I keep reading articals that say the Dems can't do anything (pass health-care reform, get judges confirmed, Etc.) because the GOP senate leadership keeps threatening to filibuster. Why not just call their bluff and let them? Pass anything that really needs passing for the next 6 months right now, then start reworking all the bills so that they have 50 member majorities (instead of trying for 60). Then schedule debate followed by a vote. Put heath care reform as agenda item #1. Follow that up with a vote on every single judicial nomination outstanding. Follow them with every other bill that is ready for a vote. During the filibuster, as more bills get finished, just add them to the queue. The republican leadership will ether realize the filibuster game is not a game that they can win, or they will decide they have to filibuster or look stupid. Let them talk all month. Let them talk 9 months if they want to. Let them go through primary season while maintaining a filibuster. They will look like spoiled idiots. Dem Talking points: We bent over backwards to try to be reasonable and work with them. they don't want to be reasonable or work with us. It is not our fault that the republicans are filibustering. They do not want these bills to go to a simple majority vote. The democratic caucus is meeting daily, and continuing to hammer out bills, which we will also pass just as soon as the filibuster is done. Every issue scheduled for a vote has clear public support and a solid 50% senate majority behind it. Each issue deserves a straight up and down vote which the GOP is blocking. Eventually the republican senators will get tired of gassing, and the votes will happen. If the republicans keep it up long enough, eventually a deadline will approach after which certain government services will need to shut down without a bill. Senate leadership should place that bill at the end of their queue. (after the deadline passes maybe put a temporary authorization bill that will keep government running for 3 days 2nd in the queue, after health care). Again, democrats want to vote on the bill, we will pass the bill as soon as the republicans are done filibustering. If the republicans keep it up for long enough before throwing in the towel, then it will be decades before anybody will again have the nerve to so much as threaten to filibuster. The point is that actually enduring a GOP filibuster in the senate will be much better for the dems and the country, than continuing to endure their repeated threats to filibuster every single bill or confirmation.

Filibusters no longer require actually speaking. It's now similar to a "hold."

also there are some bills that require 60, i am not sure of the specifics but there would be part of the health care bill that would not be able to be passed.

In your little utopia where the Democrats get to move all of the chess pieces while the opposition looks on in chagrin, did you consider how the Senate actually works?

That having been said, I'm inclined to support you because there is no way Democrats survive such antics without looking stupid.

Why would the Dems "look stupid"? Sure the GOP will essentially keep issuing claims that they are just standing athwartships the path of change and yelling "Stop". but Remember it was the GOP's unwillingness to listen to the majority that lost them the House and Senate in the first place.

If the Dems just keep producing bills McConnell is soon going to start looking like Gingrich did.

The real issue is because the bills being considered aren't going to actually reduce healthcare expenditures or make it more affordable for those who already have coverage. That is why it won't start until 2013 (even though it's paid into starting after it passes.). It's conveniently timed to fall after the 2012 predential election. So come 2016 or so when it shows that healthcare costs are going up faster than expected, and that the program is adding (or will soon add) to the defecit (see Massachussetts healthcare plan) the democrats can say it was a bipartisan bill.

There is no GOP fillibuster. The Republicans only hold 40 seats (not enough for a fillibuster) 2 seats are independents, one of whom is Joe Leiberman and the remaining 58 are democrats. The Dem's are "afraid" of a "GOP fillibuster" because if a fillibuster succeeds, even though the GOP is painted as obstuctionists it is a failure of Obama's top domestic priority (See Bill Clinton). If they pass the bill with all 40 Republicans voting against and the 2 independents voting for (which would require Joe Leiberman) then they have no policital cover when costs overrun expectations. If they truly felt that their proposals would actually fix healthcare then they would have nothing to fear from the GOP at all. It's all political posturing because the bills being considered aren't actually going to reduce healthcare costs for most people, nor the nation as a whole. I don't dispute that it adds coverage to more people, a noble goal but it is not going to reduce costs. Single payer would reduce healthcare costs (although not everyone agrees on it's methods), and competition across state lines would reduce healthcare costs (again some not liking it's methods), but the current crap being considered in Congress will not, thus the "fear of a GOP fillibuster"

In the end the OP is correct if the Dems had nothing to fear they could do what you suggest, but they have plenty of to fear unless they come up with a way to actually reduce the nation's expenditures on healthcare, and the cost to those who are already covered while still providing coverage to those who currently don't have coverage. The other option would be to just admit that they want to cover more people, and it's going to cost more. Or just go all out and say other nation's have their issues with healthcare but it's cheaper and everyone is covered (including the politicians).

The whole problem is claiming to cover more people for less money which through the current proposals minus budget trickery is just not true. And if you think I'm wrong, then I'd like a better explanation for why the dems don't do as the OP suggests. If there was a committee of 10 people who could legislate world peace and 6 on one side agreed to a plan and wanted to pass it and 4 didn't, the only reason the 6 wouldn't legislate world peace is because the legislation wouldn't cause world peace or because not all 6 people are really on board.