Who thinks be need to RESTORE the rules that FORCE the GOP actually FILIBUSTER (not just threaten)?

[Faryn Balyncd]

It's time to rescind the rules we foolishly agreed to - - - the proceedural rules that allow the GOP to get all the BENEFITS of a filibuster WITHOUT having to pay the price of USING UP political capital and public patience by ACTUALLY FILIBUSTERING.

We have foolishly allowed the GOP to AUTOMATICALLY BLOCK any and everything with 40 votes with only the IMPLICIT THREAT of a filibuster.

We need to bring back the old rules, &, if they insist on obstruction, MAKE them actually FILIBUSTER ! ! ! (and pay the price in public ill-will).

As Joan Walsh says:

. . . . And if he holds out and loses Collins, Specter and Olympia Snowe, maybe the Democrats can revisit the tyranny of the minority rules they agreed to (but never used well) banishing the old-fashioned filibuster. I'd like to see John McCain and David Vitter up all night, on CSPAN, talking against the stimulus bill, sharing their empty ideas with all of America.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/02/11/stimulus_battle/

By foolishly allowing a 40 vote minority to routinely block legislation WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING TO FILIBUSTER, we have allowed obstructionism to be routine (rather than an extra-ordinary event that existed in days of real filibusters).

The GOP knows the PUBLIC WOULD NEVER STAND for daily filibustering (unlike the public tolerance for routine daily "The Senate failed to meet the required 60 votes" bullshit.)

If the GOP is going to obstruct, make them bring on their telephone directories & urine bags, and PAY THE PRICE.



:kick:

[navarth]

1. agreed. K & R.

[MineralMan]

2. Do you mean to say that you can just threaten to

filibuster, but cannot be forced to follow through and actually do it? That's nuts. I want a real filibuster, with GOP Senators reading church-lady cookbooks from their home state. I'll even watch CSPAN to see it.

This is bogus!

[Faryn Balyncd]

5. That's what these "60 votes" proceedural votes in the Senate are all about.........

We have tolerated a situation in which if the 60 votes (60%) required to CUT OFF DEBATE (ie, end a filibuster) are not met, then the measure "fails to pass the procedural hurdle" and fails, WITHOUT any actual filibuster having taken place. (and without those obstructing by means of a filibuster actually using up whatever public goodwill they might have).

[louis-t]

15. This is why the repugs can stop 95 Dem bills

and no one reports it. Biden says "95 repug filibusters" yet really it was 95 bills they threatened to filibuster.

[librechik]

3. Absolutely--in fact, I don't see what purpose the Senate itself serves, nowadays

It was designed to give slave states a bit of equal representation back when horses and carriages were the means of transport. Get rid of that Old Boys Club which does nothing but tell us all to get off its lawn!

[pleah]

4. K&R

[napi21]

6. I say fillabuster, but the OLD STYLE where they have to stay 24/7 & talk!

None of this new type where the Senate adjourns at 5 o'clock!

[patrice]

8. Absolutely! Make them earn those paychecks and all of the FREE perks.

[Froward69]

9. Second!!!

[patrice]

7. Republicans should be eager for an opportunity to explain why they are against so many

Good policies. We're not talking "socialism" here; just tell us why you're against Mass Transit and for cuts in Veterans' Benefits.

[Faryn Balyncd]

10. Should we start a fund for "Republican Urine Bags" (for GOPers who don't have diapers like Vitter)?

[Faryn Balyncd]

16. Maybe we could send Harry Reid a crate of THESE .....(for him to give to McConnell, McCain...

Maybe we could send Harry Reid a crate of these he could give to McConnell, McCain, & company when we change the rules?





Chinese, no less:

http://www.made-in-china.com/china-products/productviewQqwJtbpHYnhd/Male-External-Condom-Catheter.html

[madrchsod]

11. you expect punch drunk reid to do anything?

[BR_Parkway]

12. I'm sort of disappointed Frist didn't pull the "nucluer option" - they'd

be regretting the hell out of that one now.

[sharp_stick]

18. Sort of but then we'd be having to deal with

Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen who is so batshit insane she makes Sam Scalito look fucking smart.

Right now however the nuclear option would go a long way to shutting the pukes the fuck up.

[onenote]

20. as I recall, the repubs only proposed teh nuke option for judicial appointments

[FatDave]

13. Everybody thinks we need to do this.

Everybody except the democratic senate leadership anyway. They're content to make things as easy as possible for the republican minority.

[onenote]

21. who is "everybody"?

[FatDave]

23. Shitload of people on DU for starters.

Olbermann and Rachel keep mentioning it too. Don't listen to Air America much these days, but I'm guessing it's been mentioned there a few times.

But this is DU, so I won't be a bit surprised if somebody pipes up to tell me it's a great thing that we cower at the word "filibuster" and don't even bother to make them go through with it, effectively raising the bar to 60 votes for any legislation to pass in the senate. Won't be surprised at all.

[onenote]

24. seems mostly that the people who understand how filibusters actually work

are not among the "everybody" who wants them.

I haven't heard a lot of Democratic senators calling for Reid to force a traditional filibuster. Maybe that's because they know from history that filibusters usually succeed and that they put more pressure on the party opposing the filibuster than on the party conducting the filibuster.

[FatDave]

25. So your contention is...

...that republicans can very publicly obstruct a bill, a bill with huge popularity among the citizens of the country, and suffer no political ramifications?

I understand your argument, but how would this not be an epic PR disaster for the republicans? On the news every night would be republicans obstructing a popular bill, and a popular president chastising them for it. I still say make them do it. So 50 democrats have to sit on the floor. Bring a fucking book.

[onenote]

30. my contention is that the repubs could control the message with a true filibuster

I understand the reasoning. However, consider civil rights legislation. Despite popular support, filibusters successfully stymied civil rights bills -- or forced them to be watered down -- for years before the public got fed up enough. Why? Because the folks pushing the filibusters were from jurisdictions where their efforts were supported by a majority of the voters.

Repubs face a dilemma -- if they don't fight for more tax cuts and less spending, they piss off their base. And they cant win without their base. So they hunker down and try to persuade the middle that what they're doing is really in the interest of the middle and that the Democrats approach is geared towards larding up the stimulus package with "special interest" provisions.

Now you and I know that's horseshit. But a lot of voters in the middle find much of this confusing and are easily swayed by the messaging. And with a filibuster, what happens is that the repubs end up controlling the message. For one thing, they merely have to have one or two members on the floor reading from the bill, misconstruing and mischaracterizing provisions to keep the debate going. The Democrats have to produce 49 or 50 members to ensure that there is a quorum or else the senate adjourns for the day. The 40 plus repubs who are hanging out at Faux, CNN, the networks waiting to be interviewed are spewing on about how the Democrats are the ones refusing to discuss a compromise and that's why everything is shut down.

It sucks, but its why neither party, when in charge of the Senate, wants to force an old-time, continuous debate type filibuster.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. I do, time to stop the pretend fillibuster

and we all know historians LOVE to read the white pages in the record... but it shows how long one of them was to future generations

[onenote]

17. traditional filibusters almost always were successful

Blame Reid all you want, but even LBJ failed to break filibusters when he was majority leader. A filibuster puts all of the burden on the party opposing the filibuster, not the party leading the filibuster. All the party leading the filibuster has to do is put one member on the floor to talk as long as they want. WHen they get tired, a second member can show up and take over. Meanwhile, the party trying to break the filibuster has to put 50 members on the floor. Otherwise, there is no quorum and everything stops cold. So what you have is a situation in which virtually all of the Democrats in teh Senate would have to be on the floor, but unable to speak. Virtually all of the repubs would be hanging out at CNN, Faux, the networks, etc etc, gathering up all the airtime spewing about how they are ready and willing to talk compromise but the Democrats are the one's stopping progress on the legislation. As for the repubs on the floor (assuming there is a quorum), they'll just read through the bill -- its very long -- picking out and distorting specific provisions that they claim are pork or unnecessary in a stimulus package and there will be no one to answer them.

There is a reason that the majority rarely if ever forces a traditional filibuster -- and it has nothing to do with whether Harry Reid is a good, bad or indifferent leader.

[sharp_stick]

19. You're right

so we need a little modification of the rules to reverse that. Could probably do that with a 50% +1 like the assholes wanted to do with the nuclear option.

All puke speakers for a single fillibuster must be in the chamber while the Democrats can have the night watchman keep an eye on them so they don't steal the desk lamps.

[backscatter712]

27. Change the filibuster rules a bit.

Make it so when the minority party puts its one member up to read the phonebook, the majority party shows up with its 50+ members, calls it a quorum, then declares some sort of recess, with one designated Senator remaining behind as "chair of the quorum", while the rest of the 50+ chill out. Have the chair of the quorum be changed to someone else as people get tired.

That should make filibusters more of a challenge...

[truebrit71]

22. I agree. It is a completely stupid and counter-productive rule...Elections have consequences...

..51 is a majority, and if the rethugs want to filibuster MAKE THEM FUCKING DO IT!!!!

[tbyg52]

26. Been saying it for years. nt

[tnlefty]

28. Count me in.

:kick:

[4lbs]

29. That's up to the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

The 1975 cloture bill passed by the Democratic Senate that restored the 60 vote Cloture rule also allows the Senate Majority Leader to ask that the opposition actually filibuster the classic way.

That's even with the more recent Senate Rule 22 (and its revisions) that eliminated traditional filibusters for most things.

So, petition Harry Reid to require the GOPpies to stand for days on end yapping about everything until their lungs explode.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.php

<snip>
In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can therefore be as powerful as an actual filibuster. Previously, the filibustering senator(s) could delay voting only by making an endless speech. Currently, they need only indicate that they are filibustering, thereby preventing the Senate from moving on to other business until the motion is withdrawn or enough votes are gathered for cloture.

<snip>

[onenote]

31. As noted above, the burden of a "true" filibuster falls on the party opposing

While a true filibuster does require the repubs to continuously talk on the floor, it also requires 50 Democrats to show up to listen continuously. Otherwise, there is a quorum call and everything stops until there is a quorum. So if your goal is to have the repubs endlessly talking on the floor, what you end up with is most of the Democrats tied up on the floor listening, and 40 plus repubs controlling the media message by giving interviews on faux, cnn, the networks etc. claiming how the Democrats won't compromise and giving other bogus arguments which will largely go unanswered.

True filibusters almost always were successful in killing bills or forcing them to be watered down, which is why the majority rarely if ever forces them to occur any more.

[tom_paine]

32. Why did the Democratic Leadership allow this, and will continue to allow it?

Could it be that the purpose of government is to pretend to fail?

Wouldn't that just explain damned near EVERYTHING that has happened these last 30 years, from BOTH sides of the aisle?

[galloglas]

33. Absolutely agree!!

The filibustering party is not so so likely to be obstinate when they have to convince the electorate in this day and age. The factors like C-Span can make their stupid words and arguments live on in immortality.