Why did the Bunning "filibuster" end in a couple of days and others haven't?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

Hugely under-reported, imo.

eta: hyphen

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Anybody?

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Mostly because Bunning was virtually alone in his stand..and the other repukes were worried about

being re-elected if the voters were all being denied the money that Bunning was blocking.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. What was the mechanism?

[BrklynLiberal]

4. I believe he just withdrew his objection after most of his fellow repukes threatened

to beat the crap out of him.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. Did you hear the story about Reid "making" him stand?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. I "heard" stories of Reid threating to make him stand.

?

[librechik]

20. BINGO! They were going to make him talk all night

and Bunning wasn't up for it.

Hope they do more of that!

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Maybe you will find info here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7843999

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. None found there.

A huge filibuster was defeated.

Yet the mechanism for that "defeat" goes unreported.

Why aren't all "filibusters" treated the same way?

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

10. I heard that it was not a filibuster. It was an objection to

approval by unanimous consent.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. ...which is a filibuster.

:shrug:

[Igel]

18. Yes and no.

If you request approval by unanimous consent then a single 'nay' = defeat. Most votes on a bill just require a majority.

If a filibuster is taken to mean stopping passage of a bill, then it was a filibuster. Because Reid insisted on using anonymous consent--apparently because going through the hoops to be able to actually have a normal kind of vote on the bill would have taken a day or two and been inconvenient--therefore for the better part of the week Reid handed Bunning his one-man filibuster. If Reid had listened to his objections and his intent to vote no, essentially placing a hold on the bill, then Reid should have gone through the additional hoops.

A filibuster is usually used to prevent voting on a bill. You get up and talk and talk and the vote never comes. The talking has to be ended, so it's a member's way of upping the voting requirements above what the chair requires. Since cloture in the Senate requires 60 votes, it means you need 60 votes to stop debate.

Bunning didn't stop the vote and he didn't insist on debating. He just kept voting "nay" and causing the bill to fail until he got what he wanted--and, personally, I don't see that what he wanted was so horrible.

He stopped voting "no" when he acquiesced to having his initial demand accepted. It went this way: He wanted to vote on a funding mechanism for the bill; Reid said 'no'; Bunning voted 'nay'--and upped his requests. There was an impasse as Bunning's request for, IIRC, 3 votes on potentially different amendments was rejected; then he settled for Reid's offer of holding a vote on a funding amendment. The amendment was never voted on; it was tabled on a procedural vote that meant that it simply wasn't considered. Strictly speaking, Bunning was snookered, but nobody much cared.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

21. Thanks for elaborating so eloquently. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. +

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Bueller?

:kick:

[Duer 157099]

12. I think it comes down to procedural minutia

There are so many rules and procedures, too complex for the M$M to bother educating the public about, so it all just looks the same when in reality there are very specific reasons and rules.

I've read posts here on DU that explain it very well but don't ask me to find any of them right now--just know they are out there.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. "Too complicated."

I get it.

[w4rma]

14. I'm interested in an answer. (nt)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. It just disappeared.

:shrug:

[global1]

16. Whatever - What Gripes Me Is That The Story Died A Sudden Death.....

and Bunning and the Regressive's(formerly Repug's)got off the hook real fast. Why didn't we have Dems making Bunning the 'poster child' for the 'party of no' and rub their face in it. Instead - for the most part - this is ancient history.

Another great opportunity wasted by the Dems. IMHO

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. Agree with "sudden death."

The "whatever" is important, though, imo.

[HopeHoops]

19. He had to change his Depends.

He's full of shit anyway.

[spanone]

23. the democrats threatened to actually make him filibuster and he caved

plus he was taking a ton of shite from his own party

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

24. "Dick Durbin: Let GOP filibuster"

Asked Thursday why Senate Democrats don’t force Republicans to carry out filibusters, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, “We may.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33920.html#ixzz0hJRdHOP7


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4293762

It only took 200 filibusters to figure this strategy out? We're doomed!