Juan Cole can't understand. . .

[Michael Tee]

<<. . .  why Scott Brown can be elected with just 52% of the Massachusetts vote, but we can't pass universal health care with 52% of the Senate vote.>>

www.juancole.com

[Amianthus]

Simple. Passing health care reform with 52% of the vote in Congress requires compromise. Democrats do not want to compromise (evidenced by closed door sessions and disallowing any changes by Republicans) so they need a supermajority instead.

If they were willing to compromise, then they would get it.

[sirs]

Does Jaun Cole also not understand that GREATER than 52% of the U.S. citizenry does NOT want Obamacare passed??

[Michael Tee]

<<Passing health care reform with 52% of the vote in Congress requires compromise. Democrats do not want to compromise (evidenced by closed door sessions and disallowing any changes by Republicans) so they need a supermajority instead.

<<If they were willing to compromise, then they would get it.>>

Why?  Do the citizens of Massachusetts compromise on some third candidate just because neither Brown nor Coakley got all the votes?  In a REAL democracy, 52% is more than sufficient to decide any non-constitutional issue.  This filibuster shit is pure nonsense.  THAT was what Prof. Cole really couldn't understand.  There is nothing democratic about it.  It is the deliberate frustration of the will of the majority by a minority of one.

[sirs]

So entertaining to see Tee highlight the "will of the majority", while IGNORING the will of the majority of the electorate & american people.

[Amianthus]

Why?  Do the citizens of Massachusetts compromise on some third candidate just because neither Brown nor Coakley got all the votes?  In a REAL democracy, 52% is more than sufficient to decide any non-constitutional issue.  This filibuster shit is pure nonsense.  THAT was what Prof. Cole really couldn't understand.  There is nothing democratic about it.  It is the deliberate frustration of the will of the majority by a minority of one.

A minority of one cannot filibuster by himself. Even if the Democrats do not have 60 votes, they can compromise with enough Republicans to get the cloture vote and avoid the filibuster. A filibuster threat only works if you've closed off negotiations to enough people that you cannot get cloture.

[Michael Tee]

<<A minority of one cannot filibuster by himself. Even if the Democrats do not have 60 votes, they can compromise with enough Republicans to get the cloture vote and avoid the filibuster. A filibuster threat only works if you've closed off negotiations to enough people that you cannot get cloture.>>

The Republicans will vote en bloc against Obama's health care bill.  There was some hope that Olympia Snowe would support the bill, but that's now gone.  If one single Republican filibusters, he's one man from a minority contingent and he is holding up the passage of the bill, whereas there is no one man representative of any minority faction who can swing the election to Coakley's side if a bare majority favours Brown. 

What you have in the filibuster is a mechanism whereby one man (perhaps it was inaccurate to call him a minority of one) representing a minority view in the Senate can block a vote that the majority wishes to hold.

[sirs]

<<A minority of one cannot filibuster by himself. Even if the Democrats do not have 60 votes, they can compromise with enough Republicans to get the cloture vote and avoid the filibuster. A filibuster threat only works if you've closed off negotiations to enough people that you cannot get cloture.>>

The Republicans will vote en bloc against Obama's health care bill.

 

And the Democrats will vote en block for it

There was some hope that Olympia Snowe would support the bill, but that's now gone. 

And there is some hope that Nelson, Lieberman, or a hanful of other Democrats will support the notion that the people (their constituents) DON'T WANT IT, and decide they can no longer support such an abysmal bill, simply to pass it

If one single Republican filibusters, he's one man from a minority contingent and he is holding up the passage of the bill, ...

..THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT.  (Like trying to debate with a block of wood     )

[Amianthus]

The Republicans will vote en bloc against Obama's health care bill.

This bill, of course. Because it was written without any input from Republicans and behind closed doors. Had they involved Republicans in the crafting of the bill, it would have a higher chance of getting past a cloture vote. The point of filibusters is to prevent the ramming of partisan bills through congress without input from the minority party or independents.

There's this concept of "burning bridges" that Democrats can't seem to understand.

[Michael Tee]

<<The point of filibusters is to prevent the ramming of partisan bills through congress without input from the minority party or independents.>>

Yes, which by definition is the profoundly anti-democratic undermining of the democratic principle of majority rule, as exemplified in Brown's "victory" over Coakley with a margin of only 52%.

<<There's this concept of "burning bridges" that Democrats can't seem to understand.>>

And then there's this concept of majority rule which the current GOP leadership is fully prepared to sabotage.

[Rich]

>>Yes, which by definition is the profoundly anti-democratic undermining of the democratic principle of majority rule,<<

America isn't a democracy. It's Republic. I'll understand if you, being Canadian, don't understand the difference.

[Amianthus]

And then there's this concept of majority rule which the current GOP leadership is fully prepared to sabotage.

So, if the majority voted to reinstate slavery by a simple 51%, you'd be good with that?

[Rich]

>>So, if the majority voted to reinstate slavery by a simple 51%, you'd be good with that?<<

<chuckle>

I'm sure that would me certain liquidation.

[Michael Tee]

<<So, if the majority voted to reinstate slavery by a simple 51%, you'd be good with that?>>

Nope.  Not even by a 100% majority.  Clearcut violation of constitutional human rights.  Certain basic rights are immune to majority rule.

[sirs]

Depends of course if that position is contrary to the majority view.  You may be a minority of 1, in fact