I think a filibuster would be better.
But a hold should be used if necessary.
Eh, filibuster gets everyone in a tizzy these days. Just put a hold on the damn bill and announce it. Stop the legislation until they strip out the insane immunity bit.
I too would like to see the drama, but the results here matter more.
Not only that but filibuster would require 60 votes to maintain. I'm not sure we would get the 60. So a hold makes more sense.
41 not 60.
Right. I'm still only my second cup of coffee this morning and lately 60 has been branded into my brain. But even 41 is very doubtful so a hold would still have a better chance of accomplishing the task.
Correction, a filibuster takes 40 votes (well, actually 41), as I'm sure you meant to say. It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
Yep. Thanks.
we don't have 40 votes for a filibuster - we can't even get 30 votes for the Feingold-Reid amendment to set a deadline for getting our troops out of Iraq, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro ll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?con gress=110&session=1&vote=00362#p osition
even though Americans support that position by 73%-22% http://www.democrats.com/iraq-poll-1
How many votes do you think we have?
