Was it always the case that any piece of major legislation needed 60 votes to pass? Was the opposition willing to philibuster anything they were opposed to?
My memory is that a philibuster was something that was used only in extreme situations in which you were willing to go down in flames rather than let a piece of legislation come to vote. All the hype of the Dems losing the Mass seat seems overblown.
If healthcare reform comes up debate will every Republican vote to continue the philibuster and tie up Congress?
On some issues on can see people feeling strongly enough that they will philibuster and even if I oppose them I can understand why they feel that way, but it does not make sense to so strongly oppose Healthcare reform.
I also think it was silly to make all of the consession to Nelson and Lieberman just to get the 60 vote majority. Even if Nelson and Lieberman would not vote for the bill were they going to be willing to philibuster it?