A Figurative and Public Waterboarding of the Democrats

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting column today: What Happened to the Senate's 60 Vote requirement? That of course was my first instinct and was of course ready to voice my displeasure, but something really stinks about this. Greenwald says: Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they "tried"), the excuse they gave was that they "need 60 votes in the Senate" in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general "60-vote requirement" for everything.

The Senate approved Mukasey Thursday night despite democratic criticism that he failed to take a principled stance or any stance for that matter on waterboarding. The vote went 53- 40 in favor. Six democrats voted for him and of course the moron "independent" Let's kill everyone Lieberman. All four Senate Democrats who are running for President did not vote because of campaign commitments I suppose. Thus, the democrats along with Bernie Sanders had 44 votes against Mukasey more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn't they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?

Greenwald Continues: Over and over again this year, Republican filibusters were depicted (both by Senate Democrats and the media) as nothing more the routine need to obtain the "60 votes required" for passage of any measure in the Senate. That "requirement" was said to apply to everything, including immigration ("The Senate voted 52-44 for the DREAM Act, but 60 votes were required to end debate"); Iraq withdrawal timetables ("Support is expected to top 50 votes but fall short of the 60 required"); troop leave requirements ("Webb's Iraq bill inches closer to 60 . . . . Winning at least three of those Republicans over could give the Democrats the 60 votes they need"); and warrantless surveillance ("Democratic-sponsored bill failed to reach the 60-vote majority").

It isn't true that there is a 60 vote requirement because Republicans are the only ones willing to impose and Democrats as something as grave as torture will not impose it. An attorney General who is "dead wrong on torture" and who won't even "tell the president that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress."

We are not a ruling party (the Democrats that is), we are not even an opposition party. Six years ago, as Greenwald says you couldn't be wrong on torture. Torture was just that - torture. Now, with the Iraq war funding bill on the horizon once again with the Democrats make the same argument. Sorry, here is a blank check because we need 60 votes to do anything.

We are either stuck with the warmongering Republicans or the vacillating spineless democrats. Who said Ralph Nader was wrong? Because I want to have that conversation again.