In Which 'Conservadems' Make Us Feel Angry

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So, you know the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 that has set everyone's hair on fire? It was not subject to filibuster! That's right, it required only a simple majority. The Democrats did not invoke the filibuster, presumably because the post-committee version of the bill was fine by them. Very fine; it passed 90-8-2. Granted, apparently only the prescient Sen. Dorgan (D-ND) was trying to wave off the legislation as dangerous, but it still would have been nice if the bill that helped to break America had struggled a bit.

At one point during her interview with Sen. Shaheen, Rachel's lips tighten and her eyebrow's arch in a "Really? You're going with this horseshit?" look. It's in response to Shaheen saying that the Conservadems are just trying to help things along by opposing the possible "budget reconciliation process" that allows for a simple majority in the Senate. Why? Because those two things are mutually exclusive.

So, I'm with Rachel; make the Republicans actually filibuster. Let me break it down for you: Senate Rule 22 allows for a filibuster by the minority party by simply indicating to the Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid, we're looking at you!) that they intend to filibuster, requiring the legislation to garner a super-majority of 60 votes to pass. But the Senate Majority Leader (Harry! We're still looking at you!) can say no. "No, you may not 'symbolically filibuster,' we require a traditional filibuster." Bring on the phonebooks! Why not the Compleat Works of Wm. Shakespeare? How about something substantive, like the name of every freaking management person in every freaking bailed out financial giant?

Or, instead, how about the senators in the Conservative Democrats Caucus just do the jobs they have been elected to do, instead of hedging their bets?

And now, just because I want to: Rachel circa 2004.