The former Vermont governor warned that if the party allowed the four moderates to further water down the [health care reform] bill (or defeat it altogether) it could lead to primary challenges or a drop in fundraising from the party's base.So why the heck aren't we using reconciliation? Since when did 60 votes become the standard to pass anything in the U.S. Senate? As far as I'm concerned, this is a misuse of the filibuster and a perversion of "majority rules," not to mention a failure to act on the clear mandate Democrats were given in 2006 and 2008 - a mandate that many of us worked our butts off to give them, by the way. If Democrats expect activists to be excited for them in 2010, they'd better not keep showing more deference to Joe Lieberman et al. than to the lifeblood of their party.
"If you have members refusing to vote for Reid on procedural issues you will have a revolt in the party," Dean said. "What is the point of having a 60-vote margin? This is going to be death for the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] and the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee]. Why would anyone donate to them if they're supporting candidates who defeat the Democratic agenda?"
There was, he insisted, an out clause. Reconciliation -- the budgetary maneuver that would allow portions of reform to be considered by an up or down vote -- "looks better every time," Dean said. "Someone has to say, at some point, we need to pass a bill." Reid has hinted that reconciliation is an increasingly unlikely proposition.
UPDATE: If you agree that the filibuster is being abused, you might want to sign Alan Grayson's petition calling for "Majority Leader Reid to modify the rules of the Senate to require only 55 votes to invoke cloture instead of 60."
