Well, Kevin, I think frankly that Bob's got the rule wrong. As Greg Sargent over at TPM posted in a followup from a Senate staffer, the 30hours that Bob refers to in Senate Rule 22 is the time limit after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, though, as the staffer explained, while his cloture motion "ripens" (it can't be voted on until Wed by the rules), he's going to keep the Senate in session, which means that the Republicans have to keep debating. As I understand it, once no Senator wishes to be heard on the amendment, then a vote is in order, whether cloture has been invoked or not -- that's the whole premise behind a "real" filibuster. So it's not the Democrats who will be speaking all night, it'll be the Republicans, if they want to keep the bill from coming to a vote.

Now that Reid has decided to do something about the Republican filibuster tactics. How about doing something about the recess shenanigans and keep the Senate in session during the upcoming august recess period

Americanist had a good comment worth including. Dunno how true it all is, but it wasn't the usual commenters-circular-bashing...

As I understand the rules (and I am by far not an expert), what basically happens is that when the cloture vote fails, Dems usually just pull the bill. It's that they are not pulling the bill here. They are saying, we want this bill to get a vote. If the Republicans don't want to vote, they can filibuster, but only as long as they don't want to vote. Once they are done saying every damn thing they can think of (I am reminded of the West Wing episode where the Senator read recipes and the rules of cards), there is a vote (and one would hope more than 50 vote for it).

Americanist had a good comment worth including. Dunno how true it all is, but it wasn't the usual commenters-circular-bashing...

As is typical, he loses everyone at the end with his gratuitous sophomoric sneer wrapping things up. It's like emotional Tourette's (and is a holdover from traumatic playground beatings, I expect). Too bad it has the opposite of its intended effect, but that's his problem, innit?

You need to send Inkblot to DC so that he can swarm all over the senate and round up the republicant senators for their midnight speechifying. He can do this by nipping their ankles and clawing their eyes out.

Shortstop: As is typical, he loses everyone at the end with his gratuitous sophomoric sneer

As opposed to you, who lose people at the start with gratuitous sophomoric ad hominem.

As opposed to you, who lose [sic] people at the start with gratuitous sophomoric ad hominem.

Sure. As I told you under your other handle, sometimes you've got to cut to the chase. We're all busy people.

This is the exact same procedure that the Republicans attempted, back in 2003, when it was the Democrats who were the obstructionists.

We all know how memorable and productive THAT was!

Once they are done saying every damn thing they can think of (I am reminded of the West Wing episode where the Senator read recipes and the rules of cards), there is a vote (and one would hope more than 50 vote for it).
Posted by: Alex Keene on July 16, 2007 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe they should read from the DC Madam's phone book.

The Democrats could stop the war by refusing to pass funding bills for the military. They don't because they are not sure the country really is on their side. There is plenty of frustration but even Webb, in his temper tantrum on Meet The Press, is talking about "diplomacy". The diplomacy your folks have in mind originated in Munich in 1938. If Reid was as confident as Chamberlain was, he could defund it and that would be that.

Wow, I think Kevin gets it!

Most of the other blogs are making fools of themselves talking about how Reid is actually facing up to the Republicans. Bull. Reid is just grabbing some air time.

Reid says they will debate 30 hours -- this is the same time alloted for debate after a cloture vote -- so it's all symbolism.

Reid knows that the Republicans will be just as sleepy as the Democrats, but in the end they will vote against cloture just as they always do. If he was serious, he'd have them stay in session forever -- or at least as long as it takes to get 60 Senators to vote for cloture.

But he won't do it. He's playing to the base -- who are apparently too stupid to realize they are being played for the fool. (Watch, Reid will turn this into the Democratic equivalent of a Jerry Lewis telethon -- with Reid as Lewis, of course. He'll speak to the camera, shed a few tears, and ask for more donations to the party. "For our kids", he'll cry.)

Stop playing games, Reid, and force the Republicans to really filibuster.

So Democrats will be working in session, and commenters can only complain that they're not... Working in congress?

Not pass funding for the war? What, you're going to blame the Democrats because the Republicans won't pass a budget that doesn't pay for the war?

*Sigh* Democrats, as usual, and damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I think Glenn, up at the top of the page, has it right: "once no Senator wishes to be heard on the amendment, then a vote is in order, whether cloture has been invoked or not -- that's the whole premise behind a "real" filibuster. So it's not the Democrats who will be speaking all night, it'll be the Republicans, if they want to keep the bill from coming to a vote."

This is a stupid amendment:

SEC. 1535. REDUCTION AND TRANSITION OF UNITED STATES FORCES IN IRAQ.

(a) Deadline for Commencement of Reduction.--The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Implementation of Reduction as Part of Comprehensive Strategy.--The reduction of forces required by this section shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq. As part of this effort, the President shall direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to seek the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, who has the authority of the international community to engage political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq in an inclusive political process.

(c) Limited Presence After Reduction and Transition.--After the conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions:

(1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure.

(2) Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces.

(3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations.

(d) Completion of Transition.--The Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described in subsection (c) by April 30, 2008.

Ok so exactly what is a reduction in forces. If we start by reducing the forces by one soldier and then finish by reducing it by another soldier for a grand total reduction of two, then it seems to me that the amendments requirements have been met.Exactly what is a limited presence? And how many troops are needed to protect US personnel and
infrastructure. After we reduce forces April 2008 can we increase them again to better protect US personnel and infrastructure?

The Dems need to put some numbers in the bill.

The way I read all this, Reid is going to ask for cloture at various points along the way. This is what will require Republicans to continue to maintain a presence on our near the Senate floor.

If they are not available throughout the night to vote against cloture, then the Democrats will get their cloture, the Senate will be able to vote on the bill, and the bill will get passed.

Anyone else think this is what Reid is doing?

Paul - Cloture currently requires 60 senators voting to cut off debate. How does the absence of GOP Senators help the Dems get the 60 needed votes? I still can't figure out exactly what Reid has set up here either; but, I don't think it is what you suggested.

So the R's are so concerned that the D's get no 'victory' in Congress, they won't even let a bill out for the Decider to veto?

For Reid tho, it does not seem to gain much if it does not lead to an actual vote on the ammendment. If Reid is willing to put it up again on the next day's calendar, I'll start to believe him. I too am confused why the D's are the ones who have to keep talking, rather than the Rs'

Here is the cloture rule. I really don't see how Reid can keep many Republicans in the Senate overnight other than the ones who will continue talking.

So basically the Democrats are playing their base for idiots. Introducing a meaningless amendment with not much chance for passage when they just could have not voted to fund the war. That's how they ended the vietnam war. They could have ended this one too.

Yancy Ward - Thank you for the reference on cloture; but I knew that to start with. What does Reid's little dog and pony show accomplish?

So Charlie Brown doesn't get to kick the football after all? Color no one surprised.

So you're telling us that the Democrats have only succeeded in pulling off a symbolic, toothless act of political theater? (Sigh)

Is there anyone else we can vote for other than Republicans and Democrats? I'm pretty much through with both of those political parties, and I think you'd have to be lobotomized, brainwashed, or the patron saint of lost causes to hold out much hope that either of these two parties are actually good for this country.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

So there's some political theater here

As if somehow Republican DON'T do this, as if Bush doesn't use politics in everything he does, cheap political theater in everything he says.

BUT, at any rate Dem are showing that they are TRYIING to do what the American voters want, to get the military out of Iraq and an all-nighter - one whereby Dems do talks, do all the work while Repugs nap or whatever, is at least a honest attempt to show the American public that the DEM Party IS IN FACT LISTENING TO VOTERS while Republicans ONLY listen to BUSH, BUT care what the US voters think.

To you Kevin - it's a political game but to our US troops - its an attempt to stop the war we can't win with a military surge, and attempt to keep one more US military member out of a body bag. Reid is getting a more respectable in my book.

What TruthPolitik said. Nice going, Reid. What a waste of time...

Cloture is not achieved by 60 votes; it is achieved by 3/5 of the Senators present. This is parliamentary maneuvering. If Reid moves for a Quorum call and all those in favor of the bill—57 Senators at last count—were present, but only, say, 35 Republicans against, then cloture is invoked with 55.2 (or 56) Senators voting Aye.

The Republicans won't let this happen, but they must be present for every quorum call during the 30 hours of debate.

In the middle of the night, re-introduce HR333, to impeach Dick Cheney and begin the coup to bring down these foul criminals...

Along - What you stated is incorrect. It is 3/5 of the "whole number" of Senators in the Senate at the time; i.e. if there were vacancies, that would affect the "whole number". Even though Tim Johnson is absent, his seat is not vacant and the "whole number" is 100; so it is exactly like I originally said (as far as I can tell anyway) and it is a hard 60 needed to cut off debate and vote. The only time cloture votes are in terms of percentages of those present in the quorum as you describe is in relation to procedural matters.

In the middle of the night, re-introduce HR333, to impeach Dick Cheney and begin the coup to bring down these foul criminals...

1) The house votes on impeachment, not the senate. You can tell, because it's House Resolution 333, not Senate Resolution 333.

2) "Coup" - I do not think it means what you think it means.

What the hell?

oh I see, it is 3/5 of the Senators "duly chosen and sworn," not "present and voting." Thanks bmaz.
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.php

Maybe someone should show Kevin Drum an example of some REAL political theater here.

Non-binding bills given to Bush by GOP members that ONLY pretend to care what VOTERS think - but really don't give a damn, and thus are the height of political theater.

Remember what Pete Domenici said about his constituency and how he cares so deeply, (my ass):

Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, who had been a staunch supporter of the president’s handling of the war, said he had sensed a shift among some military families. He recounted how a father he spoke to recently said his son was proud to serve.

“But then this man said, ‘I’m asking you if you couldn’t do a little extra to get our troops back,’ ” Mr. Domenici said, recalling the conversation. “I heard nothing like that a couple years ago.”

So what is Domenici doing for them? NOTHING, because Domenici is pushing for another NON-BINDING bill for Bush to ignore at his will - and it is simply a case of political theater, because it's political spin completely void of meaning, care and consern.

And lets not forget that Domenici admitted making a call last year to New Mexico-based U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to inquire about the status of probes into alleged corruption by prominent state Democrats.

For Domenici it's all about using dead military troopers and griefing families to create a little political theater and an out-right con-job to his voters. Domenici isn't trying to get the troops home - he pretending that he cares - but pushing for another non-binding bill is designed NOT to care about voters - it cares only for Bush and Cheney.

"BUT, at any rate Dem are showing that they are TRYIING to do what the American voters want, to get the military out of Iraq and an all-nighter - one whereby Dems do talks, do all the work while Repugs nap or whatever, is at least a honest attempt to show the American public that the DEM Party IS IN FACT LISTENING TO VOTERS while Republicans ONLY listen to BUSH, BUT care what the US voters think."

Do you really believe this?
They could have brought the troops home by simply not passing the last funding bill.
Thats how they ended the vietnam war. Thats why Cindi Sheehan is running against Pelosi.
Wake up.

So TRUTHPOLITIK wouldn't be here saying that the Democrats should have CARED FOR THE TROOPS and PASSED A BILL or maybe that they were IMPOTENT TO GET ANYTHING DONE because they hadn't passed a budget?

Give me a break. You were here last week saying that the Democrats were weak because they were allowing the filibuster.

I'm trying to parse what others were saying explaining Reid's maneuvering here.

Basically, they're going to FORCE a filibuster with some kind of mandatory 30 hour thing, forcing Republicans to basically take the stand and waste time. If the Republicans can't do that, then the bill goes to vote, without needing to get 60 votes to invoke cloture.

Is that how it works, or were the people supporting the maneuver just misguided?

Kryptic - That is exactly my question. On the surface, and from what people are saying, you would be lead to the synopsis you made. But if you really start digging a little, it appears that there is still a cloture vote set for Wednesday morning irrespective of what occurs in between now and then in the Senate, and the Democrats still must obtain 60 votes for that cloture vote on Wednesday in order for the bill to go to vote.
Oh, and the "30 hour" thing doesn't really apparently apply as that is the maximum length of debate that can be had AFTER a successful cloture vote of 60 or more votes (which the Dems still appear to be well short of). I may be wrong here; in fact, I hope I am, because so far this just looks stupid to me.

bmaz,

I didn't link to rule because of your comments, I realize that you already knew the details from your comments, but it was clear that others don't.

As far as I can tell, this is just a stunt, and likely to have no impact. Republicans tried a similar tactic on the judicial nominees being filibustered in 2005 or 2006, and it really had no traction nationally. Most people don't even remember it.

TruthPolitik is correct- if the Democrats really think getting out of Iraq is the right thing to do, they can do it if they want. It just takes conviction of one's beliefs. If Bush then defies them, they have absolutely firm grounds for impeachment.

Augustus,

It's good to see the Rethugs' strategy is working: tie the Senate in knots, don't allow any bills to pass and folks like you will cry "A plague on both your houses." One less vote for the Democrats. Mission Accomplished.

You must be so proud.

Yancy - Nevertheless, thanks for the link; it reminded me of the exact nature of the 30 hour bit. Why is the whole blogosphere acting like this is the real deal toughness by Reid? This just looks stupid as far as I can tell.

I know Simon alluded to it earlier, and even linked to it, but I thought I would repost theAmericanist's brief historical essay on the filibuster. To the best of my knowledge it is completely factual and correct:

1) No, a genuine filibuster does not prevent the Senate from considering other business. Kevin is wrong -- from pillar to post, on this one. (Judicial nominations are different, and he'd have done better to focus on them.)

A filibuster is simply a tool of a minority, of even a single Senator, to prevent the majority from passing a particular piece of legislation by refusing unanimous consent to vote on final passage. If a Senator (like LaFollette, for whom the original Rule XXII was written) refuses to allow a bill (like arming civilian ships) to get to a vote, that doesn't mean OTHER bills without such a provision can't move, with that Senator's hearty approval.

The Senate has NEVER shut down other business when a particular bill is being filibustered: who gave you that idea, Kevin? It's simply false.

2) As a tool of the minority, filibusters were used routinely in BOTH the House and the Senate throughout the 19th century. The House did away with 'em, along with other dilatory tactics like the vanishing quorum, when the Speaker asserted total control over the House agenda in the 1880s under Reed and later, Cannon (who was finally cut down when they took the Rules committee away).

3) The Senate tradition of the filibuster lasted much longer because it was reserved for the most part only for matters of great significance: LaFollette was trying to prevent America being drawn into the World War, after all. (They changed the rules to beat him: he was right, they were wrong.) Huey Long was famous for his filibusters, and while they were sometimes silly, they were all genuinely focused on massive expansions of Federal power (the New Deal) even if they weren't matters of principle, exactly: Huey followed the Senator Kerr Rule of being opposed to any deal he wasn't in on.

And for all of the inherent evil of Thurmond's record filibuster in 1957, he WAS trying to preserve white supremacy, not exactly a small issue in American history.

4) By the 70s, when the Senate had weakened its rules as part of ill-conceived reforms in the Congress, the filibuster had become a tool rarely invoked, and when it was (as over natural gas deregulation) it was not for matters of genuine significance or historic principle.

So,

5) As happened with the immigration bill, it isn't simply a matter of making Republicans (or any minority of Senators) talk a bill to death. (For one thing, changing 'present and voting' to 'duly sworn' was the death of the old-fashioned talking filibuster.) Because the Senate can proceed to other business by unanimous consent at any time, a filibuster doesn't stop the Senate while a (presumably unpopular) minority gets exposed as obstructionist.

As we saw with the immigration bill, if a majority wants to pass a particular piece of legislation DESPITE a minority's filibuster, THEY HAVE TO KEEP THAT BILL ON THE FLOOR.

They have to vote on amendments. (This can itself become a filibuster, as happened with the post-cloture amendment process over natural gas deregulation.) Each amendment may make the bill LESS popular -- as happened with the immigration bill which lost support every day it was debated, or else the Senate leadership can derail Senate tradition by restricting amendments (as Byrd did with natural gas).

I know Simon alluded to it earlier, and even linked to it, but I thought I would repost theAmericanist's brief historical essay on the filibuster. To the best of my knowledge it is completely factual and correct:

1) No, a genuine filibuster does not prevent the Senate from considering other business. Kevin is wrong -- from pillar to post, on this one. (Judicial nominations are different, and he'd have done better to focus on them.)

A filibuster is simply a tool of a minority, of even a single Senator, to prevent the majority from passing a particular piece of legislation by refusing unanimous consent to vote on final passage. If a Senator (like LaFollette, for whom the original Rule XXII was written) refuses to allow a bill (like arming civilian ships) to get to a vote, that doesn't mean OTHER bills without such a provision can't move, with that Senator's hearty approval.

The Senate has NEVER shut down other business when a particular bill is being filibustered: who gave you that idea, Kevin? It's simply false.

2) As a tool of the minority, filibusters were used routinely in BOTH the House and the Senate throughout the 19th century. The House did away with 'em, along with other dilatory tactics like the vanishing quorum, when the Speaker asserted total control over the House agenda in the 1880s under Reed and later, Cannon (who was finally cut down when they took the Rules committee away).

3) The Senate tradition of the filibuster lasted much longer because it was reserved for the most part only for matters of great significance: LaFollette was trying to prevent America being drawn into the World War, after all. (They changed the rules to beat him: he was right, they were wrong.) Huey Long was famous for his filibusters, and while they were sometimes silly, they were all genuinely focused on massive expansions of Federal power (the New Deal) even if they weren't matters of principle, exactly: Huey followed the Senator Kerr Rule of being opposed to any deal he wasn't in on.

And for all of the inherent evil of Thurmond's record filibuster in 1957, he WAS trying to preserve white supremacy, not exactly a small issue in American history.

4) By the 70s, when the Senate had weakened its rules as part of ill-conceived reforms in the Congress, the filibuster had become a tool rarely invoked, and when it was (as over natural gas deregulation) it was not for matters of genuine significance or historic principle.

So,

5) As happened with the immigration bill, it isn't simply a matter of making Republicans (or any minority of Senators) talk a bill to death. (For one thing, changing 'present and voting' to 'duly sworn' was the death of the old-fashioned talking filibuster.) Because the Senate can proceed to other business by unanimous consent at any time, a filibuster doesn't stop the Senate while a (presumably unpopular) minority gets exposed as obstructionist.

As we saw with the immigration bill, if a majority wants to pass a particular piece of legislation DESPITE a minority's filibuster, THEY HAVE TO KEEP THAT BILL ON THE FLOOR.

They have to vote on amendments. (This can itself become a filibuster, as happened with the post-cloture amendment process over natural gas deregulation.) Each amendment may make the bill LESS popular -- as happened with the immigration bill which lost support every day it was debated, or else the Senate leadership can derail Senate tradition by restricting amendments (as Byrd did with natural gas).

So, I'm not the only one, wouldn't you know.

NEW YORK -- The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration's plans to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide."

The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved,' we had to question his mental stability."

Wouldn't you know? Apparently you wouldn't. I've been trying to draw the attention of you folks for the past three or so months to the deteriorating mental condition of the President.

Perhaps it's time you folks began to take note. Hmmm?

Or perhaps you would rather continue blithely with your little reindeer games.

"Thats why Cindi Sheehan is running against Pelosi."

Not until she moves from Sacramento to San Francisco, she isn't. Besides which, she doesn't have a prayer against Nancy and if she does move here to run, she'll be even more embarrassed than she was when re-entering the fray a few weeks after bidding the public good-bye.

I'm a liberal and a peacenik and all, but that women is just a flake. I'm sorry for her loss, but she's a media whore.

"What does Reid's little dog and pony show accomplish?"

Publicity for the obstructionism of the Senate Republicans, obstructionism that has gone all-too-unnoticed by our national meda. It won't serve to pass the bill, nor is it intended to.

As for the prior example, Congressional Republicans were raising a stink about an issue that, frankly, nobody gave a damn about. They failed, miserably. Does anyone really want to claim that nobody cares about the Iraq war?

I suspect that what Reid really wants is two things:

1. The story line of Republican obstructionism entering into our national discourse. The blogs have been pounding on this for days now, even weeks. It's about time the news media picked up on it.

2. Increasing pressure on Republican Senators by their constituents who want to know why they are blocking an "up or down vote" on Iraq war issues.

I have no idea whether it will work. I think it will not cause any harm.

It's worth noting that many in our national media have bent over backward to avoid calling what the Republicans have been doing a "filibuster," even though that is precisely what it is. If this stunt does nothing other than to break that logjam and get them to start acknowledging the tactic and calling it what it is, it will have been worth it.

The so called librul press has consistently failed to point out to the American people that the reason a huge number of bills have failed to pass since the Dems took the majority in Congress is because of the Republican obstructionist tactic of threatening to filibuster nearly every bill.

To preclude a filibuster the Senate must invoke cloture, which is just a way of cutting off debate and allowing the bill to come to the floor for a vote after no more than thirty additional hours of debate.

The Democratic leadership has been attempting to invoke cloture whenever the Republicans indicate that they intend to filibuster, and when the cloture move fails to get the 60 votes required to pass, they pull the bill and it never gets voted on.

Okay, y'all already know that. Here's where Harry Reid's new approach is an improvement over what the Dems have been doing heretofore: by forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster, whether the bill eventually passes or not (and of course it will never escape the Decider's veto pen anyway), the Republicans will inevitably be, at long last, painted in the press with the obstructionist label they so richly deserve.

So the merit of Reid's ploy is that it is a way of calling the American people's attention to the fact that the Republicans, not the Democrats are the ones responsible for torpedoing a bill which has the support of a majority of the people.

If Reid continues to simply withdraw bills when the votes aren't there to invoke cloture the "Librul Press" will continue to fail to inform the people that it is the Republicans who are the roadblock.

We all know the bill will never become law-- Harry wants the people to know why.

Kudos to Harry.

I'm confused...

Allow me to clear it up for you.

The Democrats are completely convinced a Democrat will be the next president. They need to wreck the war utterly before 2008, and don't dare leave their own fingerprints on the wreckage.

They first assumed Bush would knuckle under. He won't. The only other chance is to get enough Republican Senators to knuckle under, and that's the current plan.

What's not going to work is the idea of leaving Democratic fingerprints off of things, and hiding their political motivations behind "concern for the troops." Unfortunately, this "stealth" plan more or less went into the bin when the Democrats tried to cut Petraeus off at the knees only days after the start of the surge.

It became obvious then that the Democrats weren't interested in whether the surge would work or not, and in fact, were hoping it wouldn't. Nobody's really fooling anyone any more.

If Reid somehow manages to short-circuit the surge and the war, and Iraq and the Middle East burn, it's going to have "Democratic Party" written all over it. They managed to duck the blame in 1975 when they threw Vietnam to the wolves. There was no alternative media then. Good luck on that this time.

PaulB - Well I hope it gets the desired publicity, but a check of the NyTimes, WaPost and LA Times websites does not find it mentioned on any of their front (home) pages; nor was it featured on any of the major network news that I could find (a fleeting mention was the best I found). Maybe it will be better tomorrow; but so far, not so much.

Dave Howard - As I said to PaulB above, I hope so. To me, this just looks lame; there must be better ways to get the word out. I had really hoped for a tougher "get tough" play. Hey, this (probably) can't hurt; so what the hell. If it moves us forward, I am all for it.

@bmaz:

"Paul - Cloture currently requires 60 senators voting to cut off debate. How does the absence of GOP Senators help the Dems get the 60 needed votes? I still can't figure out exactly what Reid has set up here either; but, I don't think it is what you suggested."

I don't think this is true. I think the number is not fixed, but rather a percentage of Senators present, as long as there is a quorum.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-425.pdf

The majority required to invoke cloture is three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 votes if there are no vacancies in the Senate’s membership. However, invoking cloture on a measure or motion to amend the Senate’s rules requires the votes of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, or 67 votes if all 100 Senators vote.

How many senators does it take for a quorum?

@bmaz:

Oh, never mind. It is 60 votes.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30360.pdf

Invoking cloture usually requires a three-fifths vote of the entire Senate—“threefifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.” If there are no vacancies, therefore, 60 Senators must vote to invoke cloture. In contrast, most other votes require only a simple majority (that is, 51%) of the Senators present and voting, assuming that those Senators constitute a quorum. In the case of a cloture vote, the key is the number of Senators voting for cloture, not the number voting against. Failing to vote on a cloture motion has the same effect as voting against the motion: it deprives the motion of one of the 60 votes needed to agree to it.

Paul - That quote is exactly what I said. It is a hard 60 for cloture (3/5 of the 100 Senators currently sworn as there are no current vacancies) except for cases of rules/procedural votes, where it is a percentage (2/3) of the quorum present at the time. Hey, I'm on your side, I hope I am wrong here somewhere; because, so far, I still don't see this bill actually getting to a vote. Maybe this stunt will shame a few Republicans into turning; I hope so, but certainly wouldn't bet any money on it.

bmaz: I had really hoped for a tougher "get tough" play.

Any suggestions?

"So the merit of Reid's ploy is that it is a way of calling the American people's attention to the fact that the Republicans, not the Democrats are the ones responsible for torpedoing a bill which has the support of a majority of the people."
Posted by: Dave Howard on July 17, 2007 at 12:06 AM

This also has the advantage of getting some good video clips of some Republican Senators that may be up for re-election defending unpopular and failed policies. Great ammo for Nov 2008.

"Any suggestions?" Well, yes, I do.

Defund the war, and if Bush doesn't bring the troops home, impeach him and then put him in the criminal docks for the wiretapping violations and any other crimes for which there is solid probable cause. I am tired of Harry's pansy ass charades and the respective Judiciary Committee's lame letters begging the Administration to pretty please play nice. Lets get on with it.

Yancy,

You invoke the 2003, 2005, and 2006 filibuster stunts on judges as examples of failures to move the policy forward. But these examples you cite are wrong. Except for something like four judges, all the judges that were leading to the Senate filibuster were approved by the Senate. This, of course, was partially due to an attempt by the Senate Republicans to eliminate the filibuster for executive business.

The filibuster stunts are a public relations effort, as they always have been. This is how a minority justifies itself.

As others have pointed, this effort will probably lead to media exposure of the Senate Republicans obstructionism, especially on Iraq. This will lead to further public outcry which has already led to some Senate Republicans breaking with president. Just six weeks ago, almost none were willing to break with Bush.

The end of the war is nearer than beginning.

That should be "The end of the war is nearer than the beginning."

Cal Gal wrote: "Not until [Cindy Sheehan] moves from Sacramento to San Francisco, she isn't [running against Pelosi]."

There is a strong tradition and expectation that candidates for the House of Representatives reside in the districts they wish to represent, but there is no legal or constitutional requirement that they do. Any California resident 25 years old or older, including Cindy Sheehan, can run against Nancy Pelosi. Of course, such a quixotic challenge is not likely to garner more than a tiny percentage of the vote.

Jim in Chicago - Augustus, It's good to see the Rethugs' strategy is working: tie the Senate in knots, don't allow any bills to pass and folks like you will cry "A plague on both your houses." One less vote for the Democrats. Mission Accomplished.

Ah, the old "you're either with us or you're against us" routine. Sorry, but I don't have much interest in defending failure. Neither should you be.

With all of the horrible abuses the Republicans have committed, and continue to get away with even today, a purely symbolic one-day publicity stunt by the Democrats that will almost certainly accomplish nothing is in no way an acceptable or sufficient response from the Democrats. If this were the opening weeks of a new Democratic majority then the Dems might be forgiven for starting off with something like this. But this little this late in the year? Are you kidding me? At this rate, and with this little backbone, it seems fairly clear now that the Democratic congress simply will not succeed in holding this administration accountable for its abuses of power. If you want to put party loyalty above the good of the nation, the lives of our soldiers in Iraq, the rule of law, and the constitution, and hold the Democrats above reproach be my guest. But good luck convincing any of the rest of us that you're not a Republican.

If the Democrats had a spine, they'd be passing a resolution every week calling for the withdrawal of US troops. Let Republicans go on record as voting against leaving Iraq 30-something times before the next election and see how much easier it will be to unseat them. Force Bush to veto the resolution another 30-something times so it becomes clear to even the most apolitical voter that Bush and the Republicans are the one and only obstacle to ending this war. Scores of vetoes on a hugely popular bill would be a thousand times more effective highlighting Republican obstructionism to the average voter than this one-off, one-day change in legislative procedure that no one understood anyway.

Where are the Democrats decrying Republican tactics? Where are the Democrats demanding an "up or down vote"? Where are the Democrats threatening the "nuclear option" of removing the filibuster altogether? (The Democrats should have called the Republican bluff over Alito - otherwise, what's the point in having a filibuster if you're not going to use it!?). At the very least, why not force the Republicans to stage a real filibuster that could go on for days and actually have a chance of making onto the average voter's radar?

I'm sick and tired of seeing Democrats play Charlie Brown to the Republicans Lucy with the football. Thus far, Reid and Pelosi have been woefully ineffectual - at a time when this nation is in dire, desperate need of real leadership, backbone and teeth from it's opposition party. Simply put, making a couple of Republican senators stay up a few extra hours on one night - and only one night - is in no possible way an acceptable and sufficient response to Republican obstructionism. Unless of course you're actually sympathetic to the Republican cause.

bmaz: I am tired of... the respective Judiciary Committee's lame letters begging the Administration to pretty please play nice. Lets get on with it.

Well, this is where the average citizen (I mean me) could use more info than we're getting re exactly what the proper procedure entails. The blogs are doing a way better job than the MSM, of course, but even so, confusion reigns.

For example, commenters over at TPMuckraker keep shrieking about how Conyers and Sanchez are letting Miers get away, when in actuality the committee is expeditiously following the correct procedure for citing Miers for contempt or inherent contempt. How many places has it been reported that, under that procedure, Miers has until today to comply with the subpoena, and then the next step can take place?

I'm not defending the Congressional Democrats, who've been sitting on these filibuster threats for six months on top of their other crimes of pure passivity. I'm just pointing out that it's very hard to know when the respective judiciary committees are moving forward on exercising the powers they have, because that information is really hard to find.

"So TRUTHPOLITIK wouldn't be here saying that the Democrats should have CARED FOR THE TROOPS and PASSED A BILL or maybe that they were IMPOTENT TO GET ANYTHING DONE because they hadn't passed a budget?

Give me a break. You were here last week saying that the Democrats were weak because they were allowing the filibuster.
Posted by: Crissa on July 16, 2007 at 10:28 PM |"

Huh, I don't remember that. But of course I'm a senile old conservative.

I'm trying to say that the Democrats didn't have to pass any bill to end the war. All they had to do was not to fund it. But they did pass a bill to fund it. The present amendment is just politics. It won't get us out of Iraq. Read it.

Monkeybone,

Since you are so concerned about the war effort, when are you shipping off to Iraq? Or are you only concerned as long as OTHER people have to risk their lives and limbs for it?

Augustus,

Okay, you withhold your vote from the Democrats and help the Rethugs regain their majorities so they can contine their "horrible abuses."

That'll teach 'em!

Just like all those Nader voters made this country a better place!

Jim in Chicago - Okay, you withhold your vote from the Democrats and help the Rethugs regain their majorities so they can contine their "horrible abuses." That'll teach 'em! Just like all those Nader voters made this country a better place!

I'm advocating far more aggressive efforts by the Democrats to prosecute Republicans for their abuses of power. Your suggestion that criticism of Democratic incompetence will miraculously translate into electoral support of Republicans is beyond absurd. Basically, you're just arguing with yourself or your own political demons.

If Pelosi and Reid can't hold this administration accountable for these abuses, then clearly the Democrats need new leadership (if any doubt of that actually remains).

The only people who support Reid and Pelosi continuing their ineffectual, non-aggressive approach towards Republicans are... Republicans.

But the Nader bit was a nice parody of a liberal nutter.

Okay, a lot of people are confused as to what is going on here, thinking this is entirely symbolic. It's not symbolic at all.

The Senate has a bill proposed in it. When people are done amending it and stuff, a vote happens. Not a vote on the bill, a vote on whether or not the bill is 'finished' so they can actually vote on it.

Republicans keep saying 'No, this bill isn't finished, and never will be in our eyes.', thus keeping it from coming to a vote.

But they can't actually do that, because the Senate doesn't *have* to have that vote...when people stop talking about a bill, it *also* is ready to vote on.

What Reid is going to do is stand there and keep asking if anyone has anything else to say about the bill. If someone does not come up to the podium and start talking, the bill is 'finished' and can be voted on, so Republican will have to keep sending people up to pretend to yammer about the bill. (Of course, technically, they don't have to talk about the bill, they can read the phone book.)

What people are *really* missing here is that the 30 hours are *the limit of the debate*.

I quote the rules 'After no more than thirty hours of consideration of the measure, motion, or other matter on which cloture has been invoked, the Senate shall proceed, without any further debate on any question, to vote on the final disposition thereof...'.

At that point, Reid *wins* then because no one's allowed to debate anymore, and the bill *must* be brought up for a vote with no more debate or even delay.

And, while that the Senate normally operates *as if* it requires a 60% vote to pass a bill, because that's the amount required for cloture, it *really* only requires a 51% vote. So anyone who thinks this is symbolic isn't paying attention, because getting 51% to vote for this is not implausible.

And then, hopefully, the House is paying attention and passes *exactly* that bill so it doesn't have to make another trip through the Senate again.

Incidentally, making the Republicans stay overnight is, indeed, a political stunt..I see nothing in there about 30 hours 'continual' debate, so Reid could probably schedule 8 hours debate a day until the 30 hours had been used up. By making them stay in session, though, he's not only using up the time as fast as possible, he's likely to get them to chicken out and look like fools because they know they'll lose at the end anyway and it's not worth 30 hours of napping on cots and eating in your seat to lose.

OTOH, I may not be understanding that entirely...there's something in there about filing amendments that will screw up the process, and so keeping there from legally being any breaks in discussion might be needed to prevent that.

Augustus,

Let me make it simple: I'm all for Dems being as aggressive as possible and do what I can to encourage that -- write letters, sign petitions, volunteer for those who really are aggressive, even support primary challenges to the worst of the lot (our DFA group is considering working for Mark Pera, who is challenging Dan Lipinsky (IL-3)). But at the end of the day, I believe in not making the perfect the enemy of the good. So I will still vote for the Democrats, imperfect though they may be, rather than return the Congress to the Republicans.

But at the end of the day, I believe in not making the perfect the enemy of the good. So I will still vote for the Democrats, imperfect though they may be, rather than return the Congress to the Republicans.

You are quite the menace to strawmen. No one is demanding perfection from Democrats. The number of scandals under the Bush administration are so many, the depths of the abuses so great that it is some of the lowest hanging political fruit in generations. And yet thus far the Democrats have proven themselves unable or unwilling fully to seize the opportunity.

When the speaker of the house takes impeachment entirely off the table, there's a problem.

When the Democrats fail to be zealous and continuous champions of the one overarching issue (ending the war) that brought them to power, there's a problem.

When Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have voted to keep secret the findings of the investigation into Duke Cunningham's corruption, there's a problem.

When your vote is determined by blind party loyalty or a rationalization that Democrats deserve your vote for being slightly-less-worse than Republicans, there's a problem.

That attitude helps foster precisely the kind of political environment we have now: one where Democrats can rely on broad support whether or not they are effective, corrupt, or in any other meaningful way deserving of support aside from 'not being Republican'.

So where are your posts in the Cunningham thread equating criticism of corrupt Democrats with supporting the GOP? It's the same rationale you've been tossing my way. Well?

The reason, I'm guessing, is that this attitude of yours isn't absolute but rather one of degree. In that case, the main difference between our positions would be that you simply have a higher tolerance for incompetence and corruption in the Democratic party than I do. That would be all well and fine and certainly your prerogative, but it would nevertheless be strange for you to adopt a morally superior attitude over a morally inferior position.

Kevin Drum confused? Wow, who would have thought it.

He's a dim bulb, but he's our dim bulb.

When your vote is determined by blind party loyalty or a rationalization that Democrats deserve your vote for being slightly-less-worse than Republicans, there's a problem.

You really shouldn't be complaining about strawmen and then go and attack a transparent film-man like that.

That attitude helps foster precisely the kind of political environment we have now: one where Democrats can rely on broad support

Until we change the voting system to IRV or something similar, the only alternative to the Dems relying on broad support is Republican rule. So indeed there is a problem, but it's not with the Dem voters you so readily attack.

monkeybone: They managed to duck the blame in 1975 when they threw Vietnam to the wolves.

Uhmmm, that was Nixon, a Republican.

Get thee back to history class!

"Anonymous," take note that Nixon resigned in 1974.

Nixon removed all U.S. combat troops from Vietnam by early 1973 in exchange for the Communists' written promise, in the Paris Peace Accords, to end aggression and allow democracy and freedom in South Vietnam.

After Nixon's resignation, the Democratic Congress severely restricted aid to South Vietnam. As North Vietnamese tanks rolled into Saigon in 1975, there was nothing President Ford could do to stop them.

Some day, read a book on it.

dkLzXZ

Good evening. Very interesting & professional site. You done great work. Help me! Need information about: Christian e cards. I found only this - binkelman nebraska real estate. Business loans tips for securing cash through unconventional methods. You can also pay off your utility or credit card bills by using bad debt loans. With best wishes :eek:, Ranita from Northern.