Latest Installment of Make 'em Filibuster
As long-time readers of Swampland know, I am a big proponent of the filibuster. And I mean the Real Filibuster--not the make-believe ones that the little girls of the United States Senate are constantly waging, and not the occasional exercises where they pull out the fainting couches cots and pretend that they are actually going to sleep on them.
That's why I was delighted to read this interview in Ezra Klein's column, in which Greg Koger, a political scientist at the University of Miami and the author of an upcoming book on the filibuster, exposes the real reason I have yet to get my wish of actually seeing one:
There's a reason the Senate stopped doing this. Democrats are not going to want to sit around all day and be in the chamber listening to Republicans talk. They don't want to give up fundraisers. They don't want to give up trips. They'd have to give Republicans as much time as they wanted.
He also explains why it could actually be healthy for governance by the majority:
The benefit to the majority can be that public attention focuses. They know the bill is there and they know the Republicans are blocking it. That becomes the basis for news coverage. When will the bill be done? What's going on today? In that sense, you can win. The point is not that you exhaust the Republicans, but that you embarrass them. X number of people died today. I hope that whatever you had to say was more important.
So do it, Harry Reid. Don't try to stop a filibuster on the health care bill. Let them. Make them. Also, while you're at it, if Tom Coburn wants to read the bill on the Senate floor, let him do it--with two stipulations. It should be Coburn himself who does the reading, not the poor overworked clerk. And the entire Senate should be forced to sit there in the Chamber and listen.
UPDATE: Here and on Twitter, a number of people are raising questions about whether this is really feasible. The answer is, yes, it is--but the Democrats (or whoever is in the majority) have to be prepared for "live" quorum calls, which means they have to remain ready to go to the floor with minutes notice. And if the Republicans (or whoever is in the minority) don't show up? They can be arrested. Robert Byrd did it in 1988; Bob Packwood broke his finger in a scuffle with the cops and had to be carried onto the floor. You can read about it here.
-
1
Coburn should read page 1635. That's where lube for lesbian girls in Oklahoma gym locker rooms is authorized.
-
2
"There's a reason the Senate stopped doing this. Democrats are not going to want to sit around all day and be in the chamber listening to Republicans talk. They don't want to give up fundraisers. They don't want to give up trips. They'd have to give Republicans as much time as they wanted"
.
That's a bit too pat isn't it?
.
That aside I don't think there is a downside politically to making them filibuster -
3
So do it, Harry Reid. Don't try to stop a filibuster on the health care bill. Let them. Make them. Also, while you're at it, if Tom Coburn wants to read the bill on the Senate floor, let him do it--with two stipulations. It should be Coburn himself who does the reading, not the poor overworked clerk. And the entire Senate should be forced to sit there in the Chamber and listen.
.
I wholeheartedly endorse this. -
4
Joe Lieberman should filibuster 2 times as he is 2-faced
-
4.1
How is it being 2 faced to fight for what you believe in? In a democracy everyone has that right. Why is it that when someone does not follow the Liberal position they are demonized.
-
4.2
It's two-faced to say the reason you don't support the health care bill is because it contains a public option when he didn't support the Baucus bill, which had no public option.
.
It's two-faced to run for re-election to the Senate in 2006, promising voters that you'll fight for -- in his words -- "universal health care" -- and then once you're elected, do everything in your power to fight against it.
.
He's not two-faced because he's conservative. He's two-faced because he's an egomaniac, lying sack of fertilizer.
-
-
5
Yeah! Keep it up KT. Let's get them Fil-a-busting all over the senate!
-
5.1
It would be cool if Chik Fil-A could sponsor the event. They could have waffle fries breaks every 3 hours.
-
5.2
True, but Chick-Fil-A would make them take a break on Sunday in keeping with company policy.
-
-
6
HALLELUJAH! TESTIFY!
.
Can she get a witness? -
7
So according to Koger, the "real" reason that Democrats are willing to let important legislation die on the vine is because it would somewhat inconvenience them to force a real filibuster?
I can actually believe that.
-
8
I think part of the reason is that the Dems (rightly, IMHO) don't want to give the Repubs what would certainly be a high-profile, media saturated, free-TV forum to spend days spouting their usual litany of lies about death panels, etc.
-
8.1
Why? The Dems do that already.
-
8.2
That's why God invented Fox News. Of course, making Republicans look like idiots is why God (or was it Satan?) invented The Daily Show and The Colbert Report so the opportunity works both ways.
-
8.3
Lies? About what medical care should be allowed? I think not. The real reason they don't want to have a filibuster is because they don't want anyone to hear anything anyone else has to say on anything whatsoever.
The liberal fascists want to silence any dissent any way they can, either by using their friends in the media to label any opposition racist, extremist or worse, or by passing laws that target all non liberal information sorces. Naturally they don't want anyone else to be heard.
-
-
9
Are you "Fired up, Ready to go!!"
-
10
But I am amused that the Republicans once took advantage of a blind person to break a filibuster. "Are you going to ask that question with shades on?"
-
11
My my. Democrats "screaming" for a filabuster. I guess when the filabuster was used extensively to block all the judicial appointments by Bush II, Karen Tumulty was also screaming at that time like a wild banshee to "Make them Do it!!".
.
Where were you then Karen? Indeed, where were you then???
.
Karen Tumulty says "Give me Liberty or Give me a Filabuster, by God". "Make them do it."
.
I wish I had a nickle each time a liberal loon flaps off at the mouth like a mad-woman in this case and spouts out her liberal garbage just to fill the air with noise.-
11.1
rusty, you are misremembering. The "Gang of 12" established a compromise that prevented a filibuster. The Reupiblicans in the Senate (and the Bush administration) were the ones screaming about "No filibuster" and "Up or down vote!" remember?
Your mind has gone blank(er), apparently.
-
11.2
I always encourage the chaos of offical rules,that my friend, is party-less.
-
11.3
Wow, I wish I had a nickle each time a conservative loon on Fox flaps off at the mouth like a mad-woman. I could pay for rusty's political-change surgery that he won't admit to craving. Why else would he spend so much time in liberal bars?
-
11.4
Actually it was the "Gang of 14", but whose counting.
."On May 23, 2005, a group of fourteen senators was dubbed the Gang of 14, consisting of seven Democrats and seven Republicans. The seven Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush's nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances," while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the nuclear option unless they thought a nominee was being filibustered that was not under "extraordinary circumstances". Specifically, the Democrats promised to stop the filibuster on Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William H. Pryor, Jr., who had all been filibustered in the Senate before. In return, the Republicans would stop the effort to ban the filibuster for judicial nominees. "Extraordinary circumstances" was not defined in advance. The term was open for interpretation by each Senator, but the Republicans and Democrats would have had to agree on what it meant if any nominee were to be blocked.
On January 3, 2007, at the end of the second session of the 109th United States Congress, this agreement expired.
On July 17, 2007, Senate Democratic leadership allowed a filibuster, on debate about a variety of amendments to the 2008 defense authorization bill H.R. 1585, the Defense Authorization bill, specifically the Levin-Reed amendment S.AMDT.2087 to H.R.1585. The filibuster had been threatened by Republican leadership to prompt a cloture vote.[citation needed]
As of August 2009[update], the Democrats were one vote short of a filibuster-proof supermajority, due to the August 25 death of Senator Ted Kennedy.[22] However, on September 24, 2009, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick named Paul Kirk as interim Senator for the state of Massachusetts giving back the Democrats a supermajority in the United States Senate.
Usually proposals for constitutional amendments are not filibustered. This is because a two-thirds majority is needed to pass such a proposal, which is more than the three-fifths majority needed to invoke cloture. So usually a filibuster cannot change the outcome, because if a filibuster succeeds, the amendment proposal would not have passed anyway. However, in some cases, such as for the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006, the Senate did vote on cloture for the proposal; when the vote on cloture failed, the proposal was dropped. Some[who?] made the accusation that the opponents of the amendment did not want to face political consequences in a midterm-election year for directly voting against the amendment, so they defeated it in a procedural vote instead."
.
If you care to read what it really was at the time. -
11.5
Twelvem 14, the point remains... The Republicans were screaming, "Up or down vote!" and threatening to change the rules to eliminate the filibuster before the compromise was reached.
.
So your initial post in this thread is misguided, as I noted in my previous post. It was the GOP that was trying to crush the filibuster the last time, including threatening to change the rule. -
11.6
Oh poor palin. Let me get down to your 3rd grade comprehension level and spell it out in simple words.
.
Karen Tumulty she wants a "real" filibuster.
.
Republicans threaten a filibuster on health care reform.
.
Democrats threaten a filibuster in 2005. Karen was no where to be found then screaming for them to do a "real" filibuster (it was a fake one then too).
.
Karen believes that if it is a Democrat it is ok to threaten a filibuster as long as it meets her needs.
.
Karen is a typical liberal loon, when it benefits her position its ok. If it doesn't then she wants everyone else to cow-tow to her wishes, and only her "rules" are the ones to be followed.
.
Karen is a hypocrit liberal loon hack reporter who works for TIME.
.
Does that help Palin? -
11.7
rusty, your steady name-calling is tedious and predictable.
.
You're letting your hatred get the better of you, friend.
.
In this case, the appropriate comparison would be to suggest that Karen was writing that Dems should filibuster Bush's judicial appointees. Was she doing that at the time?
.
The folks screaming during the Bush days were Republicans. They were willing to eliminate the filibuster in order to get their appointees (and other legislation) passed. Had they succeeded in getting the so-called "nuclear option" passed back then, filibustering health care wouldn't even be an option for them today.
.
Seems from my reading of this piece that Karen is simply suggesting the Senate allow a good, old-fashioned filibuster to actually take place, if for no other reason than it would be great theater and a real political lesson for the citizenry.
.
Thank god the option still exists. Had the Republicans gotten their way during the Bush years, the filibuster would have gone the way of moderate Republicanism. -
11.8
rusty rusty
Your trying to use logic and you know Liberal-Progressives don't understand logic. They are only capable of operating at the emotional level. You should not try to confuse them with facts. That is an unfair tactic.
They operate in a world where they create their own facts to support their views of the world.
They follow a simple method.
1. Their view is the only possible right view.
2. If you disagree you are evil or stupid
3. Free speech is only allowed if you believe as they do.
4. If they can't win an argument on facts then they will use personal attacks and demonize the opposition. -
11.9
Take your little four point list there and watch anything on Fox. I think you'll see you've applied it to the wrong end of the political spectrum.
-
11.10
kevin
You are so far to the left that you think moderates are right wing extremist. You need to get some balance in your ideologies. -
11.11
Kenin
Every liberal I know or see that bad mouths FOX I have found gets their info on FOX by watching the lies on the liberal news shows. If you actually watched FOX on a regular basis you would know that they are the most honest of the news shows. That's why they have more viewers then MSNBC. CNN, HCNN, and CNBC combined.
You don't get the facts by watching the losers bad mouth the winners.
-
-
12
Well, Karen that would be true if Harry Reid really wanted a strong public option to pass. Given the rhetoric of the DLC Democrats -- and Reid's own penchant for favoring their sell-out "moderate" positions -- I'm not convinced Harry Reid (or the White House, for that matter) is interested in passing substantive legislation.
Reading what comes out of the mouths of Nelson. Baucus, Bayh, Carper, Feinstein, Warner and, perhaps, Webb (never mind Joe "Me First" Lieberman), would lead one to believe that deep pocket corporate interests will, as usual, override the interests of the average citizen.
These folks have shown whose interests they have at heart, and it's not the folks without insurance or the families having to pay spiraling health insurance costs.
And Reid is right in there with them.
-
13
I guess people forget that the last time Republicans played chicken with Democrats, they didn't blink and the GOP didn't like it too much when they got blamed for shutting down the government. Ask Newt I believe that it ultimately led to his resignation as Speaker of the House. I've been saying for weeks now that the Democrats should be doing what ever they can to bring attention to the fact that the GOP is busy playing delay tactics, let them filibuster. Let the public know that they are just holding stuff up and you should know KT from Nightline with Ted and Countdown with Keith, that a daily accounting of what goes wrong while the GOP dither will not go over well with the public.
-
14
Call me crazy, but I think rules should exist for a reason. If the purpose of the filibuster is to require a supermajority for all bills, just make that the rule (or change the Constitution, if necessary).
If the purpose is to require a supermajority for really controversial bills, then limit the number of times that each Senator can filibuster per session.
But if the purpose of the filibuster is to allow Senators as much time to debate a bill as they require then force them to speak -- or respond to questions -- and not merely read from the telephone book. When you are done talking, vote. Up or down.
-
15
**I mean the Real Filibuster--not the make-believe ones that the little girls of the United States Senate are constantly waging, and not the occasional exercises where they pull out the fainting couches cots and pretend that they are actually going to sleep on them.**
I swear, KT has a Foul-Mouthed Vituperative Blogger inside of her, just dying to be let out.
-
15.1
…word. I encouraged KT yesterday to go for the potty mouth (after enough drinks).
-
15.2
Amen. She had me at "little girls."
.
Sack up, Democrats. The polls show the American people are supporting a public option by a 2-to-1 margin. How much support do you need?
-
-
16
Karen, you missed a key section of that interview, which explains much of the real reason:
How many Republicans would need to be on the floor during a filibuster?
One.
And Democrats?
If that Republican says I note the absence of quorum, you need 50.
So Republicans could pretty much fan out across the media to make their points, and sit on the floor of the Senate showing their charts, and Democrats would be locked in the chamber to fend off quorum checks?
The debate is actually one-sided. All the debate is coming from the minority.
-
16.1
It can be done. The Dems have to keep their guys there, so that they keep showing up for "live" quorum calls. If the Republicans don't show up, you can have the sgt. at arms arrest them. Byrd did it in 1988; Packwood had to be carried onto the floor. Read an account here:
.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/campaign/issues/1988_retro.html
.
Should I do an update with this? -
16.2
KT: please do that update.
.
I was confused. I thought that the Republicans would have to interrupt the filibuster to make a quorum call, and so end it.
.
I guess I was wrong. -
16.3
SZ: Republicans could "suggest the absence of a quorum," which is a time-eating move that doesn't do anything but make the clerk read the roll over and over. But Dems would have to demand that it be "live" and not just the rote reading of the roll. I'm not a parliamentary expert, but if you want to play hardball, there are ways to force them to show up, as this 1988 episode that I linked to shows.
-
16.4
But, KT, isn't it correct that only one repub needs to be there? Basically the entire Dem caucus, and one repub?
-
-
17
Give Harry hell, Karen (just tell him the truth and he'll think it's hell).
.
BTW, what do you think of this statement by Jacob Hacker?The fierce and continuing opposition of the insurance industry suggests that they think that a public option will prove a serious counterweight in an increasingly consolidated private market. The overwrought pessimism of the pundit class should not aid them in their cause of protecting themselves from a public-spirited competitor.
-
18
Karen Tumulty: "It should be Coburn himself who does the reading, not the poor overworked clerk."
Barf ....
That so-called "poor" clerk, as a freakin' federal employee, is grossly, grossly, grossly overpaid by the American taxpayers (i.e., Republicans).
That clerk shouldn't be paid more than $35,000 a year (provided he/she has at least 25 years of service.) I suspect that clerk is paid much more than that by the American taxpayers.
Can we get Obama and his useful idiots (i.e., the Washington press corps) to start demanding that civilian federal employees take a reasonable 60% (minimum) pay cut?
-
18.1
Can we get Obama and his useful idiots (i.e., the Washington press corps) to start demanding that civilian federal employees take a reasonable 60% (minimum) pay cut?
Good points, textee, but why do you expect the Dems to demand that? I suggest the GOP add to a plank to its platform, in anticipation of the 2010 elections, demanding a minimum of 60% pay cuts for federal employees. My guess is that the public would be shocked at the boldness of the proposal and a bloodbath at the polls would result. I can feel the Dems knees quivering at the possibility.
-
18.2
Sure, guys, I'm a federal employee and I'll be happy to have my pay cut more than in half -- how about you?
.
There are lots of federal employees who don't carry their weight, just as there are lots of us who knock ourselves out for a fraction of what we could make in the private sector. But that's equally true in the rest of the universe -- some people are grossly overpaid and others are grossly underpaid. Someone has to get those Social Security checks in the mail and guard the borders (as best they can) and fight fires in the National Forests and track the weather and all the rest of it. If we won't pay them enough to justify their doing so -- they won't.
.
Oh, and let's not forget those federal employees who wear uniforms and fight and get wounded and die in foreign countries for the protection of the rest of us -- even those of the rest of us who would cut their salaries by 60 percent.
.
I think I'll go back to ignoring the comments. I'm vomiting ever so slightly in my mouth even as I write this. -
18.3
Right, "American taxpayers" are Republicans.
.
That might make you feel good, but look at this and you'll notice that it's those Republican states that are the welfare queens and it's Democratic ones like mine that foot the bill.
.
Please secede, Texas. I'll keep my tax money local and you all can go live in the Republican low-tax paradise of Somalia. -
18.4
Forgot the link:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
-
-
19
The difference between the GOP and the Democratic leadership is that Dem leaders care most about prestige while GOP leaders care most about power.
.
As long as Reid gets to be Majority Leader and receives all the trappings of the office, he apparently couldn't care less how much his actual legislative authority is undermined by the Minority or by rogue committee chairs.
While Reid could take a number of steps to increase the ability of the Senate Majority to move legislation, many of the steps might ruffle the feathers of his caucus and lead to his replacement. -
20
But KT your are asking for responsible government, and you know how much Repsw and Dems love that.
-
21
" .. not the make-believe ones that the little girls of the United States Senate are constantly waging .."
She is fired up and ready to kick a senator b*!
Run for your lives, little girlies!
There comes KT, the Lynndie England reincarnate! -
22
Don't try to stop a filibuster on the health care bill. Let them. Make them.
.
And directly behind them, right where the cameras can show it in the background, put up a counter showing the number of people who have died from lack of health care coverage while the Repubs are throwing their hissyfit filibuster.-
22.1
Right next to the camera showing the number of people dieing because of the rationing of health care that will take place if the current bill passes.
A good health care bill would have been possible if the demoncrats were willing to really worked with the republicans and jointly put together a bi partician bill. They chose to put together their own bill without considering any important ideas of the republicans.
REMEMBER THERE ARE 2 SIDES TO EVERY STORY AND TRUTH IS USUALLY SOME WERE IN BETWEEN.
-
-
23
Love it!
you and Mr Klein just inspired me to write my senators.
who know if anyone actually reads those things, but hey, worth a shot.
-
24
Since Sen. Lieberman is so strongly against the bill I assume he would be on the floor filibustering.
How could Joe droning on NOT help the Democrats?
-
25
I think that many of you forget one important point - polls indicate that the majority of Americans are against this legislation. It is seen by most people at this time as another piece of the ballooning national deficit and out-of-control spending, not to mention the fears that many people have about having healthcare run by the same government that brought us the IRS tax code, Social Security and Medicare. A real filibuster would turn the Republicans that were pulling it off into heroes for many voters.
-
25.1
Can you provide links please? All of the polls that I have seen that ask whether people would like to have their health insurance premiums stop the out of control increases every year have been for health care reform. The main problem with the current legislation is that is does not do enough to bring the price of health care service down.
-
25.2
Sorry, ottomanwolf, but you're wrong. The polls show the public is now evenly divided on this.
.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124202/No-Clear-Mandate-Americans-Healthcare-Reform.aspx
.
In light of the constant stream of lies conservatives are making about the bill -- death panels! tax hikes! grandma killing! rationing! -- this is actually encouraging.
-
- ktumulty @davidmwessel Congratulations on NYT Kakutani ranking "In Fed We Trust" among top 10 books of 2009! - 3 hours ago
- ktumulty as anesthesia takes effect, think of this RT @WSJHealthBlog Nine Percent of Surgeons Have Made ‘Major’ Errors Recently http://bit.ly/8Gf0Zv - 16 hours ago
- ktumulty penance for palin cover: newsweek runs full-page picture of shirtless obama in swim trunks. - 16 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Rain: Pop Star, Bodybuilder, Ninja Assassin
- Reconciliation
- Curb Watch: Respect the Wood
- Home sales surge. Time to party?
- 'Rehabilitating' Sarah
- RGA Notebook: Alaska's New Governor
- What Would Jesus Buy?
- Blizzard: ‘Who Knows’ When Diablo III Will Ship
- Iowa Poll: Palin A "Credible Candidate" In Caucus State
- Your Guide to the Coming Glenn Beck Century
- Prehistoric Super-Crocodiles May Have Dined on Dinosaurs
- Can These Parents Be Saved: The Growing Backlash Against Over-Parenting
- India China Power Struggle as Manmohan Singh Visits U.S.
- Canadian Woman Loses Insurance over Facebook Photo
- A Brief History of Toilets
- The Fall of Greg Craig, Obama's Top Lawyer
- Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin
- Political Fallout in Egypt and Algeria's Soccer War
- The Air France A380 Superjumbo Aircraft Takes Off
- Will Private Equity Be the Next Financial Meltdown?
Quotes of the Day »
RSS