Did Republicans need 60 votes when they deep sixed this country

[mmonk]

under Bush? Just wondering. I was wondering if ramming stuff down our throats was just my imagination.

[rwheeler31]

1. no

[roguevalley]

16. I wish someone with a terminal disease would have the grit to go to

the white house or the capital and die on the steps. I wish they would hold a sign saying thank you, fuckers. I wish it would happen. I wonder if it would even matter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. No, you did not imagine that

[mmonk]

5. Good to know my memory is correct. I keep hearing 60 votes

so much I want to puke.

[tsuki]

3. No, they had Ben Nelson and Lieberman. nt

[Better Believe It]

4. They just needed 51 votes to pass legislation and approve Bush's Supreme Court appointments

[napi21]

6. But I think they needed 60 to brung the vote to the floor.

Don't you remembe then screaming about the up or down vote. That's the same as now. We need the 60 or cloture and 51 to pass the legislation. They did however use reconiliaton to pass many things like the tax cuts for the rich.

[johnlal]

23. Yes--The "gang of 14".

The "gang of 14" was a deal struck to give Bush an "up-or-down" vote on judicial nominations. This deal averted what Trent Lott called "the nuclear option", the abolition of the use of the filibuster. Now that the Gang of 14 is no more, and the remaining members are no longer interested in "an up or down vote", it's time for the nuclear option. Get rid of the Filibuster, put some teeth back into healthcare reform, and pass it with a majority of votes.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. What specific votes are you talking about?

[d_b]

8. sure as fuck didn't

and when they get back in power they won't need 60 votes then, either.

[Release The Hounds]

9. Exactly

[madville]

10. They never needed the nuclear option, there were Democrats voting with them

[rwheeler31]

11. They ruled by fear, they proved themselves disgusting.

Now their pissed because they are out of power.

[gateley]

12. No. They didn't need any votes if they wanted something badly enough. nt

[pleah]

13. No. n/t

[tritsofme]

14. Major portions of the Bush agenda were passed under budget reconciliation.

And many of the tax cuts will expire in the next year.

It is a lot easier to ram tax changes through using budget rules than a comprehensive health reform package.

[Bitwit1234]

15. BUT

when they did it, they were not arrogant it was just politics, the majority over the minority. But now if the democrats do it, then it just proves they are arrogant. Get it..

Republicans do what they want when they are a majority. And republicans whine and moan, and still think they should get what they want when they are the minority

[bertman]

17. 'Tis true. 'Tis very true.

[donheld]

18. Have you forgotten Tom Delay

you don't call that arrogant?

[tavalon]

22. You missed the sarcasm there

[OHdem10]

19. They did some serious pieces of Legislation using Reconciliation.

However, they are much more authoritarian in their party.
Members must walk the plank for the party.

They could always threaten a handful of Blue Dogs or give
them a big earmark to take home.

They were very active at shoving things down our throat.

[rudy23]

20. Nope, they're the Harlem Globetrotters, and our guys are the Washington Generals.

They're supposed to lose. They're there to make the whole exhibition look legitimate.

[Dinger]

21. K & R

[LeftHander]

24. Nope bluedogs fell all over themselves voting with Repukes....nt