Well, we are certainly not getting anything done with 58 Democrats. Of course, that really isn't in the Constitution, is it? Wait and see how the Republicans rediscover that little fact if they get 50 votes in the election.

It would be nice if they would disciover that they are Americans first but with Democrat DINOs and Republican "follow the leader or we will run someone to the right of you" attitude, we aren't going to see that.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Markie is a chickens**t. Hope he paid attention to Blank's campaign

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Mark "gang of fourteen" Pryor loves things the way they are... he needs to be one of the rotating "middle" villains. Without the rules as they are now that would be much more difficult. Remember he was to Bush Cheney what Olympia Snowe is to Obama now. When Lieberman was too busy that is.

If we had one hard hitting journalist in AR they would have asked David Pryor what the hell they did to little Mark as a child?

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

This is all about protected the corporate rule. They know they can always count on 40 Corporate senators from one or both parties. Corporations are in control with the 60 required.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

After Blanche Lincoln is fired, Mark Pryor is next on November 4, 2014! He better bring his lunch because it's going to be a battle!

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Pryor fears 2014.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

The problem is Democrats are wusses and won't force the issue.

Pick an issue and stick on it, FORCE THE OTHER PARTY TO BRING THE SENATE TO A STANDSTILL.

Right now the simple THREAT of a filibuster is ammo enough for Dems to cower and give in.

Don't throw out an effective check and balance on one party tyrany simply because the current crop of the majority party has no spine.

A filibuster can only be used once or twice a presidential term yet a THREAT of filibuster can be used once or twice a day.

All our problems we are currently enduring are caused by the Democrats having no idea how to use power.

The Dems were pu$$ywhipped into voting along with the Iraq invasion when they were out of power, now while in power they are no more able to move their agenda.

All our current problems are the result of the party in power right now.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Anything that helps prevent more useless endless layer upon layer of laws and regulations I'm all for. The 60 vote rule is good for the Republic IMO. It protects the minority view point and prevents oppressive majorities from ramming down legislation that the public doesn't necessarily support. Funny how the party out of power always loves it. When big lib Dems are out of power again in the congress, all the big libs here will be praying to their atheist idols in thanks that the 60 vote cloture rule was preserved.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Disagree with Citizen1... it's by design... they like it the way it is. They made the rules at the beginning of the O term. All of the people like Obama and Pryor who use the word bipartisan fondly are just telling us that they have no problem with Republicans, and the status quo.

See the fact Obama and the D's begin every effort in such a compromised position... it's all bound to not change things / favor conservatives. Health care is a perfect example... never sincerely allowed some sort of medicare for all be considered in spite of the fact it was (and with any push at all would have been) extraordinarily popular, would have saved trillions, and you know, provided actual care to everyone. But O and the D's began with Bob Doles 1990's plan and that's what we got.

There are lots of ways to force an issue.. Dems just don't want to do so... except for theatre and when it benefits Versailles.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Citizen2--

How I wish we could bring both the Senate and the House to a standstill! And suffocate and strangle and starve to death a gazillion government bureaucracies that waste a couple of trillion dollars in the taxpayers' hard-earned money. That's an issue I could "stick to"!!! Might hurt a person like you, though, because then you wouldn't get your welfare check and government freebies and your Social Security check because you were too stupid and idiotic to save for your damn retirement!

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Problem is, Mark Pryor and other conservadems, if they find themselves in the minority again will not use the minority powers that they are trying to protect.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Obama will have the power to veto, so I'm not buying that he's worried if they loose Congress.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Fire,

Where did that come from?

"wouldn't get your welfare check and gov't freebies and SS check" ...?

You are making a couple of very wrong guesses and assumptions. But that seems common from you.

I am only 50 and I started work here in 1990. My wife has been of the same employ for 27 years. i have 401k, the wife 403k, plus IRA's. Both have pensions. Plus money in the bank.

We have no children and life has been pretty easy. We, and my extended family have been very lucky from a health standpoint.

The only health problem in our family has been a brother with a years long bout with cancer. Turns out we were lucky again in that. You see my brother had the good fortune to move to Irealnd with his Irish born wife before his illness. Over there he received excellent care and he was not bankrupted by his bills and his inability to work for nearly a year. He is now 18 months cancer free.

The stress of fighting cancer is magnified by fear of losing your family's house and possibly leaving your family in debt and facing bankruptcy. My brother had none of that worry and he and his wife endured the ordeal.

Fire, try that even "fully insured" here in the states! It can't be done. The same care "fully insured" with my Blue Cross coverage would have left me thousands in debt.

I have paid tens of thousands into healthcare coverage and other than a couple prescriptions and office copays I have never received a benefit. Still "fully insured" I am but one major injury or illness away from bankruptcy.


Our medical insurance in this country is a scam! You pay thaousands and thousands and then if you ever use it beyond annual teeth cleanings you are denied. If you live long enoough to fight, you get some of the bills covered.

I have seen first hand how our MOST EXPENSIVE IN THE WORLD care falls short of a public AND LOWER COST system over seas.

So, in summary, FIRE you are once again totally wrong in your guess that I am some welfare sponge. Come on up to my vacation home (fully paid for) this weekend and we can delve into your conclusion jumping and assuming problem you have.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

If he's looking at his post-November future, he better get on board to changing Filibuster rules.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

The filibuster is wrong for both parties, and I know it has been used for good and ill, by both parties, but if 51 senators favor a bill, real Democracy would seem to require that the bill be approved. But then, we don't have real democracy. We have a corptocracy. The rich prevail.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Pryor was quoted in the article as saying that the solution to the current problem is for senators to show more discipline.

Is he really that dumb?

The problem is that the Republicans are showing nearly perfect discipline (doing what the leadership tells them to do) while Lincoln, Pryor, Nelson and others can't be trusted by the Democratic leadership or the President to support the party (and the people who voted for them) even on stopping filibusters much less voting on the actual bills.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

The senate was designed to be the saucer to let the tea cool in before passage. (Or something like that) In other words, the Senate was designed in such a way to not make it easy to jam down legislation. That is what the House does. The senate should not be exactly like the house. 51 majority rule would do that. That is why its better to have the 60 vote cloture rule in the senate.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

". . . 'I get as frustrated as anyone in the Senate with the filibuster rule, but I don’t think we need to change it. I think what we need here is more discipline,' said Pryor, a member of the Senate Rules Committee. . . ."

I agree with Markie Mark. We need more discipline. It's very simple, we need to remove DINO's from office and elect actual Democrats instead of stealth Republicans then both the Democratic caucus and Republican caucus would be much more disciplined. They could vote and publicly promote the party line they represent rather than the current sloppy imitation of an elected Democrat he and Blank have been as Republican muzzled by their requirement to simulate Democrats to the voters back home.

However, I doubt he is as "frustrated" as his Democrat constituents.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

What happened to........

...................."Up or Down vote"

I ask you astute Republics.

Shirley, U 'member that one.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

How the tiger changes stripes:

"On Thursday morning, July 19th, the beloved GOP talking point "up or down vote" was officially declared dead. Its demise was little noticed in the aftermath of the Senate Republicans' successful all-night filibuster to block the Reed-Levin bill seeking to begin U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. "Up or down vote" was killed by a desperate Republican Party trying to obstruct Democratic accomplishments at any cost in advance of the 2008 elections. And so far, the GOP seems to be getting away with the crime.

Thursday's 52-47 vote was hardly the first time Democrats in the 110th Congress failed to get the needed 60 votes to end debate and bring a bill to a vote. An analysis by McClatchy showed that Republicans have already resorted to the filibuster 42 times and on track to block Senate action over 150 times this term, shattering the previous record by almost a factor of three. As Robert Borosage detailed, while Democrats in the House have kept their promise to pass a raft of legislation including Medicare drug negotiation, the minimum wage, student loan reform and more, Republicans in the Senate have stymied overwhelmingly popular bills at every turn:

"Bills with majority support -- raising the minimum wage, ethics reform, a date to remove troops from Iraq, revoking oil subsidies and putting the money into renewable energy, fulfilling the 9/11 commission recommendations on homeland security--get blocked because they can't garner 60 votes to overcome a filibuster."

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives…

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) has been one of the essential architects of the filibuster fever in the Grand Obstruction Party.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Oh! Is Mark Pryor still alive? I damn near forgot Arkansas had a junior Senator. I'm with Eureka..what did David and Barbara Pryor do to little Mark as he was growing up....he's spineless! He seeks out older men like LIEberman and latches on like a baby on the tit.

And we sit silently while Mark Pryor becomes a gangbanger in the most dangerous gang in America, the Gang of 14 who happily delivered everything Bush-Cheney wanted and more. Now Mark wants more discipline.....is he talking about LIEberman whipping him with a strap or what? Dr. Freud.....we need you!

Our Congressional saucer is currently filled with stagnant tea as the Republicans move to block anything and everything. I learned years ago that the rich never want anything to change. They're doing just fine....don't rock the boat, man! They're vested with everything that makes life sweet and carefree....don't rock the boat, man!!!!

They don't notice people suffering. They have FBL's attitude that everyone else is lazy and worthless and deserves to starve in a ditch. The majority of my rich friends got all their money from Daddy, so they don't know about working a horrible job with a sadist as boss, for mere peanuts. They sure don't understand doing without or feelings of hopelessness or staring at a future that's black as midnight. They DO NOT FEEL YOU'RE PAIN.

I doubt any of our wingnuts on the AT blog are rich....they're rich-wanna-bees who probably suck up Social Security like Cherry Coke and hide that most of their lives were spent supping at the public tit of the military or the school system who wrote their paychecks. But now all of sudden any government is a bad thing.

Stand on your own! Ask no one for help...they holler. FBL wants Social Security killed for god's sake.....but let us find out how many government services he's sucking up right this very minute.

And don't forget these detractors won't even vote for a DINO like Mark Pryor...they're straight ticket Republican-Tea Party voters! Mark Pryor can count on them in the next election and we'll see how that works out for him. Right now we're too busy watching Johnny Blanche doom us to 6 more years of their brand of discipline to their corporate owners. We're screwed either way coming this November.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

From Senate.gov:

Filibuster and Cloture

19th Century Filibuster


Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 57 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.

Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for 15 hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

End of snip.

Oh, and Strom Thurmond was probably screwing (in more ways than one) a dark-skinned woman behind the podium while raging on about civil rights for those very same dark-skinned Americans.

Note- Mara Leveritt had an article in the Arkansas Times some months ago about using different terms to describe ourselves, namely light-skinned and dark-skinned Americans. I like that. It rings true and is not discriminatory. If we are going to call dark-skinned Americans African-American, that would make everyone whose roots go back to Europe instead of Africa a Euro-American or European-American. The only true Americans would revert to those who got here first, the American Indian.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike