2% is generous. Dems should precede all rebuttals of White House critisms of do-nothing Congress with a short statement of that civics lesson.

Gosh, I thought the Republicans had long ago guaranteed a "straight up or down vote" on everything.

What's stopping the leadership from making the Senators who threaten filibuster actually perform it? The Republicans won't pass cloture on an Iraq War resolution, fine. Let's discuss it from now until eternity. Let them say why they won't vote for cloture. See if you can get it on the lead of the 11:00 news.

Those Congressional rules have been around for some time. Perhaps there is a downside to treating the opposition as if they were mortal enemies and criminals?

I've heard a suggestion that, the next time the Senate Republicans choose to obstruct legislation by threatening to filibuster, Reid actually forces them to do so...If a group of politicians are that passionate about preventing a piece of legislation from passing, then they should be willing to work for that outcome.

Two percent? Yeah, that sounds about right...Would be interesting to see how that breaks down demographically...

Yup, the Dem leadership in BOTH houses should be on the steps of Congress on a daily basis, proclaiming that they are NOT being allowed to do what the electorate sent them to do Because of the Republicans. Say it often, say it simply, say it loudly, say in in English, "southern", and Spanish.

Just FUCKIN' say it!!!!!!

And how many realize that we could stop the war if we could get just 41 Senators to filibuster the funding legislation?

Trashhauler: Perhaps there is a downside to treating the opposition as if they were mortal enemies and criminals?

Oh, absolutely. And who started that tradition? Hint: The ones that started it pretend to be driven by divine law, which automatically makes their opponents evil.

What's a filibuster?

How many realize that the Democrats have to pick off 10 Republicans before the President has an opportunity to veto? More importantly why don't we hear Democrats screaming "up or down vote?" Do the Republicans own the copyright?

So why don't Democrats insist on requiring an actual standing filibuster. Then the public could see the bloviating Republican's obstruction first hand as the Senate grinds to a halt. Why acquiesce in this faux gentleman's agreement that allows Republicans to hide their obstinance.

All true. Yet we are living today with a lot of crap that happened during the 4 to 6 years of Republican rule in the senate because the Dems failed to muster the 40+ votes to stop them.

Does anyone doubt for a minute, if the shoe were on the other foot, that Rs would block a couple of Supreme Court appointments if they were radical-left equivalents of Roberts and Alito? Yet a good number of Dems went along out of some misguided sense of deference to the executive, and now the country will suffer for the next 30 years.

If the country doesn't understand that it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the senate, they might be asking, Then how did the Republicans do it?

Coming out of Sicko over the weekend, my dad, with 30+ years in local government and a graduate degree in public administration, expressed frustration that the Democrats weren't passing their agenda. I had to tell him about the R's filibusters of everything nowadays.

So, 2% might be generous.

Yeah the whole 'up-or-down' vote argument worked so well in 2006 the Republicans gained seats in the Senate!!

Why do you hate the Willet Creek Dam project, Kevin?

There are some disturbing things coming over the transom about Jefferson Smith and his "Boy Rangers," if you know what I mean.

My guess is that the GOP were against the filibuster before they were for it.

The reason Senate majorities don't regularly make Senators enforce their filibuster threat is because making a Senator filibuster doesn't only test the resolve of, and make it hard on, that one Senator (or handful of Senators). It also means that the majority has to keep 51 Senators there, or at least nearby, the whole time. Which is a much harder and a politically tougher job than the job of the filbusterer. In short, the filibusterer has the procedural advantage.

As far as 2 percent understanding the minoritarian nature of the Senate, they certainly have had plenty of time to learn this fact. The cloture rule has been around since 1917. Before that, there was NO way to limit debate. So this is not exactly new. Those who have pointed out above that what has changed is the partisanship, are exactly correct. The rules are the same they have always been.

Why isn't the press (and the blogosphere) demanding that McCain (as well as several other GOPers), who supported the conspiracy against the filibuster when the GOP was in charge, speak out against his fellow GOPers who are delaying votes by use of the filibuster?

Indeed, why isn't every GOP presidential candidate being asked to comment on and state what they intend to do about Senate filibusters by the GOP?

You sell us short!

75%

Given the inability of the Democrats to filibuster very much during the first six years of the Bush administration, I get the idea that managing to filibuster can be pretty difficult.

So, Kevin, how do you explain the apparent ability of the Republicans to muster filibusters when the Democrats found it so difficult?

It's no wonder if there is some confusion.

The Democrats never blocked anything so it made it look like you only needed a simple majority in the Senate.

And now the Democrats aren't using Republicn obstruction to build political support. It makes them look as if they actually agree with the Republicans but want to appear to be in opposition.

It's very disenheartening.

2% may be high. I've never had a single student in my Intro to American Government class (admittedly they are youngsters, but at least with a passing interest in politics) have a clue about this-- at least until I taught them. Whatever, the figure is, there's 1000 or so people out there who know about this thanks to me :-).

I think the number could be as high as 3%.

The filibuster sure has become perfidious now that Dems have the Senate majority. I seem to remember that it used to be a bastion of democracy before the '06 election.

I'm always impressed by the people who write and comment on the progressive blogs I read -- how smart, informed, articulate, and resourceful they are. Much more so than I am.

But why is that those brains and resoucefulness are not used to reach out to the people who 1) don't have computers and 2) believe -- because they've never been informed otherwise -- that "getting the news" means listening to talk radio?

There are ways to reach us rednecks (even if you don't speak "southern".) Billboards, local ads that advertise local meetings (Meetups for those without computers), leafleting neighborhoods, freeway signs, etc. And more and better ideas could come from the creative people who write and comment on blogs -- if they cared about the uninformed of us out there. But it seems like it's much easier to treat us with contempt, than try to help inform....

A side benefit of this kind of contact might be that the bloggers who do hold us non-internet-savvy folks in contempt, might figure out that that opinion is facile, hasty and ill-informed. And the folks they judge to be inferior are often generous, friendly, loyal to family and neighbors -- even though often "southern" -- people that bloggers could actually stand to emulate in many ways.

What a shame, and a waste!

Bush, Reid, Pelosi and all of Congress are highly unpopular, with positive ratings in the 20's and the teens. Most Americans probably figure the fewer laws these bozos pass, the better.

It takes 5o votes to pass a bill. It takes 60 votes to pass a bill and protect senators and their special interests.

CNN almost invariably references a 60 vote hurdle as a consequence of 'complicated' Senate rules, period. Question: Do we really believe that the average Senator is so much smarter than the average person that they somehow manage to learn these rules?

It's telling that I have never (not once) heard a cursory explanation of cloture on CNN, but if one watches C-SPAN2 for a few weeks (when the Senate is in session), it becomes clear.

Death, destruction, disease, horror... that's what war is all about, Anon. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided. But you've made it neat and painless - so neat and painless, you've had no reason to stop it, and you've had it for five hundred years. Since it seems to be the only way I can save my crew, my ship... I'm going to end it for you – one way or another."

- Kirk,

60 votes to pass a bill, and how many cents to mail an odd-sized envelope?

The media almost never mentions the Republican filibuster (cloture) of damn near every bill passed by the House. The headlines always read "Congress fails to pass bill" with no explanation why.

Reading or watching news coverage of Congress, you'd never guess the Republicans have filibustered a dozen bills already. Oft times the coverage is so bad you don't even know what the vote was, let alone how the parties voted, let alone how your own Senator voted.

Imagine if sports coverage was this bad: "Yankees fail to win game", with no score, no mention of the key plays, and no statistics. The only coverage would be the spin by the teams general managers.

What Adam and Bob said times TEN

I want to see overweight aging self-interested Senators on CSPAN3 at 4am reading from the bible. MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER. MAKE THEM LOOK OBSTRUCTIONIST WHEN THEY ARE OBSTRUCTIONIST.
This whole thing of backing away is getting old. It's not a club , it's where they decide the future of our country and in large degree of our world. The only thing Jesse Helms ever said that I agreed with was in defense of his obstructionism, "I *fight* for my beliefs. If you don't fight for your beliefs.. well then I suggest you go out and get some new beliefs"

And while we're possibly fixing filibusters, why can't the Dem leadership take on other procedural, impeding, and regressive processes in Congress and reform the Congress into a more efficient (and possibly more effective) legislative body. Perhaps the recent Immigration Bill procedural shenanigans may demonstrate that there are many such "procedural" tools that can be used to push through or derail legislation.

Of course, just to show my increasingly deranged thinking, I'm also in favor of House representatives operating primarily from their home districts and going to Washington for only a couple of months a year, using PC's and conference calling to cast votes and enact necessary business with the goal of keeping them more "local" to the population that elected them! So there!

60 votes, the Democrats have to hold every D, win over 9 R's, and somehow get Joe Lieberman to vote with them. And people wonder why they aren't getting more things passed.

I think 2% is low. The question should not be how many people understand these congressional rules but how many are willing to reign in their emotions long enough to let that knowledge inform them. I just think people, once they get emotionally invested, tend to suspend all reason.

broken,

Where do you get your news. I see no end of mentions of cloture votes and (potential) filibusters.

Silly Kevin. Filibusters are serious obstructions to our system of government, every one a mini-Constitutional crisis in and of itself. We haven't had a filibuster since the Democrats took over the Senate. The sixty-vote majority is now referred to as a "procedural vote".

(Cross-referenced to IOKIYAR)

Apparently not even a born-and-bred Washington insider like Cokie Roberts knows this. I heard her on NPR News this morning explaining that the "Democratic Congress" had been unable to pass most of the promised "first 100 hours" legislation because of the "more moderate" Democrats in the Senate (vs. those in the House).

No mention whatsoever of Republican obstructionism.

When I heard the piece, my exact thoughts were, "I wonder what percentage of the relatively well-educated and -informed NPR audience just swallowed that bullshit? Probably >90%."

When Democrats get to sixty votes in the Senate -- and they will, if the GOP continues to drive the nation down a cul-de-sac at 60 mph -- they should rescind the rule that allows "intent" to filibuster to stand for the act itself. In the history of that institution, it's only a recently adopted rule, and has no doubt contributed to the cavalier attitude the Senate has taken with regards to the people's business.

I think you're being wildly optimistic with 2%. Seriously, what percentage of people realize we have 3 branches of government?

Of those, how many do you think know that one of those branches is split into two parts?

Of those, I'd guess that less that 1% know that the Senate requires a super-majority for most everything.

Apparently not even a born-and-bred Washington insider like Cokie Roberts knows this. I heard her on NPR News this morning explaining that the "Democratic Congress" had been unable to pass most of the promised "first 100 hours" legislation because of the "more moderate" Democrats in the Senate (vs. those in the House).

In fairness, Cokie Roberts may be a born-and-bred Washington insider, but she's also dumber than a box of hair.

I heard her on NPR News this morning explaining that the "Democratic Congress" had been unable to pass most of the promised "first 100 hours" legislation because of the "more moderate" Democrats in the Senate (vs. those in the House).

As long as the Senate Dems continue to allow the Republicans to invoke "filibuster-lite" without doing a damn thing in response, then I'd have to agree with Cokie's description.

Adam,Scott and Bob-RIGHT ON!!!
The Dems should absolutely do that and call these criminals on these matters. This strategy would insure that very few Repubs would be elected.

While most here get this, just to be explicit for those new to the idea, it is not a supermajority to pass a bill or nomination. There are very few things for which Congressional passage by supermajority is required. It is a supermajority to limit debate to get to get to that majority vote.

As far as "intent" to filibuster being a rule, it is not, and so there is no rule to "repeal." The Leader is not under any requirement to honor a hold. He just does, because to ignore it is largely an exercise in futility, because the procedures favor the filibusterer (see comment above.) So he can waste everyone's time, incur tremendous opportunity costs, or wait for consensus. Even getting 60 Dems doesn't necessarily fix things, because amendments to the standing rules (Such as the cloture rule itself) require an even higher cloture threshold of 2/3 -- i.e. 67 votes.

As much as people don't want to admit it, the fact is that there is nothing wrong with Senate rules or process. These are the same rules (or even laxer rules) than those under which the Senate has operated for its entire history. What has changed is the partisanship. And you can't legislate a change in that. The only people who can change that are the public. Like it or not, the system works as designed.

I worked on Capitol Hill back in the "real" filibuster days. There would be cots in the hallways for Senators to sleep on.

That system may have been seen as too difficult for to be maintained, but this "procedural" crap is far too hidden and difficult to understand for the voters.

I didn't know it was that bad, and I'm pretty smart ;-) and I follow this stuff.
Jeez.

Wait, why wasn't this ever an issue on this site when the Democrats were in the minority? Now that the roles are reversed we start to discuss the issue? Jeesh, come on guys aren't we a little better than the average site?

"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?"

I don't like the Democratic party much so this is a bipartisan gripe to me. An intention to filibuster isn't the same as an actual filibuster. Why both parties have been treating it as such for the past 10 years is completely beyond me--but it certainly explains why filibusters have gone from rare to routine.

No, you clearly do NOT need 60 votes in the senate to pass anything other than budget resolutions. The proof? The GOP did NOT have 60 votes on everthing they passed. In addition, they clearly showed that the 60 vote thing can be eliminated with a quick and easy push of the "nuclear button".

Only with Democrats in "control" of the Senate do you need to have 60 votes...that or just a bare majority, the nuclear option, and a Dem President. The GOP can force legislation, so it seems, even from the minority position.

This is just another example of Republicans' superiority when it comes to messaging. In order to make people pay attention to the issue, Democrats - not just liberals, but actual Democratic senators - need to be out banging the drum, savaging their opponents for "obstruction" in a coordinated, steady fashion. The press isn't going to cover or explain the issue to the public if the Democratic Party has nothing to say about it. Nor will the press cover it if the single, occasional Democrat mentions or explains the issue on Meet the Press - even if that senator is Harry Reid. The "story" only breaks through when it is pounded into the ground in a coordinated, emotional way by rank and file Democratic senators hitting the opposition where it hurts, again and again.

We talk about "media narratives" a lot in the blogosphere, often in the context of reporters doing the GOP's bidding on this story or that. But narratives cut both ways. Democrats could get the message out about Republican stonewalling if they made it a priority. Indeed, the storyline dovetails nicely with the larger narrative of "moderate" Republican senators saying "moderate" things in public, then voting in support of Bush again and again. Democrats could put the emphasis on how Republican senators vote. But they don't. Why? I suspect it's because Democrats are still hesitant to attack their Republican colleagues on a personal level. Despite all the abuse they have taken from the GOP, Democratic senators still delude themselves into believing that comity and well-mannered conduct are the key to running the Senate. I actually think Harry Reid understands this pretty clearly. But the rank and file Democratic Senators - even the safe ones like Kerry and Kennedy - still dream of a bipartison utopia that will never come to pass.

I have not seen a "filibuster" in YEARS. Not a one. Faux filibusters are NOT filibusters. People reading from phone books, reading the Bill of Rights, reading "A Farewell to Arms" for hours and days on end, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, THAT is a filibuster. A filibuster takes EFFORT. A filibuster can (and should) cause discomfort or even pain. It should be HARD for a party to actually filibuster.

When there are actually filibusters again rather than this procedural shit that can be replaced with a simple computer algorithm, then we can discuss how many angels dance on the head of a pin, but until then one cannot say it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster. THERE ARE NO FILIBUSTERS ANYMORE.

Two per cent sounds good; about the same number who can name one Supreme Court Justice.

Universal suffrage is overrated.

I have observed Congress a lot and two things always happen when people comment on the institution, which I find amusing and somewhat bewildering. Both can be filed under people's general willingness to take all of the common sense they employ in their regular lives and think that somehow it does not apply in, or to, Congress:

1. If you do not like the result, change the process. This thread is a prime example of this. People are understandably angered over the Congress's inability to do the things they want, so they bitch about the process -- such as the cloture rule or the right of extended debate in the Senate. These are the same bitches people had about the filibuster through the entire course of Senate history on, hey, pick your topic -- civil rights, consumer protection, judicial nominations. But these are the same rules (or less strict than the same rules) that Congress used to pass the civil rights laws, win the world wars and put the country back together after a bloody civil war. If the institution can do that, I think they work. Anyone notice the country is divided? Guess what. That's why the Congress is divided.

2. Congress does things for no reason: Everyone accepts the idea that there is an "invisible hand" of self interest guiding business and the financial markets, but somehow can't accept that that Members of Congress also do things based on an inherent logic and self interest. Several people on this thread have said how we need to make Senators enforce their filibuster threats. Some people have even claimed (completely wrongly, of course) that there are no filibusters anymore because they don't see someone holding the Senate floor for ten hours reading from the phone book. The real reason why neither of those things happen anymore? They don't work. That's why. If they did Senators would do them. Somehow, though, people think when it comes to the Congress, its members are too dumb to act rationally, and regularly do things for no reason. That doesn;t happen on Wall Street. And it doesn't happen on Capitol Hill either.

Your Congress. Like it or not. Works as intended. When the American people are overwhelmingly behind an idea or a policy, it happens. Maybe not as fast as you or I would like, but that's the way the Framers made it. Do 2 percent of the people understand that? Nope. Is it true? Yup. For over 200 years.

Probably the same percent understand it now as understood it last year. And the year before. And the year before. And the year before. And the year before. And the year before. And the year before. And the year before. And the year before. And the year before. And the year before. And the year before.

Pat-

I appreciate you comments, but I think you're wrong. Congress doesn't work anymore. It used to, but it doesn't anymore. We have all these rules that describes how a filibuster is supposed to proceed. I understand that it's difficult to get all of the senators in place to force the filibuster, but too bad. We fucking pay them to do this. Get the god-damn R's up there to describe, in great detail, why they oppose measures passed in the house by veto-proof majorities. I want to hear who opposes H.R. 5, which expands opportunities for college. The 100 hour agenda is full of no-brainers. I don't fucking care if a filibuster means senators won't have time to fund raise, which is all they do anyway. I'm not paying these a$$holes to make cold-calls to donors. They're there to work.

I think the "intent to filibuster" rule went into effect about the same time C-SPAN cameras were installed - members of the club did not want to be shown hijacking debate for their special interest paymasters. If Cheney is President of the Senate, why doesn't he try to find [invent?] some authority to stop this practice? While he's at it, he could say a letter circulated and signed by 50 Senators [and himself] saying "I consent to this Supreme Court appointment" would bypass the committee hearing room pandering to Ralph Neas and NARAL next time there's an opening on the Court.

"Gandalf" is a moron.

I don't know what percentage of Americans know what is required to filibuster, but this thread certainly explains a lot about why Congress is at, what, 20% approval? The right hates 'em because Pelosi's a chardonnay-sipping liberal from SF, and the left hates 'em because they're so unbelievable feckless, they won't employ the power they *do* have. Pathetic.

I don't know what percentage of Americans know what is required to filibuster, but this thread certainly explains a lot about why Congress is at, what, 20% approval? The right hates 'em because Pelosi's a chardonnay-sipping liberal from SF, and the left hates 'em because they're so unbelievably feckless, they won't employ the power they *do* have. How long have these guys had to watch and learn from the GOP, and still they can't f*cking figure it out.

Pat: Yes, these are the rules the Legislature is supposed to operate under; but "following the rules of the game" is no excuse to have a shitty team.

What Praedor said above. I did not know you needed 60 votes - it sure didn't seem that the GOP Congress needed that many to run roughshod the past 12 years.

As Pat pointed out modern filibusters area cloture votes and technically know as Senate Rule 22

President Woodrow Wilson suggested that some limits be placed on the unlimited debate concept. In 1917 the Senate adopted Senate Rule 22, now known as the "cloture" rule. The new Rule 22 provided the mechanism to close out debate on a legislative bill and bring the bill up for a vote if cloture was approved by 67% of the Senate. The 67% requirement remained in effect until 1975 when Rule 22 was amended to allow a 60% agreement to invoke cloture.
Cloture Rule 22 was tested in 1919 when the Senate was asked to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I. The treaty was debated and filibustered, but a 67% majority voted to end the filibuster and to bring the treaty to a vote.

I don't get it, why don't we just MAKE them talk for 800,000 hours straight? The righties are all windbags aren't they? Make them put their money where their mouth is, show them on CSPAN grinding the fucking senate to a fucking halt because of their various vices.

***Breaking News***

Democratic Party suffering from anorchidism!

I think the Democrats, in order to bring the filibuster-lite "rule" to the attention to the short-attention-span public, should choose a good, solid, popular bill, and make the Republicans "put up or shut up" by actually filibustering.

Since not every bill is "worth it," let's hope they are saving their powder till the right time comes. In parlor tricks, timing is everything. And it is almost time for the "meme" to be started into the public arena.

But we should keep the pressure on, and keep spreading the word about the current "rule" -- and get that 2% raised to at least 10%, at which time the Democrats can strike. All we have to do is heat the iron.

Ed

That's just pure laziness. Someone needs to call that bluff. Let the thugs talk themselves horse 24 hours a day.

Praedor Atrebates: "I have not seen a "filibuster" in YEARS. Not a one. Faux filibusters are NOT filibusters. People reading from phone books, reading the Bill of Rights, reading "A Farewell to Arms" for hours and days on end, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, THAT is a filibuster. A filibuster takes EFFORT. A filibuster can (and should) cause discomfort or even pain. It should be HARD for a party to actually filibuster."

Yeah, absolutely. And wouldn't this make fantastic C-SPAN??? On something that the US public thinks would be a good idea that the Republicans oppose. Let the Republicans stand in front of cameras 24 hours a day, droning on and on. Let the media pick it up and let it reverb.

I'm feeling quite smug because I knew about cloture. I also was totally right about the Iraq war and among the 6% of Americans who thought GWB was an posturing asshole even on September 12, 2001. Ahem.

From phoebes we hear: the Dem leadership in BOTH houses should be on the steps of Congress on a daily basis, proclaiming that they are NOT being allowed to do what the electorate sent them to do Because of the Republicans.

bob says: So why don't Democrats insist on requiring an actual standing filibuster. Then the public could see the bloviating Republican's obstruction first hand as the Senate grinds to a halt. Why acquiesce in this faux gentleman's agreement that allows Republicans to hide their obstinance.

mirror offers this: The Democrats never blocked anything so it made it look like you only needed a simple majority in the Senate. And now the Democrats aren't using Republicn obstruction to build political support. It makes them look as if they actually agree with the Republicans but want to appear to be in opposition.

Scott says: I want to see overweight aging self-interested Senators on CSPAN3 at 4am reading from the bible. MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER. MAKE THEM LOOK OBSTRUCTIONIST WHEN THEY ARE OBSTRUCTIONIST. This whole thing of backing away is getting old. It's not a club , it's where they decide the future of our country and in large degree of our world. The only thing Jesse Helms ever said that I agreed with was in defense of his obstructionism, "I *fight* for my beliefs. If you don't fight for your beliefs.. well then I suggest you go out and get some new beliefs"

And owenz says, This is just another example of Republicans' superiority when it comes to messaging. In order to make people pay attention to the issue, Democrats - not just liberals, but actual Democratic senators - need to be out banging the drum, savaging their opponents for "obstruction" in a coordinated, steady fashion.

Yesterday on Meet the Press, Leahy said that calling Scooter Libby to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee was useless. "It would do no good to call Scooter Libby. His silence has been bought and paid for," he said, referring to Bush’s commutation, "and he would just take the fifth."

Maybe Libby would, maybe he wouldn't, but Leahy and Democrats have let Republicans spin every single situation without offering an alternative explanation for Americans, and it's something that the American people need to see and hear for themselves. Democrats on the committee need to frame questions to Libby that tell the story to the American people of what this administration has done and ask, "What are they hiding?"

For the last 6 years (longer if you count Al Gore's half-hearted effort to win against Bush in the Florida post-election debaucle), the Democrats in Congress have rolled over, played dead, and failed to put up any resistance to the Bush-Cheney-Republican blitzkrieg. Every anti-populist, pro-corporate, 'against the poor and middle class and for the richest .2%'-legislation has been steamrolled through Congress without the slightest resistance by Democrats. Between the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Bankruptcy Reform bill, Medicare Reform Act, Democrats have aided Republicans in signing away our civil rights and driving us into debt for generations. They have reminded me of O.J. Simpson prosecutors Marcia Clarke and Christopher Darden, out of their depths and intimidated by "the Dream Team."

The need for a supermajority to pass Democratic legislation is a symptom of a larger problem with our elected Democratic representatives. They've grown complacent and malaise has set in. We need to clear the decks and send them into retirement.

The whole point of the filibuster was for those who really cared passionately to be able to express influence thereby - the point was to measure intensity and not just number for and against. But with the virtual filibuster, that purpose is now meaningless. Yet to require physical persistence may penalize some for reasons that shouldn't confer political advantage. Maybe just get rid of the filibuster... If you care so much, just let your face turn purple and yell a lot ...

Somebody upthread hit it right on the button....nowadays you only have to threaten to filibuster instead of actually getting up there and talking for hours and hours, since that would reduce fundraising time.

The bigger scandal is that these days Congress only works 3-day weeks for about 30 weeks a year. Someone else can do the research, but I bet that Congress was in session less than 100 days in 2006, and will be in session less than 120 days in 2007.

And of course nobody knows what a filibuster is....most people don't even know who their Senators are.....

It is funny how the majority party always finds reasons to hate the filibuster.

Anyone up for a nuclear option?

And for the predictable calls for actually making senators filibuster, my reading of senate procedural rules suggests that the party wanting to force cloture must keep a majority of the senate actually present. A filibustering senator may have several colleagues willing to help him keep debate going, but I don't imagine that such colleagues can be found for 51 senators willing to keep the senate from adjourning during the filibuster.

To all who are thinking over all such rule changes to make things easier for the Dems to enact their agenda.....do it. Do all of it. Do as much as you want.

But I don't want to see a single one of you cry, complain, or grouse about it on the day (whenever it happens) that you lose power, and the other side uses each and every single one of those rules changes to enact THEIR agenda, to run roughshod over your side.

So that's the deal.

Someone mentioned payback on here. Are you prepared to accept the payback of whatever actions you want to take now? To see your weapons used against you?

Not a single one of you here would do it, would take that challenge. So why not quit all your baby crying and posing over this issue?

I seem to remember that the nuclear option involved Dick Cheney, acting as President of the Senate, ruling a particular filibuster out of order. Is that incorrect?

And therefore, must the Democrats make war on the filibuster only by conventional means?

Trashhauler: you do understand that readers who do no know you will think you are taking about Republicans treating Democrats like mortal enemies? Don't you?

And what percentage of Americans know that there are only 49 Democrats currently in the Senate? And that Joe Lieberman, though he caucuses with the Democrats, votes againt them on matters related to Iraq?

"I seem to remember that the nuclear option involved Dick Cheney, acting as President of the Senate, ruling a particular filibuster out of order. Is that incorrect?"

If I remember correct the nuclear option was only for judicial appointments. The rational was that the constitution required a vote on appointment and they could not be filibustered.

I'd say 3%, 1.5% on each coast.