Why Is Reid So Damned Afraid of an F-ing Filibuster?!?!

[tekisui]

Three votes shy of 60, they won't force the pukes to get on the floor and tell the American people why they don't deserve jobs?

This is bullshit! We have an obstruction/anti-jobs party and a pushover party.

WHY WON'T THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS STAND UP FOR US?

[bdamomma]

1. we need to bombard them with calls.

the repigs cannot get away with this, they are a regional party.

[treestar]

2. Why not? It only takes one Republic

It was meant for things a Senator felt strongly about. But it will be no surprise that the Republics filibuster every single damned thing. It would be like them. It can be expected.

It is a very unfortunate feature of the Senate.

[tekisui]

3. But, why is Reid so afraid of forcing them to actually filibuster

instead of just assume and roll over? He should make them do it, for days if needs be. And, all the while have Obama, Kerry, Biden, and every other Dem pounding the airwaves calling the pukes anti-jobs obstructionist. They have the ammo, just look at the jobs numbers.

[treestar]

8. Yes, if he has the power to make them actually do it

Use it. It looks like the only defense.

though there is the "nuclear option" which I still don't understand in spite of having googled it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Of course he has the power to make them do it.

It is as simple as calling for a vote. There are enough votes to pass the legislation. That leaves the republicans in the position of filibustering to prevent the vote from happening.

For some reason he is convinced that them preventing the vote means they have the power - which is the opposite position of when WE had the minority and WE could have filibustered.

He's a pathetic weakling and coward who is afraid of a floor fight, and when push comes to shove he will ALWAYS break toward the republicans. He needs to go.

[treestar]

30. What is he afraid of? Is there some downside to the filibuster?

Actually taking place. Like the Repukes doing it getting to do their talking points over and over and getting coverage for it in the M$M? Though they would still look like obstructionists. So what could he be afraid of?

[onenote]

40. yes there is a downside

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4994125&mesg_id=4995016

[elizfeelinggreat]

I have a feeling

that those people have been trying to pound the airwaves. Look at what happened to President Obama's interviews - it was all Daschle all the time and his message was diluted.

They aren't getting covered, perhaps that's what is driving his fear of a filibuster - the republicans will have even MORE coverage. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, just guessing at why he's behaving this way. I do wish we could replace him!

[sharp_stick]

7. It wouldn't be if they made them actually fillibuster

When did this procedural bullshit start where a party can just say they will fillibuster and everyone goes home? I would think we would see one hell of a lot fewer of these moronic things if they actually made the fucking pukes stand there and yap for a few days straight.

[onenote]

39. forcing an actual "hold the floor" filibuster would almost certainly backfire on us

First, it would shut down all other Senate business. Second, it would mean that the Democrats would essentially have to stop working on the legislation, since Democrats would have to be on the floor round the clock in order to ensure a quorum is present. The repubs would only need to have one or two members present, who would be standing there stating over and over that they and their colleagues are ready and willing to sit down and work on a compromise. The repubs, both on the floor and outside the chamber, would trot out a few provisions that can be spun as not looking like they have much to do with job creation -- provisions that the public won't fully understand and that will be difficult for the Democrats to explain. And it will look like the Democrats are the ones refusing to compromise.

Based on how you've seen the political game played over the past couple of decades, show me how I'm wrong?

Filibusters -- old style ones -- were used a lot more rarely than people think. Why? Because the leadership generally gave in rather than forcing them since they are more burdensome on those opposing them and almost always are successful. Even strong majority leaders of the past -- LBJ, Byrd -- rarely broke filibusters and usually ended up having to compromise to save the bill being filibustered.

[billybob537]

4. Time for the Nuclear option

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=109&topic_id=36159&mesg_id=36159

[treestar]

10. Somebody explain what that is

I read about it on wiki and a few other sites but still don't get it. Can some articulate DUer explain it? Is it possible for a majority to change the rules so that filibusters no longer are do-able, as in the House? Is that what the nuclear option is?

If so why didn't the Republics do it - maybe they anticipated where they could be in a minority and wanted to keep it?

[billybob537]

14. It would be a change in Senate procedural rules

the filibuster is not garunteed in the constitution, it is just a senate rule.
A senatre rule can be changed by a simple majority. Thus 51 votes could do away with the filibuster.
Then all votes just need 51 votes to pass. With 59 Dems we could do the work of the people and let the WATB pukes sit it out for at least the next 2 yrs.

[onenote]

19. there is zero chance of getting 51 votes to change the Senate rules

The Senate honors tradition above everything. Its an inherent part of its culture. And the self-proclaimed "world's greatest deliberative body" isn't going to upset over 200 years of tradition by changing its most basic characteristic feature -- unlimited debate.

[treestar]

29. The House did at some point

And they did change the rule from 67 to 60 at one point.

[onenote]

33. true, but neither of those historical facts changes the present fact:: the Senate will not

do away completely with the general principle of unlimited debate. Indeed, the fact that the House changed its rules -- out of necessity given the size of the House -- is yet another reason you can bet the ranch that the Senate will never completely abandon the possibility of a filibuster. After all, the Senate considers the House to be an inferior body.

[Cronopio]

47. As is always the case for naysayers like yourself ...

... it will seem to be impossible until it is inevitable.

Your calculations don't take into account that these are extraordinary times and the pressures on the Senate are unprecedented. If it was the welfare of a few "little people" I'd agree with you, but the entire economy is riding on this legislation. Bet on the x-factor making a surprise appearance in this game.

[onenote]

50. these are not the first extraordinary times in the history of the country

And I'll take the bet on the future of the filibuster without hesitation. The only way I see any change in the filibuster happening, and I really don't see it happening, would be a limited exception for judicial nominations -- exactly what the repubs threatened and the Democrats opposed, which is why i don't see even that happening.

[treestar]

28. Thank you, billybob. All I read wasn't getting this across and

DUers seem to know what it is!

I'm amazed the Republics did not change the rules so they could get their Nazis onto the SCOTUS.

[NOW tense]

5. Harry Reid needs to get out of the way. n/t

[baldguy]

6. Let the GOP filibuster.

They can talk inside, and the President and the Dem leadership can talk outside - every time massive job losses are announced, tag it to GOP obstructionism & remind everyone that they want America to fail.

[tekisui]

11. EXACTLY! That is what needs to be done NOW!

Bring it to a cloture vote immediately. Obama said, the time for talking is over.

Force the pukes to say that they are so against creating jobs for the American people that they will stand in the way. Obama and the Dem leaders can take it directly to the American people and tell them what is going on.

I am sick of pussy-footing around like we don't have the majority.

[havocmom]

12. We have olur WINNUR!

Thank you

[surrealAmerican]

34. I'm with you.

If they filibuster, they only end up hurting themselves. Their constituents won't stand for it.

[Goblinmonger]

9. Keep the powder dry!

Don't you remember?

I fucking hate when the Democratic party rolls over for the Republicans. The really frustrating thing is that they do it both when we are the opposition party (clearly a mislabel) and the party in power.

[Dragonfli]

13. I agree, JUST ONCE let Reid call the bluff and make them actually do it before caving in.

Filibuster
The term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote. It works to prevent a vote because the Senate's rules contain no motion to force a vote. A vote occurs only when debate ends naturally. The word comes from the early 19th century Spanish and Portuguese pirates, "filibusteros", who held ships hostage for ransom. When a Senator filibusters, he/she holds the chamber hostage until it meets his/her conditions.
http://www.house.gov/waxman/glossary.htm

Harry Reid has made a habit of folding to the threat only of a filibuster without bothering to test the will of the minority in an environment where debate may end naturally via lack of will on the part of the obstructionists to debate for days or weeks the "virtues" of positions that would be unpalatable to the voting public if the bluff were called. (a habit as yet unbroken, so I consider it a rule of his leadership)

Some are under the mistaken impression the republicans are/have actually been filibustering, they are not, they have not.
Reid has not required them to, he requires it would seem only that they threaten to.

What do I expect from Reid? To require them to filibuster rather than merely threaten to in order to get their way. If it is so easy that a mere threat produces the same results, why they may do something silly like merely threaten to filibuster over 90 times or something and just get their way, no one would expect him to be that ineffective of a leader would they? Of course not! err maybe Harry Reid.

[global1]

22. Bring The Cots Into The Senate Chambers And Let Them Spew Their Guts.....

out - so the American people can see who the real culprits/obstructionists are. As the economy gets worse - As more people lose jobs - As more people lose their houses. The Repugs will look even worse than they do now.

[treestar]

31. The only cause for hope he might change

Is now he has a Democratic President behind him rather than a Republic one. Maybe we should call his office right effin' now!

[MiniMe]

37. He did that once, and the media and the republics kept going on and on about

how it was a stunt. The dems lost the PR war in that one. When is Teddy going to be back? We need him for this vote.

[Dragonfli]

52. He threatened cots - not the same thing as forcing them to filibuster.

Unless you know of an actual filibuster that I am unaware of, in that case please provide a link so that I may save the info and how many minutes of the first speech before he gave in.

[MiniMe]

53. They filibustered all night. And every repuke that got up called it a stunt

I think Hillary got up at about 3am because it was early in the election, early last year. I think the bill was over a timetable in Iraq. It was July 2007.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-alterman/of-filibusters-and-stunt_b_58019.html

[Dragonfli]

54. I see the problem here - they call the threats of filibusters filibusters

so you think they are.
------------
"Well, that was then. Today the tables are turned, and it's the Republicans who are doing the filibustering. They're doing so much of it that, at their present rate, they will have filibustered three times more than any Congress in the previous decade."

"The nation's anguish over the Iraq war was kept on hold in the Senate yesterday as the Republican minority maintained serial threats of filibuster to buy time for President Bush's aimless policies."
-------------

I refuse to play that game.
Calling a threat the thing is really just succumbing to the "virtual" thing.

No more "virtual filibusters".
Make them keep debating and if they leave the podium for any reason call the vote.

It is a lot harder for them to do that than to just threaten and have Harry fold without calling for the up or down vote - letting every one go home with a wink and a nod, "we know you'd a done it so we won't be so rude as to make you."

That polite virtual shit has gotten us this record breaking obstruction we "enjoy" these days.

[MiniMe]

55. They DID fillibuster all night

But it was only 1 night.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/17/senate.iraq/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/politics/main3068893.shtml

[Dragonfli]

58. I stand corrected - TY - If he caved after one night It was only theater however

I wonder if that deal was reached before hand?

[bdamomma]

15. I hate this, Harry Reid has the means to do something why won't he do it?

[tekisui]

16. Really. What EXACTLY is he afraid of?

He must have a reason, but I don't get it.

[bdamomma]

17. I just hope President Obama has a plan B on this.

I just hope he pulls Reid aside on this.

[onenote]

18. Because it would backfire?

Why does anyone think it would work? First, it would shut down all other Senate business. Second, it would mean that the Democrats would essentially have to stop working on the legislation, since Democrats would have to be on the floor round the clock in order to ensure a quorum is present. The repubs would have one or two members present, stating over and over that they are ready and willing to sit down and work on a compromise and they'd trot out a few provisions that can be spun as not looking like they have much to do with job creation -- provisions that the public won't fully understand and that will be difficult for the Democrats to explain. And it will look like the Democrats are the ones refusing to compromise.

Based on how you've seen the political game played over the past couple of decades, show me how I'm wrong?

Filibusters -- old style ones -- were used a lot more rarely than people think? Why? Because they are more burdensome on those opposing them and they almost always are successful. Even strong majority leaders of the past -- LBJ, Byrd -- rarely broke filibusters and usually ended up having to compromise to save the bill being filibustered.

[treestar]

32. Then they need to go with the nuclear option

Do away with the filibuster. Tradition be damned. The filibuster is undemocratic.

[onenote]

38. never going to happen

There is zero chance that the Senate would vote to do away with the filibuster. Less than four years ago, the People for the American Way were running ads defending the filibuster. And even the repubs never seriously proposed doing away with it completely (they were prepared to push for limiting its application to judicial nominations, but not to get rid of it for all legislation).

[treestar]

43. So they hang onto it because they figure someday they'll be

in the minority again and need it to obstruct the other side?

Certainly the advantage would be there and maybe explains why some of Bush's more egregious court appointees were not confirmed.

[onenote]

45. No, they hang on because the Senate first and foremost is body for which tradition matters

more than almost anything else. It is part of the institutional culture of the Senate and it is not easily changed. I've had the pleasure (or lack thereof) of dealing with the Senate for many many years and the role of traditional ways of doing things -- from the way Senators address each other to the sometimes arcane procedures -- are so deeply ingrained that they are almost impossible to change.

[Bonhomme Richard]

20. I think Obama told them they have until Monday and if.......

the repugs are still holding up the bill they will be lambasted at his Monday news conference and I don't think he is going to take any prisoners.
I don't think his scheduling a news conference Monday is a coincidence.

[bdamomma]

21. I hope this will be avoided but if it is going to happen the repukes deserve it.

obstructionists they are. What is this Feb. 24 speech Obama is going to give this is not the same thing as the Press Conference is it?

[tinrobot]

24. Nuclear Option

[depakid]

25. Reid should ask for a multi-million dollar bonus

He's earned it every bit as much as the bankers on Wall Street have....

[blindpig]

26. Because he never knew what to do will one himself. n/t

[paulk]

27. I think it's Obama that's afraid

A filibuster would blow a hole in his wole "kumbaya" routine.

Wasn't he trying for 80 votes with this legislation? All that working with Republicans to bring them over to our side?

Why assume that Reid isn't taking his cues from someone else?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

35. I think it's because he was ALWAYS afraid of filibuster - even before

Obama - that's why. It is truly a valid question, IMHO. Let them filibuster - it will show that they
are crazy.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

36. by the way - there is no kumbaya feeling now with their hold out - it

would be better to show that it is them - not Obama who is holding up the kumbaya

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Perhaps he is more concerned about passing the stimulus bill rather than political theater?

:shrug:

[tekisui]

44. He can't do both?

The 'political theater' would expose to the American people where the repubs stand. It would have worth. And, it could still get passed.

[onenote]

46. the political theater would almost certainly backfire on the Democrats

All it takes for a filibuster is one or two repubs to be on the floor at one time; on the other hand, at least 50 Democrats will have to be there round the clock. The other 40 plus repubs will be all over the news and talk circuit, saying how they want to work on a compromise, yadda yadda and that its the Democrats that are being intransigent. And the Democrats, who won't be able to speak to the media because they have to be on the floor to maintain a quorum, and who wont' be able to speak on the floor because the floor is being held by the repubs engaged in the filibuster, will be effectively silenced.

There is a reason why old style filibusters succeeded more often than not.

[treestar]

49. Wouldn't the public, the voters who just voted for the Democrats

as President and to be the majority in both houses, be more pissed off at the Republics?

[onenote]

51. the sentiment of the public seems to be that maybe the current bill needs work

The repubs have been winning the message war -- even a lot of Democrats have been critical of specific line items in the legislation. The public is wary of a lot of spending on things that don't appear to impact them directly. Yes, resodding and fixing up the National Mall is a good goal and would result in some new jobs. But to the vast majority of the public who don't live anywhere near DC and who wouldn't be impacted directly by that job creation (as opposed to the same money being added to that available for bridge/road cosntruction around the country), it seems like one of those that maybe shouldn't be in the bill.

Its a forest/trees thing and right now those arguing about the trees are winning and I don't see that changing if there is a filibuster in which the Democrats are put on the defensive about not continuing to work on compromises.

imo - what the Democrats have to do is make a few compromises that they can point to and then file for cloture. If they lose the cloture motion, the repubs have to explain why they aren't giving anything up on their end.

[Marr]

42. Harry Reid is a Republican. You'll notice he has no trouble standing up to liberals.

He isn't afraid of Republicans, he *is* one. Or rather, he's owned by the same people who own the Republicans. He needs to go.

[ljm2002]

48. I just got off the phone...

...and told his staffer that I expect our Democrats to fight for this bill. No more cuts, no more kowtowing to obstructionists. I told her that if we don't have the votes to stop a filibuster, then make them filibuster! Let the American people see who is blocking the jobs bill from passing.

Then I called Senator Ensign's office and told his staffer that I expect him to support the President's job bill and I'm sick of obstructionism while our country is in deep, deep trouble.

I'm in Nevada and I made sure to tell both staffers that. I also made sure to call it the Jobs Bill. And I made sure to put lots of emotion into my voice -- not hard since I feel strongly about all this.

It's about time these yahoos got a taste of people power.

[Political Heretic]

56. It's absolutely ridiculous. Un-fucking-believable. I seethingly H*A*T*E that guy.

[Enrique]

57. he's afraid of Obama

by way of Rahm.

They say it can't go down or else.