Why aren't Democrats making Republicans spend political energy actively filibustering, instead of colluding in this gutless virtual filibuster? Am I missing something?

What you are missing is the fact that the Dems are complicit and fully on-board with all this crap. They do not want to restore Habeas Corpus. They do not want to fix FISA. They do not want to end the war in Iraq. They want to put on a show in the hopes that the base (fully 60%+ of the nation, apparently) will be nice to them come election day while still not doing anything to reverse the corporatocracy, the rampant criminality, and the treason against the Constitution they are ALL guilty of. The LIKE it the way things are because they are making money hand-over-fist. Hell's bells, Feinstein makes out like a bandit with all war all the time. Her hubby's a flagrant war profiteer! Why would she want to end the money train? As for spying, they think they are about to get all the dictatorial power all to themselves come November 2008.

My only hope is that more people join me in refusing to support Democraps in the coming election. They are NOT different than the GOP. They DO NOTHING. They have done absolutely NOTHING since they "took control of Congress"! The minority Rethuglicans have just as much control of the whole show as they did when they were the majority! Where was all this minority superpower when the Democraps were the minority? There is only one explanation: the Democraps want exactly what the GOP wants.

Do not give the Democraps any more money. Do NOT give them your votes. You will get absolutely nothing in return but more of the very same as we have now.

I certainly hope tempest is wrong, but you really have to wonder these days.

I'm with you and digby, Joan, and with the many others who have said the same thing. Reid needs to force them to the floor again and again, make the filibusters real, make the Republicans pay a price for their obstructions. I don't care if it shuts the Senate down; it's not like they're getting anything done now anyway.

Ms Walsh:

I saw you on Hard Ball this evening and you said something like:

'This is the last best shot the Democrats have to end the Iraq War.'

But it isn't - impeachment is the best shot the Democrats have to end the Iraq War.

There is more than enough evidence to impeach both Bush and Cheney.

There are many books which detail the charges (just search amazon> impeach).

Why are you and other Democrats so afraid of bringing to justice these criminals?

I'm embarrassed to have to ask this, but does anybody have a really solid suggestion for what we can do to change this ridiculous situation. MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER! SO WHAT IF NOTHING ELSE GETS DONE. THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO THAT MATTERS MORE THAN THIS STUFF!!!!

or maybe I'm not so amazed. The 60 vote requirement was a GOP idea when the Dems wanted to filibuster a couple of years ago. It was that, or the Senate was going to do away with filibusters altogether (because, like, you know, filbustering something GW Bush wants is like, unpatriotic).

The GOP has used it effectively. Take a look at the "Dems are complicit" statement from the person who also doesn't understand why the rule is in play.

I am also amazed that you didn't see Reid's change of policy statement yesterday. Given up on being bipartisan, because the GOP thinks being bipartisan means the Dems adopt the GOP line.

So, now it's in their face 24/7. Make the GOP vote for continuing the war continuously. The game is on.

"Why are Democrats letting Republicans off so easy?"

I don't know...because if they didn't they'd have to actually DO something?

Because out-fundraising the GOP is far more important?

Eventually the democratic rank-and-file will have to ask themselves,

"why are the democrats letting the democrats off so easy?"

vote D.

vote R.

vote Green or Libertarian.

Or, don't vote...none of these seem satisfactory at this point- and I know I'm not the only person who finds himself at this frustrating juncture-- not by a long shot.

When is a Senate majority not a majority? When it's a coalition, that's when.

The Democrat-led coalition in the Senate holds 51 seats. If Reid pushes for rules changes or other forms of filibuster-busting that would lead directly to the end of the American catastrophe in Iraq, Lieberman will ditch the coalition and Reid's rules changes become his last act as majority leader. One vote, one afternoon, and poof, there goes any chance for liberals in Congress to accomplish anything for another year and a half.

(Some die-hards out there won't care — better to lose, lose it all they say, and stay pure. How's that been working out for you so far, guys?)

If you really want to change the situation, you either have to get rid of a Republican Senator from a Democratic-controlled state, or convince one to switch parties — or wait until 2008. It would have been easier, of course, to have kept Bush out of office in the first place, but you know .. purity is a bitch.

Joan, please explain how we got into this situation in the first place. I remember that in 2005, the Gang-Of-14 compromise prevented Democrats from filibustering Bush's far right-wing judicial nominees, and they were confirmed on party-line simple-majority votes. Now, with the Democrats supposedly in power, a simple majority isn't sufficient. How does this make any sense?

There's essentially two models to explain why the Democrats do what they do for the past few years:

1. They are in on the joke. That is, as Tempus, suggests they are just waiting out until it's their turn to screw around.

2. The Democrats are spineless yellowbellies. What many GOP members and even more Republican voters have always said.

Now, I won't pass judgement, I let the Democratic representatives decide which of these models is right; or they could just ignore both and start doing their job as the public majority and their voters expect them to. Democrats, what are you, part of the problem, cowards or honest?