They think they can get away with it
By Steve Benen Monday Jul 09, 2007 1:02pmKevin ponders a thought I’ve been thinking about for a while.
I wonder how many Americans understand that you can’t pass legislation in America with 50% of the votes in Congress? How many of them understand that, outside of budget resolutions, you need 60 votes in the Senate? That a filibuster isn’t a matter of Jimmy Stewart talking himself ragged for hours on end, but of merely declaring an intention to filibuster? And that this is done for all but the most routine matters? With the result that the 60-vote minimum is no longer reserved for occasional high-profile issues, but has been institutionalized for virtually all legislation of any consequence?
I figure maybe 2%.
It’s why I think Dems really need to focus on exposing the Republicans’ drive to block everything that moves. Voters hear Dems vow to tackle various legislative proposals, and then they hear that the bill failed. As far as Americans know, there’s a Democratic House and a Democratic Congress — why couldn’t they pass the legislation they said they’d pass?
Senate Republicans, in the most cynical part of all of this, are basing their strategy on the notion that voters won’t know better. They’re counting on public ignorance and confusion to conceal their tactics.
The GOP has created a mess in the Senate. Dems need to make an effort to help expose those responsible.
Login or Register to post comments.
block everything that moves or is it ,tackle?
Get serious, CB. The GOP bases everything they do on "public ignorance and confusion to conceal their tactics."
And it works.
"The GOP has created a mess in the Senate. Dems need to make an effort to help expose those responsible."
But but but...the GOP is the red white and blue party. The flag! Betsy Ross! Marriage! Birth! Babies!
Of course, that's only when they're not obstructing government or getting their rocks off with pale young boys or prostitutes.
Too late. The idiot American public has already been hit with endless GOP talking points about "tax-and-spend liberals" and "Democratic obstructionists."
And as we all know, repeat something enough times and the morons in this country will simply accept it as the truth.
Trust me...by the 2008 elections, American idiots will believe the GOP is all about: getting our brave boys back from Iraq...balancing the budget and limiting spending....and protecting our environment for future generations.
Hells yeah! They want us ignorant! Look at the public school system!
Pray tell; how is this any different when the Repigs were in control and we
Dems were(voting wise) in the minority in both House and Senate?
You're dead on. Every obstructionist move should be highlighted.
As far as the threat of fillibuster goes, what happens if they are forced to actually do it each time, as opposed to just a threat? What happens when a fillibuster is forced, each time they wish to obstruct legislation? Wouldn't this serve to show who is actually stalling congress?
High school civics classes need to make a comeback.
Doggiebobo @ 6:
A Republican executive branch to back them up?
No!
Wasting your time trying to expose them when the media spin doctors are just waiting to screw you is futile at best. You have to play hard ball when the other side does this. The only thing a 51% majority can do is bring a certain worded bill to the floor for a vote. Stop bringing them to the floor. If you want to heat up the discussion get the public screaming and the only way you can get them all screaming is to stop bringing funding bills of any kind to the floor.
Just listen to wingnut radio for awhile, it's clear at least their listeners don't have a clue how anything works. They depend on the likes of limpballs and shamity to tell them what to think.
Harry Reid talked about this just recently. Sadly the only place I saw this was on C-span.
Boring question alert : to cut off debate or invoke cloture takes 60 votes, and that's what's required to end a filibuster. Why don't the democrats give them a couple days before taking a cloture vote? Let ted stevens or someone else stand there obstructing raising the minimum wage, talking themselves hoarse, and we'll bomb their district with ads saying as much, with the wackier filibuster moments. Am I right? You need 60 votes to END a filibuster, but if you just wanna prove that republicans are obstructing everything, why not just let them filibuster for a while? (PS i understand this doesn't do anything to move legislation forward, but it would expose repub's for blocking everything, particularly the popular stuff. then we'd all see who was keeping congress from accomplishing anything, and the public would be appalled)
Bonkers @ 10:
Then do as #8 above indicates...FORCE a fillibuster, which I think in many cases
is all "puff and blowing" by the Repigs...and then send the Bill/Law to bush-lite
and let him Veto...That way the public knows exactly where the road-blocks are\
w/respect to legislation.
Thanks for posting this Steve. I've been getting alternatively amused and frustrated with the number of posters on C&L who seem to think that the only thing standing between them and what they want (impeachment, immediate troop withdrawals, an end to world hunger and a big slice of pie-in-the-sky) is the Democrats.
I'm also amused that some of the above posters have posted other comments on C&L attacking the Democrats for not immediately reversing Republican policies, yet are now suddenly willing to concede that the problem is misinformation (or lack of information) about how the U.S. government works. Does that mean we'll see less "Harry Reid lacks courage" or "Nancy Pelosi is a coward" posts? I doubt it. Ignorance is bliss.
No one is forcing themselves on me! I protest! I have rights. I'll call the police!
Just so no one misses it, I just read over at Kos that Michael Moore will be on Wolf's show again today. Perhaps Dr. Gupta (sp?) too.
I think the point of this blog post is one of the main theme's in Al Gore's book, "They’re counting on public ignorance and confusion to conceal their tactics."
"Expose The Obstructionists"
Please sign the petition!
Maybe they know their own supporters are ignorant so they think Democrat supporters are too. We have to prove we sure as hell aren't.
Bonkers @ 5:
Excellent point Bonkers. There's a reason most school districts are drawn up around socio-economic borders, but money doesn't necessarily buy intelligence. It's the overall quality of subject matter that school boards must decide upon, and that's what we have as a gap between typical American schools vs. other countries. I've found that the more money a district brings in thru tax dollars, the more administrators, facilities, athletic programs and elective courses they end up with but not necessarily a stronger, more comprehensive core curriculum.
Yes, the Democrats can not pass anything they like in the Senate. But neither can the Republicans.
Yet, there is Reid trying his best to make deals with Bush to pass immigration reform, fund the war, etc.
If the Democrats were one-tenth as savvy as the Republicans they would have realized long ago that they can defund this war, and stop the Bush assault on the Constitution, simply by being as obstinate as the Republicans.
For JoshZ: that's not the way filibusters work in reality. No one is up on the floor talking. The modern filibuster is really just a vote that ends debate. In other words, the only way a bill actually gets presented for a vote in the Senate is if at least 60 Senators vote to say "enough of talking let's vote". Without 60 people willing to vote, nothing gets voted on.
This is exactly what I have been saying. Sadly I've seen too many falling for it. I wrote letters months ago telling them they have to speak up and let it be known what the republicans are doing because the msm surely won't.
There is a key flip-side to this that is too often ignored. Bush needs 51% in the House, 60% in the Senate, to get what he wants/needs. It's why Pelosi's whining about not having enough votes (yet) to stop the Iraq War rings hollow. Without Pelosi's help, Bush could not have gotten the "no strings" funding for the War which the Democrats so recently gave him.
When I hear the "we just didn't have the votes" excuse, I really wish someone, anyone, would point out that Bush didn't have the votes either (without Democratic help). The default drive is not funding for the War; it is de-funding.
I'm afraid this won't work until virtually ALL of the Democrats are on the same page. Also, the Dems have been soft on Bush lately, seemingly fearful of doing what so many of us demand they should do...namely start impeachment proceedings. I understand that "the votes aren't there", but the Dems should learn something from the Gingrich days: tie up Congress, dragging the government to a halt, until the administration complies with their demands. It's not about winning, it's about selling an image and idea to the half-educated voters. It's about controlling the definition of the debate. There are so many places to attack the administration...wiretaps, the war, the lies, Alberto, Rumsfeld, etc. etc. PARALYZE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and damn the torpedos.
HKH @ 23,
Just read your post - jinx. I agree completely.
Acording to fillibuster rules, they are permitted to discuss any topic they desire, and I'm sure they can stray pretty far from the subjects at hand. Wouldn't it be great to get some tough talking Senator (Stevens would be awesome), bloviating about some random-ass subject (home renovations or the intertubes maybe) on the floor of the Senate, trying to block passage of a bill to ensure proper troop rest after deployment? What could be better material for use against them during election time?
so tell me again - why are we still funding bush's iraq occupation?
If it is so easy for republicans to totally bog down the Senate so that nothing passes, why the hell didn't the Dems obstruct each and every heinous piece of legislation the GOP forced down our throats for 4 years? WTF?????????
Just so no one misses it, I just read over at Kos that Michael Moore will be on Wolf’s show again today. Perhaps Dr. Gupta (sp?) too.
i just received an e-mail from moore, he and the dr. will be with larry king tonight. also he'll be rerun on jon stewart tonight.
Well said, well said. If they call the bluff on some of these filibusters, and a bluff is all it is, that tactic will be used much less.
For those Congressional Dems obsessed with what the GOP think, they will respect Dems more if Dems play tougher. If they can push Dems around, they respect Dems less.
Yeah, I agree. I can't hold the Democrats responsible for not changing the world with 49 Rep votes in the Senate and a Republican veto, but I think it's an easy conclusion to jump to after their shameful performance in the minority. For 6 years, any bill comes up with the word "patriotism" in the title a few months before an election and Democrats are pushing each other out of the way trying to vote for it.
That said, they could be moving quicker on Habeas and correcting some Sup Ct. decisions. I hope the slow pace is the product of an effort to gain support and come up with something that will pass, not the byproduct of a desire to stay photogenic and on the news. We can have hearings and write laws at the same time, can't we?
A lot of people on this site don't seem to know this, when both conservatives and liberals fault the new Democratic Congress for not having the votes for various bills and resolutions we want.
I believe it's a mistake to buy into the idea of a "divided America". It's a media and political tool used to manipulate us. I've followed "reality" politics since 9-11, often having to go directly to legislation or other sources for the truth.
The truth about the difference between Republicans and Democrats: It doesn't have to be dark for you to have trouble telling the difference between them.
Unfortunately, the candidate differences seem to be personal rather than party related. "Unfortunately" because it makes it harder to keep tabs on important issues.
The good news is that we have a few real good ones.
My advice? If an issue is important to you, go to Project Votesmart and look it up. Some candidates say one thing and do quite another. Isn't that lying?
Just to protect ourselves, Americans need to stay united.
Power to the People, as they say.
30 Dave -
You're absolutely right my friend...the Democrats could have done just that...but they didn't...now they want to whine about the GOP doing what they SHOULD have done...Just listen to Mike Gravel...he's a little all over some times, but as he rightfully said, he knows tactics and the leadership of this Congress is pathetic when it comes to tactics...The Dems can fillubuster as well...the whole thing stinks...
Reid was just on CNN trying to explain what is going on but CNN didn't have time to cover the whole interview. Jeez, they have time for all the dip shit stories but not this one?
Fiver--you weren't just a runt in the weight dept. You may have been oxygen-starved as well, or you could read here, clear as day, why you're wrong. Did I just feed a troll? Sorry, eat s--t are die, troll. Is that better? (Oh, the reference is to 'Watership Down', where the runt Fiver was a smartie. Here, not so much.)
But seriously, the post's point is terribly important. I certainly had no great appreciation for the 60% closure rule in the senate, and was buoyed by the wonderful 100 first hours of the House. It must be made clear that an absolute majority of one just won't be enough for passing legislation, however important it is for committee leadership and sub poena power. It's a structural impediment to miracles, and hardly Pelosi's fault (what can she do except be as chagrined as the rest of us?)
selise @ 29:
Because there are 50 Dems, 1 Independent(LIE-berman, who we cannot rely upon)
and maybe 5 Repigs who will cross the aisle...leaving us at least 5 short of the 60 needed.
Dave @ 30:
Remember the Newkewler option the Dems had hanging over their heads whenever that word was mentioned.?.. I just wish there was a beligerant Dem to make the same type of threat back to them now that the shoe is on the other foot, but that wouldn't be becomming of a good, Distinguished Dem, would it?
Now wait just a god damn minute, I have been saying the same thing for months on this site every time one of the posters and or commenter's posted something in the vain of "Democrats are just as bad or worse than the Republicans". I can't count how many times I have posted that so many people on this blog think that Democrats have all the power they need to do what ever they want just not the will. Suddenly this comes a news to some of you???? How many times have I complained that the Reich Wing loves it when you bash Democrats. By Constantly bad mouthing the Democrats and promoting some nonviable 3rd party strengthen the Republicans. I am waiting to see Steve Benen's post get shot down like many of you have treated mine.
Harry needs to force them into a traditional filibuster and make them keep voting for the same item until they give it up. Nothing else on the agenda but Iraq and make the rethugs keep voting no over and over and over again. And highlight those votes everyday. Make the Rs stand up and talk and justify the votes Every. G*d. D*mned. Day.
from 38, editing for typos. Sorry.
Fiver--you weren't just a runt in the weight dept. You may have been oxygen-starved as well, or you could read here, clear as day, why you're wrong. Did I just feed a troll? Sorry, eat s--t and die, troll. Is that better? (Oh, the reference is to 'Watership Down', where the runt Fiver was a smartie. Here, not so much.)
But seriously, the post's point is terribly important. I certainly had no great appreciation for the 60% cloture rule in the senate, and was buoyed by the wonderful 100 first hours of the House. It must be made clear that an absolute majority of one just won't be enough for passing legislation, however important it is for committee leadership and sub poena power. It's a structural impediment to miracles, and hardly Pelosi's fault (what can she do except be as chagrined as the rest of us?)
um...in 02 the GOP had 51 seats in the Senate and in 04 55 seats, not 60...got stuff done...facts are facts...the Democrats rolled over like dogs, are still rolling like dogs...and they need to be taken out to the woodshed for it...oh yeah, and why is Lieberman in there? well, i dont recall harry reid going out of his way for ned lamont...
Sam's Uncle @ 40:
Same thought exactly. Why aren't Reid and Pelosi up there threatening the nuclear option? What, think that now that the Dems are in charge, the people will care any more than they did then? Hardly.
I've been furious that despite the election, the Dems are letting the Repugs run the show. The only place the Dems are making any headway is investigations, and even there they are looking like wimps before darth cheney.
The Democrats will never win the argument until they fight on the same level as the repugs. Sure, then they'll be accused of stooping to the repug level, but maybe if they showed a spine, they'd get more respect and could avoid being put in the same situation, time and again.
I live in Pelosi's district, and I'm sending her a concrete message: get off your ass and impeach, or I'm voting for Cindy -- and if she doesn't run, or loses the primary or whatever, my choice is easy:
no impeachment=no vote!
VJB,
Not really sure how much more simple I can make this: Bush doesn't get the funding he needs for his war unless he has the votes; unless the Dems play along he can't get the votes and this war is de-funded.
BTW - not really sure how many RW trolls are as vehemently against this war as I am, but, what the heck, I must be brain damaged to disagree with you.
so what can we do? Lets expose them !!!!
This is exactly why when Cindy Sheehan "threatens" to run against Nancy Pelosi to get the Dems to 'do something' it only serves the GOP agenda. FUX News is only too happy to give air time for shit like this.
What's sad is we the those pesky little bloggers seem to know the Dems need to do this, but they don't.
let me RUN A FRIGGING CAMPAIGN, AND THE TROOPS WILL BE HOME, MINIMUM WAGE WILL BE UP AND YOU ALL WILL HAVE HEALTH CARE YOU CAN AFFORD!
I watch the MSNBC shows. They always quote polls saying that the public is unhappy with congress. But they always say its about the Democrats. The dem strategists just sit there and let it pass. They should pipe up and say that it includes the Republicans who are fighting tooth and nail to halt all progress and to keep us in Iraq for their glorious leader.
I also agree that Dems should press ever issue to the wall ( the votes be damned) and force the Republicans to show their colors. Make America see that the dems are trying and the reps are fighting for more of the same.
Dems need to revive that old Republican line of "Give it up or down vote."
Yet another example of Republican hypocrisy...
notreallyabadguy @ 50:
KO is the only one who gives us the straight poop.
As usual,where is the media in all of this?
Sorry, but Dems are being outgunned and outplayed. They have a sorry record of backroom deals collaborating with the GOP (like shutting down debate on important measures, and like failing to vet SCOTUS nominees in the face of WH stonewalling). These actions, intended to score valuable stuff like promises not being slapped around so hard publicly by the GOP and their friendly corporate media, never pan out. The magic beans don't even get up a decent fart.
And the Dems wonder why the empty photo ops they have after the fact, pretending they made an effort to oppose rather than give the Rethugs everything they wanted without leverage or a fight, make the loyal opposition look like gladhanding spineless hired sparring partners rather than leadership to take seriously.
Dr. Acula @ 52:
Lately, David Shuster as well.
fiver @ 55:
Good point. I was actually very surprised that he's an (R).
No, this is why the Dems need to push for impeachment. so what if they aren't convicted? You could still do a real investigation and expose them. Clinton wasn't convicted but the Democrats still haven't recovered from his impeachment.
See Yahoo News....Outgoing Surgeon General has blasted the W/H and administration.
Will the Dems stand up and fight the appointment by bush of James Holsinger; another
of those politcal hacks in bush's camp who is NOT qualified to serve as our Surgeon Gen.??
It's so weird to read city news and see all the crap that's going on in this country. Then you read the headlines and it's just a bunch of political wrangling that has nothing to do with the real world. I think the Dems are just poor leaders at this point. They're still running scared of the Cons and the Corps. It makes me wonder what really is going on in this country.
Doggiebobo @ 6:
yes, I'd like to have an explanation of that, too.
Invoke the nuclear option. There's no reason not to do it since we know from experience that it only ties our own hands and that the moment the Republicans are in the majority they will abolish the filibuster. Since it's doomed to extinction, we might as well be the ones to put a bullet through its head and at least enjoy the advantages while we're the majority.
Think about it, the Republican leadership were willing to go nuclear over judicial appointments; ours is unwilling to do it even to end the war and save the lives of thousands of brave American soldiers.
And yet a Republican majority of less then 60 votes were able to pass most of what they wanted to 1994-2000. hmmmmmm........
Has anyone considered that we would have better government if we only pass things that 60% of us agree on compared to things 51% of us agree on? It's not obstructionism, it's consensus building. The Dems should have had more of a spine when it came to Alito and the Military Commissions Act and other bullshit.
There are issues like the minimum wage and environmental protection that better than 80% of the public support. Write simple bills that address these things and if the Republicans obstruct them, beat the hell out of them in the elections.
Defunding the war, or even rescinding the authorization is a blunt instrument. We need a better strategy in Iraq (along the lines of Murtha's) but we can not get that with defunding. All we can get is all or none. Dems have to do better at pointing this out to the American people.
2% of Americans knowing (or caring) anything about American government is overly optimistic.
If it isn't on American Idol or doesn't go around and around a track at 150 mph, it doesn't interest most citizens at all.
And they vote - because if they don't those Godless Democrats will sneak in and force everyone to marry someone of the same sex after having an abortion and giving up all their guns. Besides, the pastor said to.
Doggiebobo @ 58:
They'll fight it in the media and then when it comes time to vote just enough of them(who aren't up for election in 08) will roll over.
Keep it simple stupid.
Think about this, please. Does any one remember this?
You can't get involved in a long winded expose or debate with the media the way it is. A lot of the public do not have the opportunity to keep up or are just plain stupid. If big black letters in the news say the dems have shut down the government, the best you can hope for from the public is to ask why. Then you need to say something real simple like the crooks in the white house are killing your kids. That is why we did this. Anything more and you have lost them again.
fiver @ 46. I may have been a little too quick interpreting your intent. I was thinking of the default of not having a cloture 60% allowing a Bush win in legislation. Please forgive.
Doggiebobo @ 39:
uh. no. republicans need 60 votes to continue funding bush's iraq occupation. the dems, if they had 40 votes to end the occupation, could say that they were going to stop funding the occupation after a specific date (say march, 2008 - what ever date you like).
the dems didn't do that. they gave bush what he wanted to continue the occupation. AND THEY ONLY NEED 40 VOTES TO STOP IT. if they want to stop it.
the 60 vote thingie ought to work both ways.
Yes, the American people are ignorant and do not want to know. That is why through passive indiference we have a "benevolent" Corporate Fascist State in this country. By benevolent I mean they try to keep of fat and happy so we continue work and spend like we were actually involved in any of the real decisions in our lives. Sort like range hen instead of cage hens, we are going to be supper at some time in the future.
When the Senate went Republican the nitwits online were all fluffed up because they thought things would change. Silly Wabbits. Change is a word that is used and never really meant in Washington, D.C. I explained that it took 60 votes to do pretty much anythjng in the Senate. The screaming ninnies cried that I did not know what I was talking about. Well I guess now - how many years later people are finally figuring it out. Too bad we are already inside the fence and the gate pretty much closed. Is that the dinner bell I Hear?
More relivant (to reality) is that with in the Dem party there are republican lights.
The 2 or 3 best Democrats are reall quite alone in a sea of miserable sell out mediocre, corperatists ass clowns.
So not only does it take 60 votes, but the 'mid course' crowd is 80% of the members...
And the middle today is almost the fringe right of yesteryear...
So that we continue to look toward a system created and set in place to protect the privaledged class - To perpetuate the golden rule:
Those with the gold make the rules...
So that we continue to patition the sell outs, continue to ask and beg for HEATH CARE, BETTER EVIORMENTAL POLICIES, A DECENT WAY TO MAKE A HEALTY AND COMFORTABLE LIVING...
That we have to ask for air to breath, water to drink...
That we have to ask (politly??) if they can end this ILLIGAL IMORAL WAR - A war that is strangling our nations future with debt, killing hundreds of inocent woman children and men accross the middle East...
That we have to ask, beg, and protest for simple common sense - For what is so hoplessly obvious to most if not all...
Indicates that we have some issues.
That we keep looking to a system that has shown us time and time again that it is out of control - That it is inhuman and imoral at its base, root and stem...
Well it is sad and comical at the same time.
Like dyfuntional children asking the abusive parents to please stop hitting me, please stop raping me...
Revolution will one day win out over sad misguided reform attempts...
The relivance of much of what is covered on these types of 'liberal' blogs will one day be shown as a distraction not different from NASCAR.
True CHANGE is what we need - And the longer we shy from that, the longer we let those in power remain to solidify thier strangle hold on our political system, to continue to wring profits for themselves from the earth and her peoples...Distroying and disposing and despoiling what they choose with out regard...
It will not become easier as we wait and bitch about the 'leaders' of this system of exploitation, misery and death.
Wake up, smell the coffee - A few more Dems wont help.
We need to take our freedom - It is never a thing 'given' and we need to cast off the illusion of 'democracy' under capitolism.
Or we could all go to a NASCAR race instead I guess...
selise @ 68:
VJB @ 67:
No sweat. I used to have the same problem with Hawkbit. :)
Doggiebobo @ 71:
thanks for the reply. my frustration with congress - not anyone here.
They think they can get away with it
They ARE getting away with everything!
Ellie @ 54:
^^^^
Co sign
I also think to myself why did'nt the dems do the same to the repubs during this patriot act???
I can't help but suspect that our corporatist Congressional senior leadership is quite content with the Republican obstructionism. It gives them the perfect excuse to indulge in impotent hand-wringing and lame excuse making. They aren't calling attention to the Thug's tactics because those tactics are serving their own interests - which, is serving their corporate masters.
kaT @ 60:
Repub propaganda and a compliant media....GOP was extremely effective (with far less justification) in doing precisely what Steve Benen suggests: exposing the efforts and ability of the minority party to frustrate legislative proposals of the majority. Every time the Repubs weren't able to get a vote on a nominee or a bill, they flooded the media with the "Democratic obstructionism" message.
(Sorry about the backslashes...couldn't figure out how to erase them.)
Okay, here's what you do...and it takes money, so we'll see if it actually gets done.
Cut some PSA's regarding the GOPs backtracking on their 'we hate filibusters' campaign in the early 2000s...now, this will only really be seen an acknowledged by liberals and liberal PACs...which is fine, and only step one.
Step two is to cut a commercial regarding the GOP's bitching about an 'up or down vote' regarding federal judges. The best time to air them would be late at night on NBC...specifically during 'Poker After Dark', cause poker players (who are mostly republican) and seething mad about the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) which DID get an up-or-down vote and failed (actually, it got two). Bill Frist and company put it as a rider into a bill that couldnt lose (the SAFE Ports Act).
By the way, it turns out that Democrats arent the only ones who dont like their rights infringed upon.
It`s really not too tough. Reid needs to do what Frist did.
Schedule cloture votes and force the Republicans to publicly go on record voting to block the most important and popular bills and amendments.
Then the 527 groups can keep the score cards and start busting them over the head with it at the end of each quarterly fundraising push.
For example, Webb`s amendment should go to the floor regardless of the cloture outcome. Let `em stand on the floor and argue in front of the cameras to deny rest and retraining to exhausted troops on extended the deployments. Maybe Norm Coleman will be dumb enough to take the bait.
"Senate Republicans, in the most cynical part of all of this, are basing their strategy on the notion that voters won’t know better. They’re counting on public ignorance and confusion to conceal their tactics."
Hey, it's worked for the last 6 years. Why ruin a brilliant strategy? I have to say they are right on this issue. Americans are apathetic.
OK, some facts about filibusters and cloture.
Despite what movies portray (Henry Fonda in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, others), it rarely results in the opposing party literally filibustering (speaking on the Senate floor) for hours on end. There are other procedures that mimic the filibuster. Basically, asking for more time to consider (not debate) the bill over and over again - almost indefinitely. Only way to stop McConnel asking for extensions is to go to a cloture vote. BTW, he is doing just that on a bill that has passed both chambers to implement the 9-11 security recommendations. Couldn't even get 40 Repubs to cloture during the Senate vote, but he is using just that tactic to keep it (forever) in the committee that is supposed to resolve the House & Senate versions (both passed).
The Cloture vote is Senate Rule XXII (see: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.php). A good overall explanation is here: http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/Senate%20Rules%20on%20Filibu...
So, why not change the Senate Rules? That takes a 2/3 vote as well. Unlike the House, Senate rules stay in effect from one session to the next (considered an ongoing body). This is why the Repubs didn't eliminate cloture in the two previous sessions. They couldn't rewrite Rule 22 without 67 votes.
So what was all the talk about the "nuclear option" back then? Best as I can figure it, the Repubs in the last session threatened to make things really tough on the Dems if they dared to use the cloture maneuver. Could they have really eliminated cloture without 67 votes? No but, as usual, the Senate Dems cowered and almost never used the cloture in the last Senate. Could the Repubs have "shut down" the last Senate, ala Gingrich, and gotten the MSM to paint the Dems as unpatriotic obstructionists? Yeah, probably, or at least that was the threat.
David Mamet summed it up for me when he said the Dems were like a poker player that always folded their hands and never called an opponent's bluff.
Zero-Budget Line Items In Committee-Reporetd BIlls
Solution to the "threat of a filibuster to stop a bill" is to include in the bill the zero-dollar amounts. Let the GOP filibuster. If they want the President to get any money, they can't block the required Amendment to add money to the zero.
Use Amendments To Add Money From Zero
Stop using Amendments to "cut down" the money; require the opposite: use Amendments to build the budget from zero to something else. If the GOP blocks the Amendment, filibusters it, or refuses to cooperate with the Conference report the President gets no money.
If President, or GOP Block An Amendment, They Get No Money
Please encourage your Members of Congress to use the Committee reviews to zero-out budget items. Start from noting. Use Amendments to build up. This ensures the President gets nothing unless he and the GOP cooperate.
Boo Hoo
More on the "Nuclear Option:"
Its just my opinion that the Repubs of the last Senate were primarily bluffing. Technically, the threat was that a simple majority (51+ Republicans) vote in a new Rule 22, that eliminates cloture and also the need for 67 votes to change existing rules. Sounds straightforward enough, but it then opens a can of worms regarding whether or not a new Senate has to abide by any of the rules of the last Senate. Hell, they could make new committees that only had majority representation, eliminate other committees & oversight, change how resolutions get authored - almost anything they want if there wasn't a baseline of rules from one session to the next.
So what would stop those Repubs (or the current Dem Senate) from voting in new rules, and ignoring old existing rules? Possibly the Constitution. One amendment says each chamber can make their own rules by a majority. But the Constitution also sets a precedence of needing a supermajority to change existing rules (3/4 states vote for amendment; 2/3 Senate vote to impeach), plus the Senate has pretty much always acted as an "ongoing" body - letting previous Senates put in rules that will remain in effect for future sessions. Even the Federalist Papers (#63) discuss the need for the Senate to have a "sufficient permanency."
So, what if the Repubs had decided "fuck it, no previous rules apply," and 200+ years of precedence/tradition don't really apply either? Likely have gone to Supreme Court, but if they had allowed it to go through, then the repercussions would have been that anything in the Senate functioning (other than explicitly stated in the Constitution) could change from one moment to the next (even within a two year session), based on the latest vote for that day. Sort of like kicking over the table and chess board and starting over with a brand new made-up game. Hence the "nuclear" aspect of it. It would have been far worse than the Gingrich shut down of the House in the 90s.
You can get really esoteric as to constitutionality issues, whether a current legislative body can make rules that commit future sessions, etc. If you like that here's another discussion of that: http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/Senate%20Filibuster%20Part%2...
IMO, it was a total asshole move and (likely) bluff by the Republicans. But it worked and kept the Dems pretty much in line. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, Dems will be reasonable and Repubs will use every legislative/obstructionist trick available to them. As others have pointed out, the MSM will not call out the Repubs on this. Without the MSM it is too complicated for most voters to understand and/or care about.
Nancy and Harry can't get passage as they haven't offered the type of bills that would persuade enough Repubs to vote with them. What happened to Medicare, SS, and at least a dialouge on healthcare coverage for all?
we need only 33 or 34 votes of the states to ratify an amendment to the constitution
what would America agree upon? I would bet the people would vote for Universal health care for all, free, and paid for by our taxes. What do you think everyone would agree with?
mark @ 11:
There is no 51% majority.
Lieberman is not a Democrat - he is a DINO who has voted with the Republicans on most issues.
They think they can get away with it..........
Because of the vast number of American citizens who they know are absolute fucking morons !!!
Wait a minute....we were supposed to have a majority of Democrats in office...who are the dirty double-dealing dogs who got elected on a Democratic ticket when they were secretly republican? If we had a full majority, how can that BE??? I know Kansas's Democrat is a dirty she-dog, but there still should have been enough to get legislation passed. I want to know WHICH Democrat rammed up our behinds while we weren't looking....I'll criticize ANY crook, wheter they be republican, OR ESPECIALLY Democrat! ALL of them should be held accountable for their crooked works...
Just think what could happen with a president, say Ron Paul, who would veto any unconstitutional bill that came out of the bowels of congress. Yowza! Since 95% of those bills are blatantly unconstitutional, they'd have to get a 2/3 majority in both the House AND Senate to pass nearly anything. The mind boggles. If only we could be so lucky!
How is what the Republicans are doing any different than what the Democrats were doing when they were the minority party?? Both parties will continue to abuse the system ad infinitum unless somehow the rules are changed.
Login or Register to post comments.