health care.
And, as I reported yesterday, with Senate leaders now on his side, Sanders seems confident his message is getting across.
In political terms, the Senate Majority Leader and his whip have little leverage over individual members. But this growing push--to make it clear that a procedural vote for cloture does not imply support for the underlying bill, and to force conservative Democrats to explain their decisions when they support GOP obstruction--is almost certainly necessary if the goal of party unity is to be met.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
It should always be made clear that a vote for cloture doesn't signify a yes vote on any piece of legislation.
Thanks to the endless repetition of "Democrats need 60 votes to pass legislation", the general public probably believes that. (And just an aside: I don't ever remember the circumstances being described in those terms when Republicans were in the majority--we just heard endless talk about the Democrats filibustering....) It's in everybody's best interests to understand that the 60 vote standard is a procedural issue, not a substantive (so to speak) issue.
And those wary, cautious, worried DINOS can have their cake and eat it to: they can argue that they wanted the Senate to be productive but that they couldn't support the legislation.
July 9, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Sen Sanders' lips to God's own ears...
July 9, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go Bernie Go!
The fact that a vote for cloture vs voting for the actual bill has to be explained, apparently even to sitting SENATORS, is sad but not unexpected at this point...
July 9, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's sad is the Republicans decided that opposing any bill means filibustering it too. Even when the dixiecrats, not the base of the GOP, filibustered civil rights legislation, they filibustered just a few bills on what they thought was a vital principle, but their ideological heirs have made filibusters normal for almost everything, and the right-leaning Dems have bought into the idea that any bill that's opposed must be filibustered too.
Why won't the Democrats change the rules to allow long debates, even unreasonable delays, but not stop a vote from ever occurring?
July 9, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why won't the Democrats change the rules to allow long debates, even unreasonable delays, but not stop a vote from ever occurring?"
The rule has been in place for a long, long time, and actually does serve a useful purpose in preventing a majority from running roughshod over the minority. The fact that it's being abused is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Besides, letting the R's brand themselves as The Party of No just helps the D's in the long run. If the R's are willing to hang themselves, keep giving them more rope.
July 9, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to join a Progressive Party and have Bernie as the leader of it!
July 9, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really happy to see Sanders taking a visible leadership role. At least SOMEBODY seems to be trying to do Reid's job :P
July 9, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Sanders is not speaking too soon. The Dems are all over the map with this healthcare reform.
July 9, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink