Make them Filibuster, dammit!

[charlyvi]

I noticed right after the "nuclear option" sideshow back in 2005 that the media began reporting that it took 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. I thought, huh? Was my high school civics class wrong? No, it was not. It suddenly took 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate because of the filibuster, or I should say, the THREAT of a filibuster. Of course, the media did not say that, thereby giving the impression that it was always thus. Wrong.

This gentleman's agreement to compromise on legislation to avoid a filibuster, or dropping the bills entirely to avoid one, is a chickenshit response to blackmail. If the policy issues can truly be resolved to everyone's benefit, fine. But when the goal is pure obstructionism to feed the base, stop making it so damn easy. I'm speaking to you, Harry Reid. MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER! For every bill they obstruct, which is pretty much every bill sponsored by a Democrat, make them stand there and read the phone book for days on end. Universal healthcare--let cable news show them wasting time while more and more people lose their insurance. Banking regulation--let the whole country watch how they stall any true reform while 401k's circle the bowl even further.

To sum up, stop making it so easy for the Republicans to obstruct. Let the world see what and who they are. If they want to filibuster, fine. But really make them do it.

[Cirque du So-What]

1. Hear, hear!

Lessee if their motor mouths can cover their candy asses.

[charlyvi]

3. I think it would be the best politic move Reid could make.

Which is why he'll probably never do it.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Reid takes a beating, but he got the stimulas passed. Anyone who says "no thanks to Reid" doesn't

know shit, period.

The first time I really got a glimmer into the mind of Reid was when bush nominated Harriet Miers. Reid said soon after that Miers was 'a very nice lady,' or something to that effect. It set off howls of displeasure here at DU and elsewhere as well. But It sure made Reid look good when the hard right wing of the fundie Repos started attacking Meirs. Not for her inexperience, but for her ideology.

Reid calling Harriet 'A nice lady' highlighted from whence came the bloody ax in that nomination. And I think that nomination hurt bush.

So I'm not as fast to attack Reid as some are. I prefer to use my critique on him in connection with specific legislation.

[JDPriestly]

42. Listen to Reid's voice. He sounds timid, frightened, weak, even

now that he has the majority in the Senate. Reid is a great guy, I'm sure, but we need a Senate leader who presents the image of strength and conviction. Reid just isn't it.

[John Q. Citizen]

64. If PR is what you want? I thought passing this bill was a major achievement.

Also, if senators from Bernie Sanders to Feingold to Boxer all vote for Reid to be their leader, who am I to complain?

Like I said, I often have disagreed with Reid on specific issues, but the constant negative assessments about things like tone of vocal pronouncements isn't something that moves me.

The people bashing Reid for shoving Miers down the the Repos conservative/fundie wings throat jumped to conclusions, just as the people who pronounced the Stimulus dead because of what Reid did or didn't do jumped to conclusions.

Both Reid and Pelosi deserve credit for passing essentially what our president called for. About .8 trillion dollars in job inducement spending and middle class tax cuts.

And I don't think that was a small feat.

In fact, I've never seen anything remotely like it in my life time.

[Better Believe It]

44. Reid didn't need Republican votes to pass a stronger stimulus

Reid needed 51 votes. Did the Republicans even threaten a filibuster against a strong stimulus package?

No!

Senator Reid insisted he needed 60 votes and I didn't read a single article indicating the Republicans threatened a filibuster.

If anyone read such an article please post the link.

[Qutzupalotl]

60. The 60 vote threshold is required for spending increases,

not to avoid a filibuster in this case.

[happygoluckytoyou]

63. or Here, here! ... either way i agree

[lwcon]

2. K&R

[Richardo]

4. I heartily agree

:patriot:

[Horus45]

5. I've been emailing Reid myself

I've been emailing Reid myself about this for the past couple of years and now is an even better time to start making them actually Filibuster!

If they are forced to Filibuster on live television for the whole US to see, they would NOT even bother threatening to use it.

[charlyvi]

6. I agree.

Most of the public isn't aware of the extent to which Republicans obstruct badly needed legislation, mostly for their own political benefit. It's the biggest kept secret in DC. The media doesn't report it. So, let every Repub know the nation will be watching as they try to kill healthcare, banking regulation rehaul, worker's rights, etc. Make them do it.

[wroberts189]

7. Adding your and my voice to the chorus here.... call their damn bluff.

For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.
For one stinking god damned time.

PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!!!

K and R

[charlyvi]

8. And the sad thing is....

We know it's a bluff, Reid knows it's a bluff, they know Reid knows and we know it's a bluff.......but for some damned reason they still do it and Dems let them. Arg!!!!

[frogcycle]

10. effin -A

The first couple of times there will be efforts to blow it back at the dems - claims that the dems are wasting precious time by refusing to cave in and shut the bastards up. But if the right message is delivered loud and clear - that NOTHING will be passed if everything is shelved at the mere THREAT of filibuster, so either way the dems hands are tied by the obstructionists, then dramatizing the extent of the obstructionism is the only way to show the bastards for what they are.

And I'd LOVE to have some reporter spot the delivery of Depends to the designated filibusterer's office before he takes the floor.

Oh, wait... they'd just use that creep from Louisiana - everyone already KNOWS he is diaper-boy.

[charlyvi]

12. LOL! n/t

[Faryn Balyncd]

11. K & R

[guyton]

13. absolutely

I about puke every time I see '60 votes required' on the TV. Make them filibuster and defend how their actions.

[rucky]

14. Maybe we should send our Dem senators some Red Bull as a message?

[inna]

18. i luv the idea, but.... 5 Hour Energy works way, way better than RedBull!

(they can take it in 5-hour increments, or whatever. lol)

but seriously, make the repukes filibuster - or at least call their obvious bluff.

[Lucky Luciano]

32. So that stuff really works? I drink red bull every day...

Should I switch?

[treestar]

15. Have to agree

They get the gain without the pain if they don't have to do the work.

[charlyvi]

17. It's like spotting the other team points before the Super Bowl.

As if they owe more loyalty to their Repub collegues than the voters who elected them.

[tbyg52]

16. Been saying this for years. nt

[JVS]

19. Could someone explain to me how you break a filibuster?

If some senator nods off while giving a speech, do the other senators just vote on the bill or what?

[charlyvi]

20. By three fifths of the Senate invoking cloture

Invoking cloture means endng the debate, or by withdrawing the legislation. Or, if the filibustering Senator or Senators stop talking, thereby allowing a vote.



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

The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a supermajority of three-fifths of the Senate (60 Senators, if all 100 seats are filled) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture.<6>


Procedural filibuster
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.

[Nipper1959]

25. The practice of allowing the mere intention of a filibuster

to serve as a filibuster is known as "comity" within the Senate. I have been asking my Senators, Feingold and Kohl, to pressure Reid to end this practice for years. The benefits of ending comity would be dramatic and real. Rethugs that filibuster would be seen as obstructionist and bankrupt of ideas. Ending the practice would pull back the curtain and reveal them for what they really are to the American people. The media would have to report on an actual filibuster and the public would take it from there. It is my belief that by ending comity the Democratic Party would guarantee themselves a substantial majority for years to come.

[ClassWarrior]

28. But are you sure the Corporate Whore Media "would have to report" that?

Would the Corporate Media portray Rape-Publicans as "obstructionist and bankrupt of ideas?" Or would they portray them as "valiant Rape-Publicans protecting the American taxpayer?"

I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying it has the potential to backfire, and that we'd do well to think it through before making a knee-jerk reaction.

NGU.

[charlyvi]

34. The Republicans filibustered 77 times during 2008

Actually, I think that was only one session of the Senate. If they had to really filibuster, I doubt that the media could put lipstick on that pig. I doubt that the Repubs would have filibustered that many times if they really had to do it. Not in this economy. Obstructing the people's business 77 times would be political suicide to anyone but the die hard right wing base. Most people would be appalled by it, I think. Talk about the party of no.

Look, a filibuster is supposed to be difficult. It is supposed to be used as a last ditch procedure to protect the minority against legislation it finds totally repugnant, not as SOP to garner votes in the next election. What Senate Rule 22 has done is make the filibuster too easy; in effect, 60 votes is now needed to pass legislation. The majority is held hostage for whatever reason the minority chooses, no matter how whimsical or self aggrandizing that reason may be. And the public rarely hears about these virtual filibusters, so they have no idea how obstructionist the minority is being. It's time they knew. It's time the Senate was forced into adulthood again. I think forcing the minority to REALLY filibuster will do more to promote bipartisanship than any lunches with Obama. They either forge an agreement, or look like obstructionist naysayers time and time again.

Just my two cents.

[ClassWarrior]

36. I understand all that. But I still see no reason to trust the Corporate Media.

Which is why I say we need to think this through, and choose our opportunity wisely, rather than resorting to "effin' A" knee-jerking out of frustration.

Think about this... We all understand what a filibuster is meant to do. But has there ever been a full-on filibuster since the dawn of the 24-hour news cycle? That development alone creates a whole new unknown dynamic.

NGU.

[charlyvi]

38. I have thought this through, very carefully.

and my opinion on this matter is certainly not in the category of 'effin A.

Are we to let the corporate media determine our Senate rules? Are virtual filibusters in the best interest of this nation, not only now, but further down the road? I don't think so. Even when we become the minority, as we surely will at some point in time, it simply is not wise to let the minority frustrate the will of the majority for any reason at all. It should be a difficult thing to do, the reasons for which the filibustering Senator or Senators should be willing to get up and state publically. That's what a filibuster means. To frustrate this intention because you're afraid the media will not report it the way you wish gives them way too much power. I give the public more credit than that.

By the way, what does NGU mean?

[ClassWarrior]

39. Yes, let's rush in recklessly, and damn the consequences.

See? I can mischaracterize your position too.

But what good does that do for any of us?

NGU.

[charlyvi]

41. Rush in recklessly?

How is restoring the filibuster to its original procedure rushing in recklessly? You lost me. And if I mischaracterized your meaning, sorry. I just don't see how considering the corporate media when deciding the rules for a filibuster gets us anywhere.

[ClassWarrior]

47. So you're saying we should resurrect a procedure that hasn't been used in at least a generation...

...without giving any consideration to where we make that first stand? You yourself refer to this as a "political move" for Reid. But then you say he should just start doing it at the next opportunity, no matter what is being considered and how that can be framed.

I'm saying let's pick our first battle -- one where we stand a good chance to succeed and win the media wars -- because if we don't, you can be damn sure the nervous Dems on Capitol Hill will NEVER do it again.

NGU.

[charlyvi]

48. No, what I'm saying is

if a party wants to filibuster, if they think a piece of legislation is so egregious as to be detrimental to the public as a whole, they should actually filibuster. Meaning they should obstruct by halting a vote until one of three things happens: 1) the majority has enough votes to invoke cloture, 2) the legislation is withdrawn, or 3) the filibustering Senator or Senators stop filibustering thus allowing the vote to continue.

The nuclear option is when Senate rules are changed to allow a simple majority vote to end a filibuster, rendering the procedure meaningless.

Now who is mischaracterizing whose post?

[ClassWarrior]

49. Okay, I misunderstood the "Nuclear Option." My point still stands.

I've edited the last post to take out the incorrect reference to the "Nuclear Option." Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

NGU.

[charlyvi]

50. Nice apology.

Very gracious. And my point still stands as well.

[ClassWarrior]

51. So you're saying we should resurrect a procedure that hasn't been used in at least a generation...

...without giving any consideration to where we make that first stand? You yourself refer to this as a "political move" for Reid. But then you say he should just start doing it at the next opportunity, no matter what is being considered and how that can be framed.

I'm saying let's pick our first battle -- one where we stand a good chance to succeed and win the media wars -- because if we don't, you can be damn sure the nervous Dems on Capitol Hill will NEVER do it again.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

52. No answer? Didn't think so.

NGU.

[charlyvi]

54. A filibuster should be an actual filibuster.

That's what I'm saying. It shouldn't be a procedure where the majority says this time we'll make them but next time we won't. It should not be pick and choose. It's not a matter of taking a first stand-it would not be a "first stand". It would be restoring the filibuster, thereby making the minority think twice about their reasons for doing it.

As far as not answering, you need to give a body some time. There are other threads on this board, and I am not actually reading this one only. You seem to be getting a bit angry. Sorry a political discussion does that to you.

[ClassWarrior]

55. Nice deflection. We all want things to be the way they "should" be...

I'd like a pony too.

:rofl:

NGU.

[charlyvi]

57. Wow. Being wrong about the nuclear option turned you

into a little rudeness machine, huh? This is pointless. You have your position and I have mine. So be it. I wish you all the best. This subthread is over, unless you simply want to talk to yourself. Good cheer.

[ClassWarrior]

58. Still no answer. Just more deflection.

:eyes:

NGU.

[GiveMeFreedom]

53. Just woke up. comity? did you mean comedy?

to serve as a filibuster is known as "comedy" within the Senate. I have been asking my Senators, Feingold and Kohl, to pressure Reid to end this practice of comedy for years. The benefits of ending comedy would be dramatic and real. Rethugs that filibuster would be seen as obstructionist, bankrupt of ideas and not funny. Ending the practice would pull back the curtain and reveal them for what they really are to the American people, comedians. The media would have to report on an actual comedy and the public would take it from there. It is my belief that by ending comedy, the Democratic Party would guarantee themselves a substantial majority for years to come.

[The Wizard]

59. Which illustrates the importance of

seating Al Franken.

[annabanana]

21. no kidding! what better way to unmask the beast that is the

republican caucas . .

[jaysunb]

22. Coming right up

Mark my words, it's in the cards. Probably about 9 to 12 months prior to the 2010 elections.

:evilgrin: I'm lovin it !

[cliffordu]

23. K&R Yep, make them put up or shut the fuck up.

[D23MIURG23]

24. Fuckin' A!

I don't understand why he is so nice to them; if they are threatening to filibuster lets go ahead and make them. Maybe if they have to actually hold the floor for hours on end, they won't want to do it so often.

[W_HAMILTON]

26. I agree.

But our politicians don't agree. Why are they such wimps? If the minority has such power, why did the Democrats do more to hold up legislation when they were our of power?

How sad is it that essentially one person in the Senate can obstruct our entire political system? Unless of course that one person is a Democrat...

I think they should eliminate the filibuster completely, and in exchange make it so you need 55 to pass legislation. Hell, even make it so you need 60 to pass a vote, but at least MAKE THEM VOTE ON IT. That way, the public knows where people stand. As it is, the Republicans can simply threaten a filibuster, and unless there are enough votes to overcome it, Democrats won't even push the issue.

This is probably one of the biggest problems I have with our Democratic leaders. Either get an up or down vote, or make them filibuster. You either make the Republicans look like fools for voting against the public's interest, or you make them look like fools reading phone books for hours on end. It's a win-win situation, not only for the Democratic party, but for American citizens; too many beneficial statutes have been pushed aside over the threat of a filibuster.

Why can't Democrats see this?

[Better Believe It]

56. "Why can't Democrats see this?" They can see this and understand it, but

it gives Senator Reid and some other Democratic Senator an easy out, a lame excuse to not be partisan and fight against their friends in the Republican party.

[W_HAMILTON]

67. They should realize they aren't their friends...

...because the Republicans do it to the Democrats any chance they get.

But I do believe that Reid has no spine. He needs to go. He is the most placid individual I have ever seen, and I'm not sure that is a compliment, ESPECIALLY as one of the political leaders that we most need to have toughness.

[catrose]

27. AMEN, Kick, & Rec

Make 'em work for it. Every time.

[caraher]

29. AMEN!

It's HUGE blunder not to. I believe Barbara Boxer reacted favorably to that suggestion on I think Rachel Maddow's show recently.

I really have no idea what Harry Reid et al are thinking on this. It's the one move that will make it impossible for voters to ignore when the minority is being principled and when they are merely trying to disrupt for the sake of exercising the one shred of power they still have.

[midnight armadillo]

30. Here's the scenario I want to see

Some Repub Senator: I will filibuster this single-payer universal health care bill!
Reid (wiping beer foam from his lip and waving a smoked turkey leg): Bring it on motherfucker. Start flapping your lips.

Bill passes.


What the Dem leadership fails to understand is that the filibuster is only as powerful as they let it be. Those old Republican men don't have the stamina to read the phone book for more than an hour or two before they'd need to change their Depends.

[Lucky Luciano]

31. Sounds about right to me! nt

[sampsonblk]

33. Absolutely right - nt

[davidthegnome]

35. Whether it's a bluff or not

It's going to piss off the moderates if they are forced to filibuster. I quite like Obama's style and method of negotiating so far. He is just what we need right now - an excellent diplomat who just might manage to bring more unity to the two political parties than we have had in a long time (if ever).

Another thing that runs through my mind here - when the republicans have a majority (as they likely will, at some future date) we're entirely likely to face the same issue they're facing now. In fact we have, on numerous occasions over the last eight years. I vaguely recall from reading "The Audacity of Hope" that we came quite close to cutting out filibusters entirely. Has anyone else considered what the end result of that would be? All well and good when we're the majority perhaps, but not when the ball is in the other court.

Right now, for them, it's either a good bluff or a last resort if forced to it.

I'd prefer to see more open debate between republicans and democrats regarding various ideas, debates that could ultimately reach some kind of conclusion.

Yes, the Bush/Cheney led neocon agenda has fucked us for years, but if we in turn treat them (the right) with the same disregard and contempt with which we have been treated, it's going to ultimately result in yet another cycle of endless bickering resulting in very little productivity.

The more we strive for unity, in the public eye and in private, the greater our chances are of eventually getting things done. Yes it's going to require sacrifices and no we're not going to enjoy or at all agree with some of what is said and done.

Yet I really believe in Obama's goals of unity and cooperation, the idea that, regardless of being largely idealistically opposed, we can make common cause for the good of the many. If he - and by extension we, can successfully negotiate with the other side to bring about positive change, it will be tremendously inspiring and productive.

Time will tell, but at the moment we have the upper hand - and in my view that's the time for healing the breach as much as we can. For clearly demonstrating that we're willing to extend an open hand rather than a closed fist.

[charlyvi]

37. Sorry, don't agree that forcing a filibuster will piss off moderates,

unless you mean it will piss off moderates to see one party constantly obstructing legislation. Whatever party does it. Right now, we have a situation where the minority party can stop any legislation, for any reason, by simply saying they will filibuster. A supermajority is needed to pass legislation in this case, something I don't think the Constitution intended. Do you honestly think this reduces bickering? A filibuster is not meant to be easy by its very nature, it is a drastic measure, or used to be.

Political parties have differences, by definition. This generates friction. That will never change, nor should it. If the minority party feels so strongly that a piece of legislation is wrong or detrimental to the people as a whole, that they should obstruct its very passage, even if the majority backs it, then they should filibuster. But to see this procedure used, time and again, to obstruct legislation for the most self promoting political gamesmanship, solely because it has been made so easy, is not serving the public good. It should be a last resort measure. I guarantee if the minority were made to actually filibuster, more biprtisanship would be exercised in the Senate. Again, whatever party holds the minority.

A filibuster should be used as the Constition intended, not diminished to the point political gotcha.

[Doctor_Horrible]

40. I had to explain this to my students Friday... they were VERY confused...it made me sad.

[MessiahRp]

43. Make them filibuster until their pacemakers give out...

And none of this dog and pony shit where they roll out cots but don't make the GOP use them.

Rp

[Better Believe It]

45. Democrats can easily change Senate rules so that only 51 votes can pass nominations/legislation

Democratic Senators are free to use the so-called "nuclear option". This parliamentary tactic enables Senate Democrats to simply and easily change Senate rules so that only 51 votes would be requires to approve President Obama's appointments and legislation. Using this Senate rule would allow a simple majority to end debate and come to an immediate up and down vote.

Is this clear to everyone on DU?

So what really is the "nuclear option" which Republicans used to scare the crap out of Senator Reid and other Democratic Senators in 2005?

-----------------------------

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

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

[jwirr]

46. K & R

[sellitman]

61. Get rid of Reid & Pelosi if you want any chance of this happening.

Otherwise forget it.

[charlyvi]

62. Pelosi doesn't enter into it.

But Reid.........hmmmmm.

[Better Believe It]

65. When Did Senator Reid replace President Obama as the leader of the Democratic Party

If President Obama wants Senator Reid to fight Republican filibusters or evenuse the "nuclear option" he will, unless he wants a public fight with Obama which would mean Reid's immediate replacement as head of the Senate and Senate Democrats.

[Window]

66. Damned right! K/R.

:kick: