Reply #8: It's Simple ... [View All]

Democratic Senate incumbents who do not support filibuster reform should be replaced by Repuglicans.

Really, we might as well have Repuglicans in those positions since the 60-vote filibuster means that they get want they want any how (or can stop anything they don't want). At least with the spineless Democrats replaced by nutty Repuglicans we would have 'truth in labeling'.

How any Democratic Senators can be against 'majority rule' and instead favor a 'tyranny of the minority' is kind of mind blowing.

I'm for democracy and majority rule even if the Repuglicans win back the Senate in the distant future -- that is the consequences of freedom and democracy; we shouldn't become so risk averse (like the present Congress) that we give-up the principles upon which this Republic was founded.

The current filibuster 'tradition' is a perversion of the Senate deliberative process ... it was never meant to stop cold votes on legislation, appointments, etc.

If a reduced Democratic Senate majority in January 2011 cannot change the rules to get rid of the anti-democratic filibuster, well, really, what is the point?