Who are these ‘liberals’? Are they the same ‘liberals’ who spent the last two
years:

1. Shifting private debt to the public sector (thereby freeing corporations, esp
the financial industry, but also financial arms of GM, GE, etc, and saddling the
middle class with the obligation to ‘pay it off’).

2. Watching private sector profits reach un-precedented levels (while
investment goes abroad, hiring moves abroad, and manufacturing continues to
disappear and un-employment continues).

3. Raising the defense budget 6% (so, when “cuts” come, the defense industries
will be safely sandbagged).

4. Allowing the financial industry to ‘borrow’ from the ‘public sector’ (i.e. me
and you) at 1% and buy bonds that pay 3% interest (Banks take your $1 and
make $2 off each one they ‘borrowed’ from you. But, here’s the real deal: You
gave them the $1 they ‘borrowed’, and you pay them the $2 interest they
‘earned’ on the bonds. All the money they ‘invest’ came from you – a ‘loan’ –
and all the money they make comes from you – you have to cover the interest
on the bonds).

5. Allowing the financial industry to ‘borrow’ from the ‘public sector’ (i.e. me
and you again) at 1%, to loan to me and you at 4%, 12%, 18% or more
mortgages, credit cards and other lines of credit (pocketing 3%, 11% and 17% on
your and my money – first given to them by us, then ‘paid back with interest’ by
us).

6. Giving private sector insurers a windfall: mandated customers, with a
taxpayer-paid overhead rate of 20% for ‘mandated customers’ (20% of our
premium spent on administration, CEO salaries, bonuses, sitting on Boards to
set rates and decide who’s covered, lobbying for the insurers’ benefit,
advertising and propagandizing to redefine more and more as ‘health care
service’ while delivering fewer and fewer services—- essentially, giving our tax
money to insurers to do with it what they will). *The American people wanted a
government administered plan like Medicare - for everyone. (72% - CBS/New
York Times poll June 2009)

7.  Expanding the war in Afghanistan. (64% of the American people opposed
expanding the war in Afghanistan and wanted to disentangle from Bush-era
‘War on Terror’ and ‘preventive war’ policies. Still, over 60% of Americans
oppose the war.?

8.  Keeping the six too-big-to-fail banks – now bigger than ever; kept deposits
at risk by maintaining huge grey areas between commercial and investment
banking; didn’t ‘punish’ the financial industry - now even more profitable, with
bonuses among the biggest ever.

9. Supporting ‘The Compromise’ – giving billionaires $10 for each $1 to an un-
or under-employed person or family.

We dont need these kind of ‘liberals’ or their kind of ‘reform’.

It is a slam dunk that when the republicans get a
majority in the Senate, the filibuster will be killed
outright. There absolutely is no way they will risk
pay-back for their abhorrent and immoral behavior over
the past two years.

Fact is they are disciplined and ruthless. Counting on
ANY republican to act honorably and in the best
interest of the country is a fools errand.

Frankly, a constitutional covention should be convened to propose elimination of the senate all together. It has outlived it’s usefulness and is progressively more and more an instrument of obstruction driven by 100 aristocratic wannabes who seem to think that their sole purpose in government is to posture and vie for attention from a mostly brain dead electorate! Look back in our history and see exactly why this albatross around the neck of our body politic was created to begin with!

Ruth forgets: The Dims CAVED UNDER to the nuclear threat, and we ended up with Alito and Roberts on the USSC, and myriad right-wing ideologues on the lower courts.

I’m all in favor of the old-fashioned filibuster—you have to keep the floor and keep talking.  This idea that you can have a filibuster without having debate is insane. Legislation should be voted up or down, but, before that, discussed as long as need be…DISCUSSED, not simply blocked.

Foolishly, her entire premise rests on two very debatable things: that the GOP will pick up Senate seats in the next election (as opposed to losing them or remaining status quo), and that Palin will be nominated, much less win.

The first assumption is speculative at best.  Alot can happen before the next elections, not least that the GOP/TP could end up with a whole lot of egg on their faces, looking foolish and intransigent, and turning people against them.  This is AS likely as any other scenario right now, particularly given their already stated agenda, and some of the laughably stupid things they are doing (e.g., being “sworn in” to the House, reading the Constitution aloud, and having had a fundraiser even before taking office).

The second assumption is more than speculative; it is ridiculous.  True, I just said alot can happen before the next elections.  However, the chance that Palin will even be NOMINATED, much less win, is remote in the extreme, despite what some of the media echo chamber continues to regurgitate.

As for aacme88’s suggestion that the Dems wait to attempt the Senate rule changes, that is at best disingenuous, and at worst dishonest - to say nothing of irrelevant.  The changes are long overdue (including the one they WON’T make, changing to majority vote).  I say make as many changes as possible, and let the chips fall where they may.  The changes will benefit each party in turn, thus providing what amounts to a level playing field.

As an aside, Katrina Vanden Heuvel was on Parker Spitzer the other night, and had an excellent suggestion that the number of votes required for passage or filibuster be made on a sort of “sliding scale,” depending on various factors.  This seems, to me, the fairest way of doing things.

Peace.

Frankly, I think the Dems should wait 18 months and see which way the wind blows before changing anything. They may be the minority after, or with party switches even before, 2012. They may want to return all the favors of this past Congress. Meanwhile, if the Senate can’t pass anything passed in the Rep House, that might be a good thing.