Senate Democrats said Sunday that they were fleshing out plans to pass health legislation, particularly the option of a new government-run insurance program, with a simple majority, instead of the 60 votes that would ordinarily be needed to overcome a filibuster.
After consulting experts in Senate rules and procedure, the Democrats said they were increasingly confident that they could legislate creation of a public plan in a way that would withstand challenges expected from Republicans.
More from The NY Times
But if there is a simple majority ( 51 votes in the Senate ) whill Republican's filibuster? You can surely bet the farm on that one.
James Carville even thinks that making the GOP filibuster will be a good idea.
Suppose they pass a House bill that can get 56 Senate Democrats....make [Republicans] filibuster it. But the old kinda way is that they filibuster it and make’em go three weeks and all night and [Democrats] will be there the whole time.
. Then, you say, ‘They’re the people that stopped it. We had a majority of Democrats. We had a good bill. They stopped it.
More from CNN's Political Ticker.
But let's say that Dem's go the route that Carvelle has postulated. Who's to say that this will even work against the GOP. Essentially, at least from my perspective, this would be a fairly substantical gamble with healthcare reform as the pot. The Democratic party have got the cards in their hand to win, but they can't seem to call the GOP's bluff.
If the Dems in both houses of Congress lack the ability to cut through all the nonsense that is being fed to the American people by the Republicans, then how can we win if there is a filibuster?