I wish I'd thought of this months ago.  There's one question that we really need to ask all of the leading Democratic Presidential contenders:

"In light of the GOP's willingness to filibuster everything that moves, what's your next move when 41 GOP Senators block cloture on your entire legislative agenda?"

I think we'd learn a lot from the answers, if we had the opportunity to ask the question.  It would be good to see who talks about forcing actual filibusters and who doesn't.

Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) has stated that he's opposed to the filibuster.  He believes that all issues should get an up or down vote.  He's railed against Democrats using the filibuster to stop Republican nominees and legislation.  It just so happens that we Democrats have thought the various nominees that the Bush Administration have proposed are with very few exceptions either utterly unqualified or such partisan hacks that there is no way we Democrats can support them.  Essentially, the only choice Democrats have to force the Bush Administration to propose reasonable and qualified nominees is to threaten the filibuster and Norm just wants His Shrubness to get his way.  In regards to legislation, we must oppose the worst Presidential Administration ever however we can.  Here's Norm's quote:

"I came to the Senate to get things done. I have never supported a filibuster, no matter how controversial the issue."
(Norm Coleman's 12/21/2005 Press Release)

Well, now he's changed his mind.  He has voted to uphold the filibuster of the Immigration Act that is before Congress.  It must be okay this time, because its the Republicans spurred on by their conservative base who are filibustering this bill.  Its clear from Norm's voting record that what the conservative base wants, is how Norm votes.

Senator Charles (Chuck) Grassley (R-IA) built his reputation playing the down-to-earth farmer next door who went to Washington to represent the common sense of the folks back home. After arriving in Washington, he went after publicity as a critic of wasteful procurement practices, exposing the thousand dollar hammers and such. That act played well in Iowa and he became unbeatable. I truly wonder, however, if the man has anything left.

Watching his recent performance (since W took office), he appears more and more to be just another Republican placeholder - taking orders from the White House and regurgitating their talking points on cue.

A recent example of this has to do with his reaction to the situation in Iraq and the actions Congress is trying to take to change course. During last Saturday's cloture vote, Grassley voted with the prevailing side to prevent debate and consideration of the non-binding resolution. What did the Senator have to say about it?  

By about 10 p.m., the proposals appeared dead for now after 46 Senate Republicans blocked a vote on a broad ethics and lobbying bill. Fifty Democrats and one Republican, Senator Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, supported going ahead with the vote, but under Senate rules, 65 votes were needed to prevail.

As if a torrid Senate session couldn't get more torrid - prepare for further warfare on S 403, the Child Custody Protection Act, which, if enacted, would criminalize the taking of minors across state lines in contravention of state parental notification laws.

When we were last there, the Senate had passed S 403 65-34, but Uncle Harry was stymieing the appointment of Senate conferees to the conference needed to reconcile S 403 with the House-passed HR 748.

When this has happened in the past - in 2003, for instance - the minority gripe has been exclusion of minority senators from the Senate delegation to the conference.

I'm not sure whether the same applies here; or whether Uncle Harry wanted to give his moderates a Hallmark Moment with James Dobson without actually passing the ghastly bill.

Yesterday, I noted the sad tale how a bill (S 2590) which would open up to online scrutiny the shady world of Federal government contracts and business handouts had been stymied by holds placed by porksters extraordinaire Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd.

(Byrd later retracted his hold. One hold is enough...)

This is a bill supported (apparently) by both leaderships and a large bipartisan majority in each house.

How can it be moved forward?

The age of miracles (minor ones, at least) is not passed.

Cloture on the Enzi bill (essentially overriding state mandates for health insurance) failed yesterday by a score of 55-43.

(Sign it's a gone goose: Frist did not flip his vote to nay to enable him to move cloture again.)

The cloture motion on the laughably named Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006 (S 2349) failed as expected.

The motion was designed to balk the (perhaps now moot) Schumer Dubai Ports amendment (non-germane amendments to bill under cloture are barred - and Schumer's was non-germane on an epic scale!)

The final score was 51-47. The Dems were solid, for once (two GOP plus (procedurally) Frist making up the numbers, Inouye not voting - is he sick?).

The conundrum is this: why did the vote need (according to the roll call page) a two-thirds majority? Only changes to Senate rules needed such a majority, I thought.