2012 Dem rallying cry: 'We went along with the Republicans, but...

we weren't real happy about it"

Any other good ones?

(Damn, I need a beer. Over the last two days we've seen White House capitulation on tax cuts for the rich, and Obama's Deficit Commission appointees proposing tax cuts for the rich and shared sacrifice for the rest of us. Yikes.)

as opposed to a 3.1 trillion middle class tax hike that will simultaneously have everyone blaming him and hurt the economy.

He will likely extend the tax cuts for 2 or 3 years and then have them all expire (unless we get the votes in future Congresses to extend only the middle class tax cuts, in which case those will be made permanent).

Whatever.

Put a fork in it.

and the filibuster is not in the Constitution.

Second, if we're too fucking afraid to threaten to end the filibuster (like the Republicans threatened a few years ago) we should bring the under-$250k tax cuts up first, and make the Republicans own saying no to that.

It's is the most ridiculous situation. Grown adults elected to office, cowering under their desks because the Republicans might call them "Liberals". Fucking insane.

FDR is spinning in his grave with sufficient vigor to light the entire east coast.

(SS, ANWR, Immigration).

It all failed, and they didn't even hint at ending the filibuster for any legislation.

They tried to end the filibuster for nominations. I believe we will too if Republicans start blocking our nominees in cloture votes. But that has very little to do with ending it for legislation. The Constitution mandates that the Senate provide advice and consent on nominations. It does not mandate that the Senate pass legislation the President favors.

Heck, LBJ didn't even threaten to end the filibuster when his civil rights act was on the ropes. He changed the civil rights act to pick up more Republicans (given the number of Democratic defections).

be it the "Patriot" Act, wars for fun, or other insane shit - so there was zero need to threaten for those. The things you mention were contentious even among Republicans, IIRC. I'm not sure why you're saying that it was OK for the Republicans to threaten the filibuster under circumstances, but that the Democrats shouldn't do it for other circumstances, but I guess you understand some rule that I don't.

The filibuster has totally changed in its use - to pretend otherwise is simply nuts.

The main way it has changed is for uncontroversial nominations and uncontroversial bills. It has been used for decades on big, controversial legislation. In 1988, when the Senate tried to pass campaign finance reform, they tried to invoke cloture 8 times and failed each time by a few votes. They had all night sessions, and no one cared. The Sargent at Arms even carried in one Republican in the middle of the night (somewhat as a joke). No one cared. It didn't get anywhere.

As you know, the civil rights act was filibustered at first, and the whole strategy was how to get around the filibuster (they ended up getting enough votes after changing the bill).

Throughout the past several decades, even legislation that overcame filibusters were significantly modified to avoid one.

The main way it has changed is that now, Republicans require cloture to be invoked on even NON-controversial bills and nominations, just to waste time. These bills pass overwhelmingly (and nominees are confirmed overwhelmingly or unanimously), but the goal is to waste time and to run out the clock.

THAT is the main way the use of the filibuster has changed. Its use on big, controversial pieces of legislation has not changed nearly as much.

"The things you mention were contentious even among Republicans, IIRC."

They were contentious among some Republicans because Republicans knew they couldn't get 60 votes to pass a bill. There were some Republicans who didn't want to vote to privatize Social Security if they knew they weren't going to succeed in doing so. But if they had 60 votes (or say 61 or 62), I have a feeling these objections would instantly melt away and they would have done it. The lack of ability to pass a bill greatly changes the public debate on the bill. Politicians don't want to go down with an unpopular position on a losing side, even if they would be willing to vote for an unpopular position on the winning side.

Or maybe I'm drunk.

controversial bills. It has always been used for big controversial bills.

and now see what happed

if that counts for anything!"

I supported someone else during democratic primaries for President. But fully supported President Obama. Like the lady said in the town hall before the election, I am weary from defending President Obama. President Obama give democrats no reason to fight, it does not seem that President Obama will go to the mat bleeding and still fighting for any principle. I find that tendency appalling. We have a President that cut out a trip to Wisconsin when it looked like Russ Feingold would lose. Could a hellfire and brimstone trip by a democratic President to a blue state to save a key Senator have made a difference? We will never know, because that trip was not done for image reasons. I would rather have a President bloody and losing on principles than one that is so afraid of looking bad that he can't come out swinging against his sworn enemies every waking minute. I prefer a democratic President that shows up to knife fights early and full of fight. If this current President can't bring himself to be that person, maybe we will get one to defeat a republican President in 2016. President Obama must get rid of confusing, demoralizing aides like Axelrod and Jarret and bring in some knuckle dragging, mouth breathing partisans that know how to carve republicans up.

When Dean ran our Party, we won majorities in both houses every time. In the seven election cycles that the DLC has been in charge of, we only came away with a majority in the Senate once. Never in the House.