Revisiting the Filibuster

I agree with you, KT.
.
One of the big reasons we think that Harry Reid is a chicken or a fool or a closet Republican (or various combinations thereof) is his absurd practice of the writing filibuster-proofness into the rules of Senate debate prior to bill-consideration every single time a piece of legislation is due to come to the floor.
.
Contrasting this with Bill Frist's "nuclear option" threats makes us pretty darn infuriated, too.

I too agree that the problem isn't that there are too many. The problem is that there are too few.
.
To simply agree to refrain from passing anything by less than 60 votes is NOT a filibuster and THATS what has allowed the process to be abused so thoroughly. If filibusters actually required filibustering they would be restored to their rightful place as a defense of the minority against a majority.

Let's see Harry Reid do that. The longer this "stimulus" takes (and I put the quotes around it because it is far from clear that this bill will stimulate anything other than more interest payments to foreign creditors), the less likely it is to pass.

The largest coalition in the Senate is made of Republicans and center-right Democrats like Reid. Unfortunately, for them, the policies and positions that they advocate are not supported by most Americans. In the case of the center-right Democrats, their out-of-step positions are opposed generally by most Democrats and by most of their constituents.
.
This is a long-winded way of saying that the filibuster, in the current and previous Congresses, is not only a tool of the minority party. It is also repeatedly used, by an out-of-touch and corrupt Democratic leadership, to provide political cover for positions that would piss off the grass-roots of the party -- and probably most of the country -- is admitted explicitly.
.
Forcing the GOP to ACTUALLY filibuster sort of defeats the purpose for Reid.

Agree that the threat of a filibuster is not a filibuster, and instead gives the minority a veto of anything it doesn't like.

Agree Reid needs to start letting the Republicans filibuster. It will look like sour grapes obstructionism.

Amen! I mentioned this before on Scherer's last post, but I think Reid should dare the GOP to filibuster the stimulus. Reid is weak. It's maddening.

Can anyone say "CSpan allnighter"? That would actually be cool. But maybe I'm just too much of a nerd.

Great post Karen. I agree with you. The best way to expose an wingnut is to let him or her speak. And to broadcast it. (see Michelle Bachmann)

Again, yall know how I feel about filibustering. But a filibuster this time wouldn't serve any purpose. They still need 60 votes to pass it regardless.

There is no need to get rid of the filabuster. Just enforce the rules.

Thank you sgwhite.
-
All of this talk of filibuster is silly in this case. While I have decent command of constitutional law and understand most legislative process, I will not duplicate an already excellent post by David Waldman. I would have figured that Glennzilla would have already jumped on this, but I may have just missed it.
-
So, Karen and gang....this is for you:
.
http://david-waldman-aka-kagro-x.dailykos.com/

"Again, yall know how I feel about filibustering. But a filibuster this time wouldn't serve any purpose."
.
There may just well be necessary times when Sentor(s) need to filibuster. Example, (FISA)when both parties are attempting to pass a very bad bill. Filibustering is a good way to show that the bill is bad and who will be responsible for it. But you need to force the debate to actually happen.

Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone put it well a while back:
.
"Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party's energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn't fit Iraq into his busy schedule." (Rolling Stone, 2/28/08)

I did not post that emoticon!
Did I?

Isn't the "the Mr.-Smith-Goes-To-Washington" kind of filibuster a Hollywood dramatic fantasy? Has anything remotely resembling it ever actually happened?

hells
.
No and yes

incand
.
how did you get the p word past the mods?

Strom Thurmond filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes. Republicans filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 75 hours total. Not exactly "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", but obviously there have been some ballbuster filibusters.

sg... probably the plural. Or they disregard words within quotes? Or they think Taibbi was talking about kitty cats. Who can say? Seems arbitrary, no?

The Strom Thurmond situation is itself an argument against the filibuster. He wasted more than 24 hours arguing against a bill that later passed, but he managed to stay in office until he was 100 years old. What unproductive behavior, and yet voters rewarded him for it.

'course if someone were to decide to filibuster against the stimulus, i'd get over there as soon as possible or be glued to cspan for the whole thing. so i guess i shouldn't criticize the system!

ewstephe: The Strom Thurmond situation is itself an argument against the filibuster. Not when the current polling is what it is. From PA: We talked earlier about the new Gallup poll, which shows widespread support for President Obama's handling of the stimulus-bill effort, and opposition to the conduct of congressional Republicans. As it turns out, a new CNN poll found similar results.
.
OT, but Benen made an important observation that should be worthy of reporting by K-Tum et al. On a Hannity fan asking Obama a rude-ish question today: Now, it's always good when a public official can defuse tension with a little humor, and I'm very glad Obama defended the woman's right to ask a confrontational question. But reading about this, another angle comes to mind: since when can critics of the president attend public events and ask unscreened questions? Apparently, as of about 20 days ago.
.
...
The new president traveled to an economically-depressed community that voted heavily for his opponent in November. Tickets to the event were publicly available to anyone, no loyalty oaths or Democratic fealty required. White House staffers didn't check bumper-stickers for conservative messages, and there was no "blacklist" of Republicans who would be denied entry. There were no hand-picked questions and no hand-picked questioners.
.
So this is what it's like to have a president with the courage of his convictions, and the confidence to talk to Americans who may disagree with him. I'd almost forgotten.
.
So, KT, what do you think? Personally I think that having a President who wants to engage all Americans is rather important.

wvng,
-
You are right. People will have a whole lot more respect for Obama than others before him. And also a lot more respect than they do for Reid or Pelosi. It is as if they have never negotiated before. What they should have done was produce an all-spending bill? Tell Republicans that it was a take it or leave it. When they balked, then they should have said what can we add or change to make this bill more to your liking and ensure your vote. And we won't agree to the change until you go on national tv and say I can now support this bill because.... But instead, they are playing poker with their hand face-up. Like it has been posted here many times before would love to see ol' Harry at a poker table...like candy from a baby.

The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.

$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget