Senator Frist needs to use the nuclear option to end the filibuster, and not just for judicial nominations!

We had 52 votes in favor of cloture. We should be able to get those same 52 to support the nuclear option to protect America from terrorist attacks.

We need to use the nuclear option now, before terrorists use the nuclear option on America.

To use the nuclear option on such a measure would put significant risk for Republicans should they return to the minority. I agree with the nuclear option to stop filibustering judges, but not when the matter concerns law.

There are ways to work around this filibuster, as there are budget measures that have not been passed. They could easily slip some of the necessary measures into those budgets and it would be filibuster proof.

Senator Frist couldn't even bring HIMSELF to vote for cloture much less use the nuclear option. In addition to the Majority Leader, 4 other Republicans voted against cloture: Craig (R-ID), Hagel (R-NE), Murkowski (R-AK) and Sununu (R-NH). I realize 5 more yea votes wouldn't have changed the outcome, but I will be interested in hearing the rationale of the 5 Pubs, especially Frist.

For a complete breakdown of the vote, go to:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00358

It appears I jumped on Senator Frist without all the facts, and his nay vote was strictly procedural to allow the PA to be brought up for another vote in the future. As for the other 4 PUBS, shame on them.

Although asking that people be held responsible for what they say and do has recently been defined as indulging in personal attacks and smear campaigns, I still think it's a good idea.

So let's make sure that every time anyone votes against national security, that vote is remembered. And let's contact the finance directors for the RNC in Idaho, Nebraska, Arkansas, and New Hampshire and tell them that if they come up with other Republicans to run for the offices now held by Craig, Hagel, Murkowski, and Sununu, we will help finance those campaigns---but not a penny for the RNC as long as those four are backed by the party.

As John Kyl said today, so far there is no politcal price to pay for what they have done. I suggest that we clearly define a political price, and make sure they understand it.

I second that motion Almiranta.

> To use the nuclear option on such a measure would put significant risk for Republicans should they return to the minority

I cannot disagree more with this statement. It's like saying "we don't want to do anything that might give GWB more power in the GWOT, because there might be a democrat president someday."

If the Senate falls into democrat hands but the GOP retains the House and/or the White House, it is a moot point.

And if we allow 41 democrats to run the Senate by filibuster, then they ALREADY HAVE the Senate!

Let the filibuster go. If you fear the day when we only have 41 Republicans in the Senate, then make sure we keep winning elections. And for that matter, if the GOP ever devolves to the point that some other party wins, then maybe we don't want the GOP to have power, anyway. Just because today the GOP is the best choice, it doesn't mean they always will be!

Completely hypothetical:

What happens if the democrats completely break down and the libertarians take over as the second party? Then we have a system where the battles are between the GOP and the L party. Now what happens if some of the GOP, feeling to much pressure by social conservatives and the religious right, break off and join the L's? We may then have a majority L party that best represents the "mainstream" of the country, and minority "new Republican" party that loses all focus on things like taxes, spending, the military, etc., and instead focuses solely on prayer in schools, abortion, and the Ten Commandments.

What happens if we still have the filibuster?

Imagine a 55-45 majority of L over NR. Now imagine important bills like tax cuts, defense spending, etc., getting held up by filibuster as a political move in order to force some of the 55 to break party ranks in order to pass, say, anti-abortion laws that will get overruled by the Supreme Court anyway?

Yes, it is a purely fanciful "what if" scenario. But isn't this exactly what is happening now when democRats use the filibuster to block the Patriot Act?

THE FILIBUSTER NEEDS TO END.

Parties out of power need to yield to those who win elections, or else change their ways so that they can win themselves.

This is another NON-STORY (like the "Plamegate" nonsense). The NYT held onto this thing for A YEAR, then just when we hit the "Turning Point In Iraq" (according to even CNN), this little grenade gets tossed.

I LIKE the fact that Bush has come out swinging on this - and he is understandably pissed! I hope we can find the fools who are leaking this stuff and put their proverbial heads on a stake!

Who cares about the Patriot Act when you have a sieve for a border? I want the Congress to do more than lip service about the Border, even if it pisses off Vicente Fox. If the US had adequate border security, perhaps much of the PA would be redundant, but the leadeship of this country refuses to act on it.

Perhaps the Senate realizes it rushed to "do something" and authorized a bad document in many places when it passed the PA only a week or so after 9/11.

BTW..."Patriot Act"....horrible term.