I know I am old. I am old enough to remember real filibusters, not procedural filibusters, and how stupid those filibustering Senators looked to the public. It is not likely that the Senate is going to change its archaic procedures. So be it.
While the filibuster is undemocratic the filibuster is also a grand old tradition within the Senate. It has been used by both sides. We tend to forget that the individual or party filibustering gets a great big gobsmack of stupid laid on him/her/them under the full light of the national media. I have seen that happen even to filibusterers who were holding out for a position I favored. It didn't matter. People don't mind our leaders talking about obstructing action by saying that they have a better solution --- unless they actually do it in plain sight, hour after hour, day after day.
Now, I admit that exposure in the media has not stopped all filibusters. But procedural filibusters get almost no exposure in the media. They are a big yawn to the press. It all takes place under the table. That is because the procedural filibuster which has been in place since 1975 requires that 2/5 of the Senate can simply indicate that they intend to filibuster. They don't even have to vote, or to actually filibuster, or even to say a word.
But what the Democratic leadership never says is that the power to compel a vote remains with the Majority Leader. So why is Reid not using it? Why does he not call for cloture and let the Republicans talk it to death? Bring the obstructionism into the light. Every single time they threaten a procedural filibuster, let them prove they have the votes to prevent cloture, by calling for cloture when they obstruct.
Let the Republicans stand up and defend why they are holding up all legislation and all activity in the Senate, rather than seeking compromise to get important legislation passed. Do the Democrats really not have better reasons that they can argue for passing it?
Do the Democrats really think that it is better to let the Senate pass some minor legislation so it can say it is "doing" something, than it is to bring the obstructionists into the light once and for all? They do not have to expose health care to a big fight. That has already passed the Senate.
Pick some other important legislation that the Republicans are just obstructing out of "principle," however they define that. Pick something that will make them look especially bull headed and narrow minded. That shouldn't be all that hard.
But Reid does not have any testicular fortitude. And so the 60, now 59, person Democratic coalition runs in mortal fear at the threat of a filibuster if it is even whispered by the Republican leadership. Of course, the Republicans don't whisper, they shout and the louder they shout the faster the Democrats run.
Does no one else see the madness in this Democratic "tactic" of running in fear from the minority? Just how does this help Democrats win in the Fall elections? Are Americans supposed to vote for spineless leaders who are not willing to throw the light on the obstructionists in the Senate?
Do the Democrats actually think that they will have no way to defend allowing the Republicans to out themselves as the "Party of NO" that they actually are. That is not just a name. It is the truth.
Now one point that needs to be made, urgently, is that essentially NOTHING is getting done in the Senate anyway given the Republican positioning and it will only stagnate more with 41 members in opposition. There is no sensible reason for the country to continue to see the Democrats as weaklings, spineless in the face of the seeming "Moral Minority."
Finally, considering the botched job both parties are doing in both houses of Congress it might be better for the country if they just did nothing for a while. Someone wrote in our local newspaper today that "We ought to pay Congress to just go home." I think that is the mood of many in this nation right now.
It is time for the Democratic Senate leadership to take on the Republicans, and just let them put their own feet in their own mouths.
453 page views 2010 02 25
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Patrick Frank
MissingK8
Doug Browne
donnastreet
JulieShanti
Salon.com
Comments
An actual filibuster is an instant symbol of obstructionism. It would be great for Democratic reelection campaigns to use images of the filibuster to rally the base.
Jim, health care has already passed so that can't come up and I really like your idea re banking regulation. That ought to be a real eyeopener!
That being said, the Democrats could provide support to the President, although many will not, and, on balance, there is no question in my mind that the Democrats, even in Congress, come closer to representing what I think the country should be doing than do the Republicans. We are fortunate to have a smart young Democrat who is our Representative here in Ohio. And Sherrod Brown is a good Democratic Senator. And I am sure there are others.
Congressional politics is always an imperfect alliance of imperfect people working to pass imperfect programs. But if it comes down between choosing the lesser of two evils, I go with the Democrats. If it is bad with the Democrats in power let us not so soon forget how much worse it was under the Republicans.
"Does no one else see the madness in this Democratic "tactic" of running in fear from the minority? Just how does this help Democrats win in the Fall elections?"
I saw a reporter on CNN the other day talking about the new Republican 41 to 59 majority. The sad thing was that she was serious.
Monte, I'm wondering the exact same thing. In a state of head-banging frustration. All I can tell you is, I'm angry and bewildered. If Washington had been as timid a general as Reid is a Senate Majority leader, we'd all still be British subjects at this point. Which might not be so bad in one respect; at least we'd probably have decent health care by now if we were.
As despite the numerous helpful blog posters who write about how to use HTML, I remain as dumb as dumbnail in this (and other) regards, so please forgive me for just cut and pasting the lyrics:
May God bless and keep you always,
May your wishes all come true,
May you always do for others
And let others do for you.
May you build a ladder to the stars
And climb on every rung,
May you stay forever young,
Forever young, forever young,
May you stay forever young.
May you grow up to be righteous,
May you grow up to be true,
May you always know the truth
And see the lights surrounding you.
May you always be courageous,
Stand upright and be strong,
May you stay forever young,
Forever young, forever young,
May you stay forever young.
May your hands always be busy,
May your feet always be swift,
May you have a strong foundation
When the winds of changes shift.
May your heart always be joyful,
May your song always be sung,
May you stay forever young,
Forever young, forever young,
May you stay forever young.
I have been a Democrat all my life. I support neither party now.
I see both parties as two sides of the same coin, and the coin is called greed and the corruption that follows the worship of money.
I say throw the bums out. No one goes to the capital anymore except to line their pockets.
I want to start afresh.
I hope Sue didn't have to work today. You are such a caring, loving soul to be so worried about her safety.
Be well. Jali.
Mission is correct. Two sides of the same coin.
Rated
He and many of the others in congress are in this for the money and fame. They are a disgrace.
According to pals who are on the inside, he has no guts and the reason he did not go after the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Patriot Act, was because he plans to carry out the disgusting plans of GW Bush to the letter and he fears the Right, like a rabbit fears the wolf-coward is the word.
He did not try to indict the War Criminals because he planned from day one to do the same things they had done. He lied to us and I will never vote for him again. That is why Bush did not offer McCain help, he knew Obama was a winnie and did not want to waste this chance to further wreck the Democratic party, which is slowly committing suicide.
It is simple, there was only One Imhotep, one Jesus, One Michelangelo, One FDR and One Babe Ruth, and God isn't about to send us another of any of them for a long time. The only thing The Right ever got right was the anti-abortion thing and that and the lack of justice here the last forty years or so, are keeping the Prophets from gaining office.
I think the only way we would see real progress is one thing that will never happen, and that is to have Bernie Sanders appointed Majority Leader. Imagine a real Progressive Independent in that position.
Seriously, if the party in power could rule with a simple majority, voters would behave differently. We might be able to measure the difference between Rep and Dem again. Constituents might be able to see what the party in power actually wants. Moderate voices could rule the day. We could see effective bipartisanship again. Extremism would be rare. There doesn't seem to be a down side to refusing to come to the table right now. If we could pass legislation, there might be chairs placed all around. As it stands now, only moneyed special interests have any influence at all. Congress has been hamstrung.
I'm pretty far left myself, but returning to a time when Congress can actually get something done might be great for both of the major parties. If Reps take the presidency and congress, let them try their methods and see what happens. The voters would have some control again, and people would be way more likely to work on resolving problems rather than denying them.
This is a really, really important thing we can do. No system is perfect, of course, but we might have something resembling democracy again. If Rep legislation doesn't solve problems, seats will be lost. Same for Dems.
You know, this has really got me thinking. (Thank you!) I think I'll wander over and post something on my blog.
Nice work!
As a person who is left of center but not far left I warned in the Fall of '08 about the centrist pragmatism of Obama and predicted this disenchantment, particularly with those of us who are left of me. The further left the greater the disenchantment. What I DID NOT realize, and think I should have, is that the President would not have the balls to actually lead. But, alas, he has not. Nor did I predict that he would, in spite of his campaign promises, decide to retain the Bush administration's policies of violation of Constitutional rights in the areas of torture, rendition, spying on Americans, basic civil rights violations, etc. So it proves that even one at my age can allow naive hope to overwhelm the truth that some things never change. Power corrupts.
The real purpose of this post is that we CAN show that there really are ways that are much better than what we are doing. There are sensible ways that, even given the stupid Senate rules and traditions, work can get done when people have the intestinal fortitude to get it done.
LBJ took the good ideas of JFK and forced them through the Congress, House and Senate. We got the Civil Rights Bill, the Voting Rights Bill and Medicare and other important legislation passed. I worked on a lot of that legislation when I worked for him in the Executive Office of the President. It can be done.
But, that being said, the chances are slim that it will be done under the current Administration.
Your basic instincts are right. Your cynicism is justified.
Whether this country will ever get beyond the power of the oligarchs is unlikely. There has always been an underclass in this country. But in my life time I have never seen the gap between the haves and the have nots so wide. I have watched the disappearance of the middle class and we are watching the disappearance of the skilled working class as well.
There are lessons to be learned from how we did things well in the past. Those go unheeded.
Politics is the art of the possible. I grew up believing that. Now I am not so sure if it is true. Rather, I think, politics has become the implement of stagnation. Stagnation leads to decay. We are well on our way.
I will not stop pointing out the possible, if for no other reason than to say that it can work, it has worked in the past, and the past can be prologue to the future. Some in younger generations than mine have never seen that happen. Perhaps they never will. I hope that I am wrong about that.
I hope that we can be better at governance than we are now. I hope that we can come to our senses before we kill a once great nation, a true hope for its citizens and a light to the other nations. I choose hope over despair. That may be naive, but it is my nature to hope for the best all the while knowing that the best takes hard work and determination to make it happen. I have grand children and great grand children. I want a better world for them and that is worth the effort to call out the powers that be who are destroying their futures.
Thanks to all of you for sharing your honest feelings about the mess that is Washington.
Monte
Don't expect progress any time soon. monkey fingered.
Good one Monte.
Denese
DINOs won't vote for anything that can be construed as more big govt, and LibDems may well not vote for a bill that looks more like more welfare for insurance companies -- which the Senate bill does.
And if anyone thinks the logjam on healthcare is bad, wait until the time comes ready to fish or cut bait on financial reform -- both sides have all too obviously been bought off there. Yesterday, I watched aghast as a R legislator read off his "position" on the proposed Comcast-NBC merger, and it was so blatantly obvious it had been written by a industry hack, it might as well have been read standing in front of a backdrop bearing the corporate logo.
I am frustrated, I am out of ideas, and I am out of patience. Raising audacious hopes and dashing them is never wise in any endeavor -- least of all politics.
They changed the rules so that one could effectively filibuster without any time limit, you didn't need to hold the floor.
It has been seriously suggested that the Dems should simply take it back to the old rules ... which I would be for.
Then if somebody is going to filibuster then yes, exactly, they get to stand their for a long time making an ass of themselves in the eyes of everybody but their diehard supporters and eventually it is over, and for a major big deal like healthcare reform ... you can wait it out.
But If Reid calls for cloture the Republicans would have to come to the floor, and then vote. Prior to the vote they would have the opportunity to explain their reasons. If they chose not to the Majority Leader could call them out. If they chose to just be silent then the press would have a field day with that tactic.
Further, they would have to have at least 41 Senators physically come to the floor and be physically present to vote. Whether or not they could muster that is anyone's guess. And, yes, the Democrats would need to keep all 59 in its coalition in order and bring them to the floor, plus one Republican to get cloture. But cloture is not the goal so much as to begin to build a track record of recorded votes showing clearly that the majority will of the Senate is to pass the legislation.
If the Leader called the entire senate into session every time a procedural filibuster was invoked it would not be long before it was clear who the obstructionists were, who had the majority votes and how the minority holding up the entire Congress hostage. If that seems "obvious" to us, it is not obvious to many people in the country who only hear sound bites about what is going on in DC.
Or, there is always the "nuclear option." I see nothing to be gained by not using it. Here is the Wikipedia note on it:
"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."
Finally, I do realize that your comment makes me realize that I could have been clearer when I said "Why does he [Reid] not call for cloture and let the Republicans talk it to death?" and "Let the Republicans stand up and defend why they are holding up all legislation and all activity in the Senate, rather than seeking compromise to get important legislation passed."
That standing up and defending need not be in formal Senate session although the Democrats should try to goad them into explaining their position on the floor. The key is to force explanation of why the Senate is totally bogged down by the minority.
So thanks for helping me by forcing me to clarify.
Monte
He is a Bilderberg/New World Order fascist, if not by membership, then by personality. Mayor Daley is a fascist by the same terms. I know Chicago like the "back-o-me hand." You begin to know a man by the company he keeps and Obama is afraid of anything which might mar his chances at Dynastic Wealth and Life long celebrity.
He and his close ups are moral cowards. He is attached to Bush at the Skull and hip, and more attached to the enemies of all Wo/Men of God, the corporations which gave him most of his $750 million in campaign funds. A man who refuses to try ti indict war criminals is as guilty as are they. I had no choice but to vote for him but would have preferred Al Sharpton, who is fearless, or Jesse Jackson who is more persistent, or Edwards, or Spitzer.
I would not trust him any further than I could throw Yankee Stadium.
I worked in the TX Senate in college and I will never forget Senator Craig Washington from Houston's 4th ward preparing for actual filibuster, colostomy bag and all....it's very different from this procedural nonsense, for sure!
Monte