Should Reid require that ALL filibusters be talking filbusters?

[Faryn Balyncd]

Last edited Fri Mar 8, 2013, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

....or should he continue business as usual.... (where all Republicans need to do is threaten to filibuster, and the mere fact that they have 40 votes to prevent closure allows them to get their way without actually getting up there and talking) ?

Addendum:

Multiple replies seem to re-enforce the corporate media inspired misconception that the rule requiring 60 votes to shut off debate automatically means that 41 votes can veto any bill without having to pay the price of actually filibustering, but simply by issuing a threat, which the corporate media then sugarcoats by reporting (not that the GOP is filibustering, not even that the GOP once again is holding the nation hostage by once again threatening to filibuster) but that the Democrats "don't have the votes". Consequently, the GOP gets their way without having to pay the political price.

Contrary to these replies, this post is NOT about shutting off debate (which, since Reid passed up the opportunity to change that rule at the start of this Congress)....what it IS about is about whether Democrats have the will to force the GOP to actually filibuster, and pay the price, if they are going to obstruct.

While some are saying "that ship has already sailed", that is precisely what the GOP, and the corporate media, would have us believe. Because that belief gives them a free pass to block legislation without being portrayed as the obstructionists they are.

What "already sailed" is the opportunity to eliminate the rule requiring 60 vote to SHUT OFF debate.

Over time, the GOP has perpetuated the misconception, now misrepresented as "fact" by corporate media ( and accepted as such by many on this board), that that means that 41 votes can veto any bill they want just by convincing Reid that they have the votes to prevent the 59 others from cutting off their filibuster - - - even when they never do actually filibuster.

As has been demonstrated this week, the act of actually filibustering has consequences. It can require energy and co-ordination. It can result in exposing fractures within your own party. It can result in the loss of political capital.

Yes, Reid passed up the opportunity to rid the Senate of the 60 vote requirement to shut off debate.

And he did so on the basis of promises, or implied promises, that the GOP has broken.

They now want to continue to have the benefits of filibustering (the benefits being the ability to block legislation), without paying the consequences inherent in actually having to get up and filibuster.

Yes, Reid does not have the power to SHUT OFF debate without 60 votes.

But he does have the power to force the obstructionists to actually have to stand up and keep talking until the backlash sends them into retirement, if they are to succeed in their obstructionism.

[DetlefK]

1. Yes. Even if Democrats become minority, that's better than a coward's filibuster.

If you want a 60 vote-threshold, that means, you need 40 guys opposed to the item.
And 40 guys taking turns talking about an issue can drag out approx. 2 weeks.

A talking filibuster provides:
- information
- free publicity (-> Rand Paul)
- the possibility to see whether someone defends the indefensible

[Sheldon Cooper]

2. Yes.

If those jackasses are going to threaten filibuster, then make them actually do it. I'm sick to death of Reid tolerating their threats, pouting, and tantrums. Make them earn their victories.

[99Forever]

3. That ship already sailed.

After being lied to for at least a year, that Spineless Harry was going to "fix the filibuster" at the beginning of this session, what did he "fix?" Nothing. Same shit, different session. The upside is that they retained their cover excuse for doing squat, when in reality, it's just the same old good cop/bad cop scam they have been running for half a decade. Washington DC is FUBAR.

[Faryn Balyncd]

10. That is not correct.

What already sailed is the opportunity to eliminate the rule requiring 60 vote to SHUT OFF debate.

Over time, the GOP has perpetuated the misconception, now misrepresented as "fact" by corporate media ( and accepted as such by many on this board), that that means that 41 votes can veto any bill they want just by convincing Reid that they have the votes to prevent the 59 others from cutting off their filibuster - - - even when they never do actually filibuster.

As has been demonstrated this week, the act of actually filibustering has consequences. It can require energy and co-ordination. It can result in exposing fractures within your own party. It can result in the loss of political capital.

Yes, Reid passed up the opportunity to rid the Senate of the 60 vote requirement to shut off debate.

And he did so on the basis of promises, or implied promises, that the GOP has broken.

They now want to continue to have the benefits of filibustering (the benefits being the ability to block legislation), without paying the consequences inherent in actually having to get up and filibuster.

That ship has NOT "already sailed".

Yes, Reid does not have the power to SHUT OFF debate without 60 votes.

But he does have the power to force the obstructionists to actually have to stand up and keep talking until the backlash sends them into retirement, if they are to succeed in their obstructionism.

[BlueStreak]

11. No. The silent filibuster is in the rules

The opportunity to establish new rules has already passed, unless Reid can get a super-majority for that. And considering he couldn't even get 50 votes. that isn't going to happen.

[madokie]

4. That goes without saying

[UnrepentantLiberal]

5. It's too late.

He had his chance and chose not to fight for it.

[magellan]

6. He had the opportunity and backed off it after the election

I don't know if he can change the rules to require talking filibusters now, but yes, he should have done it.

[think]

7. Reid had his chance.......

[Festivito]

8. They should have to answer questions picked by the opposition.

And answer questions from the public emails.

That could be so much fun.

[talkingmime]

9. Yes. I'm pissed that he didn't take the opportunity this time.