Even if the Dems have 60 seats, it would still require every single one of them to vote the same (or grab a few Repub votes to compensate). There's no guarantee of this happening. So it's really more "filibuster resistant" than "filibuster proof."

John Cornyn (R-TX): "While Senator Specter's decision was indeed disappointing, it did allow us to realize -- perhaps sooner than we would have liked -- the dangerous ramifications of unbridled, one-party rule in Washington. Come November 2010, this may ultimately be viewed as a positive development in the Republican Party's climb back to power."

I think it's a given that Republicans are completely detached from reality and that they have collective amnesia about the Bush years, but seriously? His party's "unbridled one-party rule in Washington" ended just over 2 years ago. Does he not realize that we know this? Or maybe that IS his point, that his party proved just how disastrous one-party rule could really be.

clinton's first two years of one-party rule wasn't exactly pretty rainbows either.

No they weren't. But that was only for two years over 16 years ago (although I wouldn't be surprised if he had used it as an example and skipped over 2000-2006 entirely). When you're looking for an example of disastrous unbridled one-party rule, I would think you'd immediately go to the Bush years and include the early Clinton years as a follow-up, especially when the example he IS using is only 100 days old and the results of which remain to be seen.

Republicans .... so right, but so wrong at the same time ... we're great like that.