How many "moderate" Repubs will vote with the Democrats ?

[kentuck]

on the filibuster? My prediction is that no more than three will vote with the Democrats and we will get the judges that America deserves. Roe v Wade will be overturned. Corporate control will be strengthened. Worker rights will be weakened. Everybody will pay more for healthcare and gasoline. There will be efforts to put prayer back in schools and to uphold the laws against flag-burning, etc. Gay rights will be nothing but a dream of the past. The prison sentences for marijuana will be lengthened. The list can go on and on. America is on the march.

And the bad news is that it is doubtful that the Democrats will win back the House or Senate anytime soon. They may win the Presidency the next election but there is nothing to keep them from changing the votes required to override his veto. Until the people regain control of the people's House, I do not hold out much hope for any dramatic change for the better. Sorry, but I am not optimistic about our chances.

[silverweb]

1. Few, if any.

The moderate repubs are all too cowed and browbeaten to go against their overlords.

:eyes:

[salinen]

2. Bad news for our side

for so long. That "pendulum" notion is for kids.

[jmaier]

3. I somewhat agree.

I think there is an outside chance of getting even, or close in the Senate. But I think we're going to need 2 election cycles in the Senate and probably 4 cycles in the House to recapture majorities -- UNLESS a major right wing backlash takes root.

On the filibuster issue, I think it's more than likely going to go nuclear successfully. I simply cannot believe how valueless and craven, the "moderate statesman" are on the right.

[whistle]

4. I suspect that all senate republicans will vote the party line...

...but that will be only 55 votes, so the question ought to be which four democratic senators will cross over to the dark side on this issue. I assume that VP Cheney gets to vote also, so they only need four democrats. Who will those four be?

[kentuck]

5. I think th VP only votes in the event of a tie vote...

I may be wrong?

[jmaier]

6. They don't need any Dems

the nuclear plan is a straight majority vote -- we need all the dems and 6 republicans to hold.

[whistle]

9. So, the senate has ratified a simple majority vote already?

....Where does VP Cheney come into the voting, only when the simple majority votes are required?

[DemBeans]

14. two things...

Cheney could indeed break a tie, but that's not what he's going to be used for. He'll act as presiding officer of the Senate, and in that role will, in contradiction to the ruling of the parliamentarian, rule in favor of the nuclear option.

Isn't that something, the executive branch taking away power from the legislative branch? And they're willing to have it televised, featuring the least popular VP since Spiro Agnew. Guess you can do that when you own the voting machines.

[whistle]

17. So this debate is just a stage show for the real Act III....basturds!

[many a good man]

7. Only 51 needed to drop Fat Man

He won't get it and he'll act the martyr.

[cyr330]

8. I agree

And the emphasis is that we will get the judges that "AMERICA DESERVES." If these dumb shit fucking assholes are going to continue to vote for these vile people, then they (we) are going to pay for it. Too bad that those of us not responsible are going to be in the same boat with the morons.

[Anywho6]

10. As the apparent token optimist...

...I believe that some veteran Republican senators will not go along with the rule change and it will not happen. I think that there are some Republicans that are actually disgusted by this idea and see it as a bad precedent, especially if some sort of deal can't be reached because Frist is being a hard-head.

PS - Regards from a former Kentuckian! :hi:

[kentuck]

11. Reid said several Repubs had come up to him and said...

they supported him but that they could not go against the President or the Leadership. But you can bet, if they see that it is not politically advantageous for them, they would drop the President and the Leadership faster than you can say "filibuster"...

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Chafee, McCain, Snowe, and Collins probably...

Hagel, Warner, DeWine, Voinovich, and others are possibilities.

[DemBeans]

16. scratch Voinovich...

I think he came out on the floor tonight saying that he won't oppose the nuclear option. I think Hegel has indicated the same in the last few hours.

[kentuck]

19. Voinivich said he will vote for Owens..

Unfortunately.

[corbett]

13. If We Get Meaningful Election Reform Within The Next 3 Months

If Congress passes meaningful election reform within the next 3 months which the shrub signs, then we a very good chance of retaking the Senate in 2006. There are several good pieces of legislation currently floating in both the House and Senate. I like to talk about VIVA because it has a ring to it:

http://www.commoncause.org/VIVA2005

Save The Republic, We Must!

http://www.moveonpac.org/savetherepublic

[snowbear]

15. If they voted by what the people who elected them wanted...

..instead of being party line woosies, then yeah.. some of them would vote with the Democrats.

I don't see it happening though. They'll stick by their role models like:

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Apparently, none

Once I saw Hagel up there with the "up-or-down" vote nonsense, I knew it was over. Filibuster is dead.