Filibuster Reform Dies a Quiet Death

[FBaggins]

While the media was focused on the President’s State of the Union Address last week, one of the most crucial reforms that progressives need died quietly – with few outside of the liberal netroots paying much attention. By a slim vote of 46-49 on Thursday, the U.S. Senate defeated a proposal by Jeff Merkley (D-OR) to actually require filibusters (as opposed to mere filibuster threats) before a 60-vote threshold is needed to end debate. The only tangible victories of this “filibuster reform” were: (a) an end to “secret holds,” where Senators can anonymously threaten a filibuster that requires 60 votes to overcome, and (b) a “gentleman’s agreement” by Mitch McConnell to not push the “nuclear option” before 2015. During the first two years of the Obama Administration, the Senate became the place where progressive legislation went to die – even though Democrats had a “filibuster-proof” majority for part of this time. Now, with a Republican House and a President eager to alienate his progressive base, a Democratic Senate is our only hope at advancing good legislation – and ending “secret holds” is the first baby-step.

But rather than just being a downer about what happened, progressives should recognize first the hard-work that Daily Kos bloggers David Waldman and Chris Bowers did to advance this reform. When dealing with wonky procedural changes that are difficult to explain, it’s always hard to generate attention or media publicity – but they worked to push this change in the Senate Rules, which will pay dividends down the road. As Bowers explained in a must-read analysis at Daily Kos, the netroots did some great collaboration with offline activist groups this time. And, the newer Senate Democrats were with us on this issue.

By now, the problem is obvious to anyone paying attention. For two years, Democrats controlled the House and Senate – but very little got done. The Employee Free Choice Act died a quiet death, Climate Change Reform failed to materialize, we did not see any Comprehensive Immigration Reform – and while we did pass a version of health care reform, the Public Option died because Joe Lieberman wanted to piss off liberals. All because a Senate majority wasn’t enough – we needed “sixty votes” to override any filibuster threat. Rather than require Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate to speak without end, these mere “filibuster threats” effectively killed all legislation.

As a result, Republicans – and conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu – announced that they would simply filibuster every proposed bill until they got their away. Moreover, the Senate even had the protocol of a “secret hold” – where any right-wing Senator like Jim DeMint could anonymously hold up any bill, which requires a 60-vote majority to overrule. House Democrats began to call House Republicans the “opposition,” but refer to the U.S. Senate as the “enemy.”



http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Filibuster_Reform_Dies_a_Quiet_Death_8856.html

[Skink]

1. I'm glad the dems are prevented from anonymous holds.

[treestar]

2. The did eliminate the holds

While they may not be much, it is something.

[FBaggins]

3. Not holds... just anonymous ones

The problem there is that there will always be some safe republican who is willing to put his name of something if they really want to kill it.

[boppers]

4. When were there 60 Democrats?

The article states 'even though Democrats had a “filibuster-proof” majority for part of this time'

It didn't state "those who occasionally caucused with Democrats", so, when were there 60 Democrats?

(Hint: This hasn't happened in the last 30 years).