So what I don't understand is why, at this point, the Dems are at all concerned about a filibuster.  Or a veto, for that matter.

This energy bill has some good stuff in it, and alot of crap.  This makes it much better than previous energy bills, which were almost pure crap, but even so.  The renewable fuels mandate in itself is arguably bad enough to jettison the bill on ecological grounds.

So to me this looks like an opportunity for the conservatives to look stupid, by opposing measures that have alot of popular support: the RPS, the solar tax credit, and the oil company tax revocation (rightly or wrongly, sticking it to the oil companies is always a crowd-pleaser).  If the conservatives lose, then great.  But if they win, they still lose, because the next administration is probably NOT going to veto a bill just because it supports solar.

If the conservatives lose, then great.  But if they win, they still lose, because the next administration is probably NOT going to veto a bill just because it supports solar.

While that would be great, it's an awfully large assumption.  For an even better bill to pass (since it seems this one has enough trouble as it is), we'd need a majority in both the house and the senate to support it, and even more than that if we end up with a president who doesn't support it and we need to override a veto.

Though I'd like a better bill, I still say they should concentrate efforts on gettin' this one passed, 'cause if things don't go our way in the next elections (which is a distinct possibility), this may be the best chance we get for a long while to get anythin' done.

When the Republicans controlled the Senate, all we heard were endless diatribes about how the filibuster is a radical procedural move that shouldn't be used except in extraordinary circumstances, and that requiring 60 votes to make any decision was anti-Constitutional. And now that they're in minority and using the filibuster to block every. single. bill. -- absolute silence. The media, including the bloggers, are asleep on this one, even though we heard about the evils of filibuster at no end when Republicans were in power.

I wish the Democrats had allowed the Republicans to kill the filibuster (the "nuclear option") instead of brokering the deal that got us Alito and Roberts anyway. And really, why should the minority party get any say? They were voted out of power for a reason. If want their agenda to be considered, they can do it the old fashioned way: by trying to persuade their colleagues on the other side of the aisle and by making their case to the public. Otherwise, if their bad ideas have been rejected by the electorate, then tough turnips for them.

The filibuster is structurally biased against progressive policy. It should go the way of the DoDo.

And you're right that the media has suddenly stopped using the F word. All the sudden bills fail because they "couldn't get to 60 votes," as though that's just a normal bar to get over. Maddening.

grist.org

The filibuster is structurally biased against progressive policy.

Care to elucidate on that?  Traditionally, it's been a mechanism for small-party interests to avoid getting steamrollered.  Like, say, the Democrats in years (recently) past.

The Republicans are out of ideas, and out of steam. They resemble a declining back water dictatorship on its way to the airport and exile, but first they shoot all the political prisoners, and loot the treasury.

I just hope in 2008 people remember them for what they are - scoundrels.

Randy Cunningham

Randy Cunningham

There may be some stuff in this bill that does need some further work.  

Why can't Congress break these comprehensive packages down into bite sizes and really debate and work on each segment as separate bills?  

Why kill the entire package if there are some legitimate gripes about parts of the package?  The legislators are pros at adding amendments and poison pills that stymie progress.  

We need a reform of Congress if we are going to make real progress.  There are scoundrels on both sides of the aisle that exploit the weaknesses of the institution.