we now have sixty votes in the senate....

spanone

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 03:17 PM
Original message

we now have sixty votes in the senate....

does this mean anything?

i know if the rethugs had 60, we would be non-existent

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

CTyankee

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 03:20 PM
Response to Original message

1. I think this means that the gloves are off. I expect some real action and

serious work on hcr. More pressure will be laid on the blue dogs and things are gonna kick into high gear...I can't wait!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Oregone

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 03:24 PM
Response to Original message

2. No, you need 79 now for the Super Duper Double Secret majority

All promises are off until then. Tough luck

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

T Wolf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #2

5. The Democratic Party - keeping its powder dry since 1800. That powder must have

gone inert by now. The politicians in DC certainly are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DireStrike

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 03:26 PM
Response to Original message

3. Yeah with 60 republican senators I'd be running for Canada

The reason they think we're gonna take their guns and put them in camps is because that's what they'd do to us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MNDemNY

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 03:26 PM
Response to Original message

4. If only we did.

Lie-berman.(not to mention those fucking blue-balls...I mean dogs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sebastian Doyle

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #4

9. Not to mention Byrd.

It's not a matter of how he would vote, but if he even CAN. Or who should replace him if he passes away. Let's just say I'm less than optimistic of a real Democrat replacing him when that time comes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Pyrzqxgl

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #4

10. Secretive operatives for the Republicans within the Democrats framework.

The Blue Dogs are like secret Republican double agents
in our party, bent on bringing us down.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TheBigotBasher

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 03:31 PM
Response to Original message

6. Sixty of sorts

The 60 includes Liberman and around 15 blue dogs. So 44 reliable votes.

If I was a member of the Progressive caucus, I would remind the blue dogs, it is not just about Obama. Their own seats are at risk if they fail to deliver meaningful health care reform and for all the threatening the blue dogs can do, other Democratic Senators can "cost control" blue dog pork.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FarCenter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 03:31 PM
Response to Original message

7. Who's we? Which sixty? Votes on what?

This is the Senate, after all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

madokie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 03:33 PM
Response to Original message

8. Amazing how that works huh

60 isn't enough for us but 51 is for them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tekisui

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 03:46 PM
Response to Original message

11. It is meaningless. It is evidenced by the 'compromises' made in each step

of health care negotiations. Liberals have been giving and giving. All the while knowing that NO repuke will vote for the final bill. Who are they conceding to? Conservative Democrats. Not worth their weight in shit.

We so need a party purge.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

KatyMan

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 03:54 PM
Response to Original message

12. Democrats are like George McClellan

Never enough votes/troops....always thinking the enemy has more...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MarjorieG

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 03:55 PM
Response to Original message

13. Should mean we could get 60 to vote on no filibuster. Lieberman didn't want it under Bush, so

let's see him reverse for the Dems! Lieberman is pro-insurance lobby Baucus bill, so 60 was more a media measure than reality. Have no idea if some of our ConservaDems would vote against real reform bill after conference. That's when we need the game of chicken and no blinking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

deaniac21

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 04:02 PM
Response to Original message

14. 59

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bigwillq

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 04:02 PM
Response to Original message

15. Nope.

Not with this Congress and some of the spineless DEMS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Autumn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-25-09 04:18 PM
Response to Original message

16. Means nothing , they will continue

to hang out with their other "club members" and won't bother with us, until they need us in the next election.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:18 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.