Can somebody walk us through what, exactly, will happen if the stimulus bill is filibustered?

[CTyankee]

I'd like to know the steps along the way and if we could come out the winners.

Is the filibuster the worse that could happen?

[Kalyke]

1. Me, too.

I think I know, but I'd like a second opinion.

And I'd like to keep this :kick: ed for you.

[ShortnFiery]

2. What about what Frist threatened in the last GOP majority: THE NUCLEAR OPTION?

Why NOT? If not now, WHEN? :shrug:

[treestar]

19. How does that work?

I googled it and read about it some, but it's still murky. It seems to contradict the whole cloture procedure.

[LaPera]

3. Call it "The Jobs Bill" - Thom Hartmann

[uponit7771]

17. I don't know why Thom Hartmans book isn't plastered onto the heads of congressional dems. It's

...easy, implement some message discipline and win even more.

[Runcible Spoon]

4. Well filibuster essentially means the bill is stalled

It can be broken if a group of senators files for cloture, which would limit debate on the bill and force a vote within a certain time frame.

I'm by no means an expert but this is my general understanding.

[CTyankee]

6. But under those circumstances, wouldn't we win anyway?

That is, if we get all the Senate Dems on board...

[Runcible Spoon]

10. it has to be passed by 3/5...

if we count Franken and the 2 independents, we only have 59 :evilfrown:

edited to correct 2/3 to 3/5... I guess the cloture majority was changed back

[Barack_America]

5. The Republicans are on CSPAN2 reading the phonebook and Obama is on CSPAN1....

Reading unemployment statistics.

The bill sits in limbo until the American people force Republicans to get a freaking clue.

[CTyankee]

7. Then maybe we should just do it!

If bipartisanship means economic disaster, wouldn't Dems be forgiven for just moving on and getting the thing done without the Republicans?

[Hippo_Tron]

12. MSNBC, FOX, CNN camped outside of the senate chamber

And the GOP leadership making constant statements to the press while one of the peons reads the phone book.

[donco6]

8. You mean procedurally or in actuality?

In actuality, the Republicans will faintly mention the word "filibuster" and the Dems will fall into shaking fits of fear and completely gut the bill in favor of tax cuts for the rich.

[Runcible Spoon]

11. ..............

:spray: Ain't that the truth.

[uponit7771]

16. +1

[mikelgb]

9. Reid prepares wet noodle for action

in a just world Reid would bring YE OLDE FASHIONED FILIBUSTER back

[Life Long Dem]

13. REPUBS IMPLODE

[Bonobo]

14. Don't you know people don't filibuster anymore?

They just make "gentlemen agreements" that 60 votes are needed to get anything done.

Way easier that way. All that talking can really dry your throat out!

[onenote]

26. plus, filibusters place more of a burden on the party opposing the filibuster and

typically succeed.

The main reason that actual "hold the floor" filibusters are rarely forced anymore is that the party opposing the filibuster actually has to do more than the party filibustering. The filibustering party only needs to have one person occupied, while the opposing side needs to make sure there is a quorum or else everything just comes to a halt.

One thing that people forget is that these "old timey" filibusters were pretty rare and they almost always worked. Even when there were strong majority leaders like Byrd and LBJ, they rarely succeeded in breaking a filibuster and the bill in question typically was killed or the party engaging in the filibuster was able to force compromises that had been resisted.

[uponit7771]

15. Basically Reid can MAKE GOPers filibuster ON THE FLOOR and not call in a filibuster to stop...

...a vote.

That would be politically easy and politically cheap to do AS LONG AS the Reid instills message discipline BEFORE taking the action so dems can get their message out fast, consistent and easy to understand so that the GOP doesn't make Senate dems the villain.

Dems don't have message discipline so they are ALWAYS (Obama too) counter punching against GOP lies or just standing their getting punched in the mouth. The CBO lie is the latest and there is NO ONE out there besides Barney Frank who has done their homework on the issue.

[donco6]

18. That's it exactly.

I think we have a lazy bunch of Dems right now who just aren't willing to put in the time to know the issues with enough confidence to face the opposition head-on. It's really sad and frustrating. I'd swear more people on THIS BOARD know more about the intricacies than a lot of our congresspeople.

[onenote]

27. the problem is that the repubs will just keep talking about the 1 percent that's in the bill

that doesn't obviously seem like a direct "jump start" to the economy and the burden will be on the Democrats to explain/defend keeping those provisions in this bill rather than dealing with them separately. That will be an extremely difficult debate to win.

[QC]

20. Harry Reid will send a very, very stern letter to the Republicans. n/t

[justgamma]

21. Did you ever notice that the word

filibuster is never, ever spoken? The Dems should yell to the rooftops that the pukes filibuster every single bill that comes up. Make it perfectly clear who are the obstructionists.

[JohnnyBoots]

24. The dems should keep a running tally of GOP filibusters on a chalk board. The kind where

you have 4 lines and slash through them. It would help visualize it to the populace pretty well.

[HamdenRice]

22. Here's the stripped down version: It's the difference between "voting" and "ending debate"

There are two contradictory principles involved in the Senate. The first is that any issue is decided on a simple majority vote. If 51% of the Senators approve of something it passes the Senate.

But going back into the long stretch of history, even into English Parliament, legislators are allowed to speak for as long as they want -- it's kind of like a super free speech principle -- and that means that debate on any bill can go on forever.

So even if the majority want to vote "yes" on any particular bill, any one Senator can keep the debate going. Keeping the debate going by standing in the well of the Senate, was called "filibuster." Ironically, that word means "piracy." It came from the Dutch, "freebooter," (ironically very close to English) went into Spanish, then French and back to English as "filibuster" a common word for piracy or private armies in the 1800s. But to keep debate going, the opponents of a bill had to, well, like, actually debate. They had to stand up there and talk. In the 1800s, when people gave long speeches, they would give long speeches. In the 1900s, they resorted to reading the names in the telephone book.

Eventually the parliamentary democracies began coming up with ways to end debate. A vote to end debate is called "cloture," a fancy French term from the French Assembly, for "closure" or ending of debate.

In America, the Senate adopted a cloture rule around 1919. Before that time a single Senator could keep debate open by talking, or if people got sick of him talking, leaving the issue open and moving on to other issues.

Because free speech in parliament or the Senate was so prized, a different amount of voting was required for cloture (66% for ending debate) than for actually voting on a measure (51%). By the mid 1970s, the Senate reduced that to 60 Senators. Because filibuster is kind of like mutually assured destruction and a waste of time, they came up with rules that allowed a Senator to say he was going to filibuster without actually speaking. But the Senate Majority Leader could dispense with that and say put up or shut up -- you have to keep talking.

So here's what could happen. If Reid develops a pair of cojones, he tells the repugs that to carry out their filibuster, they have to talk. Also that they won't move on to other topics until this is resolved. He can also say that the filibusterer can't yield his time to another Senator. Basically the majority refuses all the normal courtesies to the guy on the floor.

The result is that the filibusterer then proceeds to talk until he passes out, falls asleep or whatever after a few days. Then debate is closed and the vote is held on a 51% basis.

If Reid doesn't do that, the repugs can prevent passage in the Senate forever. It's not a matter of delay of days; civil rights legislation, for example, was filibustered for decades. Unless Reid gets tough, the repugs absolutely can prevent legislation from passing for all of the Obama administration. The cost, however, is (1) bad publicity and (2) Reid and the Democrats not putting anything they want on the agenda -- however, that also takes some guts, which Reid may not have.

[demo dutch]

23. Let's see, it'll be like the 30's, Congress doesn't act quickly & country plunges into a Depression

[Dawgs]

25. Well the Republicans think that because some polls say people are against the bill, that...

...it means that they want the Republican amendments to be added.

They are truly delusional.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. Nothing - not a bad outcome when Rethugs get blamed 4 the economic collapse that will surely follow.