LAT: Filibuster Fight Isn’t Lost for Dems Yet (need 6 Repubs, have 2)

[DeepModem Mom]

Filibuster Fight Isn’t Lost for Democrats Yet
By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON - For Senate Democrats, the magic number is six.

That's the number of Republican senators Democrats need to convince to cross party lines if they want to win a potential showdown on changing the rules for selecting federal judges. And by most accounts, they are getting close....

***

The arithmetic is fairly straightforward. Frist says he needs 51 votes to change the filibuster rule, and there are 55 Republicans in the Senate. One of those votes can come from the vice president, who as president of the Senate can vote to break a 50-50 tie. That means that in order to win the fight, Frist can change the rules if he loses five senators; Democrats will win if he loses six.

Two Republicans - John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island - have said they would vote with the Democrats against the rule change. Four other senators have said they have concerns about changing the rules and are considering voting against it. They are Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, John Warner of Virginia and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. More are rumored to be privately opposed, but fear voting against their leaders....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-filibuster13apr13,0,6204451.story?coll=la-home-nation

[aldian159]

1. Off the top of my head

I'd add Specter and maybe Luger to the list of those privately worried. There are a few GOPers who know that sooner or later they will lose control of the Senate, and when that glorious day comes, the GOP will need the filibuster.

[drm604]

7. Do you know for sure about Specter?

He's my Senator and I'm thinking of contacting him about this (Santorum is probably hopeless). It would make sense that he'd be one of the ones who is worried. I may bring this up with my DFA group. The "losing control of the Senate" argument sounds like a good way to approach it. If nothing else, the moderate and pro-choice Republicans could use that argument for cover.

[Terre]

2. Oregon's Gordon Smith?

I've already called and FAXED, but is he standing with Frist on this?

Anyone know?

[ThoughtCriminal]

3. Point of Order

Been a long time since I had a grasp on Senate rules. Can the Democrats filibuster to prevent a vote on the rule change?

[NWHarkness]

4. No filibuster on rules changes

All they need for a rules change is a sinple majority.

[katsy]

5. I'm conflicted about this...

Yes, I've sent snail mail to my reps voicing opposition to the change of rules, and I've called their offices.

The reason for the conflict is because it still may be a win/win for Dems even if they change the rules.

If frist kills the filibuster, business interests (the legislation corporate interests have written and expect to pass) may never pass because the Dems will use parliamentary rules to slow Senate business.. I can't imagine this legislation is citizen-friendly.

When the balance of power favors us (2006?)... I'd hope the Dems send a box of tissues to those short sighted bastards that voted for the rule change and then proceed to steamroll every piece of Dem legislation through the Senate, and block all gop bills.

I don't think it would hurt our party if they brought the Senate to a stop. Especially if they require all the legislation to be read and that legislation turns out to be damning for the gop.

I just can't imagine that passing legislation without the filibuster would cause less harm than shutting down the government. I'm sure I'm wrong... but I can dream can't I?

Does anyone know if Chris Shays supports the rule change?

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Kicking for DUers in states with undecided Senators --

please let them hear from you.