When the Republicans controlled congress they'd go screaming to the media/public about an "up or down" vote and nuclear options or whatever shit they could come up with.  Fine.  

So where's the screaming equivalent from Democrats?  Sure, the Republicans looked like assholes, but it worked.  It's time for the Democrats to start ball busting - don't let the obstructionist Republicans get away with holding up progress.  C'mon Democrats in Congress: 24/7 - give it back to 'em until they break.  

... that this isn't the #1 thing that you hear out of Congressional Dems right now.  

... from my July post.

  E L E C T     M O R E    D E M O C R A T S

To everyone frustrated at the lack of progress: there is one party repsonsible for the lack of progress, and it begins with an "R."  If you want to get things moving, we need a bigger majority.

And a Democratic president would be even better, since there really can't be any laws without the president's say-so, whether the Dkos crowd remembers this or not.

not being tough enough, but the root cause of the problem here is the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress.  Let's not forget that come next November.

Very well done piece. Forward the report to your local OpEd page. The information needs to get out.

Yes I agree, Harry Truman called the 80th Congress a do nothing Congress, so I think there could be more help in an alliance between the Democratic presidential nominees and Congress to help frame the debate. Because I think the Dems are caving in because there are a gazillion of them in Congress but none that are president. And if the 1996 shutdowns taight us anything, people look to that one head that's the president.  Cause every other headline is Dems cave in to the president's demands. But I also agree that its a too slim a majority right now.

Send your views on so more people know

Your diary got me thinking -- I've never liked the Senate practice of secret (anonymous) holds.  They're still used in the Senate even though the Senate voted to ban them.  Here's a recent example of their use -- to block an electronic finance report filing bill.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

A Post editorial said:   Post editorial

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) sponsored the reporting bill, which passed out of the Rules and Administration committee in March. Since then, committee Chairman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has had a devil of a time getting the bill passed by unanimous consent by the full Senate. Twice, a Republican senator or senators has objected. Because the opposition was registered anonymously, we've taken to calling that person or persons Sen. Ima Luddite (R-Who Knows Where). Ms. Feinstein is rightly reticent to send the bill to the floor for a vote, where it would become flypaper for amendments and half-baked "improvements" to the campaign finance laws already on the books.

We're well aware that the anonymous hold is a tradition of the Senate. But with the clamor for transparency on Capitol Hill, this is one tradition that ought to die. Now, you're probably thinking, "Didn't the Senate do something about holds a while back?" And you'd be correct. In January, the chamber passed the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, also known as the ethics and lobbying bill. Under that legislation, a senator wanting to block a bill from moving forward would have to make that objection known, in writing to the Congressional Record, within three days of placing the hold.

The next step is for the full House to pass its own lobbying bill and then meet with the Senate in conference committee.

http://online.wsj.com/article/...

The WSJ just did a very unflattering piece on the crazed Tom Coburn, and his use of the hold to block many worthy bills.