They won't actually filibuster -- they don't need to. They need only hint at the "f" word, and the Dems collapse.

Well, the correct strategy for Obama and Reid is obvious: no more compromises! Call their bluff, make 'em read the telephone book on C-SPAN if that's where they want to go. So, Barack and Harry, got the common sense and the spines to do that? Or do you want to look to the voters like ineffective leaders, indeed, like losers and pushovers? Choose wisely, guys. This is really the whole ballgame right here; show you can be rolled now, and it's death by 1000 cuts between now and what could be a disastrous midterm election for the Dems if you blow it.

Unfortunately stinger is probably correct.

Though I'd love to revisit the "nuclear option" right about now, and see how those bitches like it.

And let's not forget, Shelby is another Alabama Blue Dog who was elected twice as a Democrat before jumping ship, so he knows whereof he speaks.

Maybe it's just me, but what is Shelby doing in LA (lower Alabama) on a Monday when the Senate is supposed to be working out the stimulus package? I'm sure there are important things happening in the Wiregrass, but, damn, if the possibility of the complete collapse of our country doesn't rate higher on his "to do" list, then what does?

So, Senate Republicans not only want to oppose a rescue package in the midst of a serious recession, they want to prevent the chamber from even voting on it.

If it goes to a vote, it will pass.
So it can't ever go to a vote.

Sounds to me like the Dothan Eagle had the story first.

Guys, I don't think there a filibuster is in the cards. The GOP governors have sent a strong message to the Senate. They want the Federal money to pay their bills. This threat is part of a negotiation. Give the Republicans a little cover and call their bluff.

Yup... call their bluff. The economy is imploding rapidly and the public is starting to see it firsthand.

If the repubs filibuster Obama should be on teevee 15 minutes later, speaking directly to the American people about the economic crisis... with footage of the repubs blustering along in the background.

Time for the nuclear option.

Threatening it for judge nominations was chicken poop, but THIS is a national emergency.

Grow a pair, Harry, and either make them actually stand there and talk, or go nuclear.

Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are likely to support the bill. If the Dems can hold all of their own people on the cloture vote, then that's the ball game: the filibuster fails.

The Dems should push their blue dogs that want to oppose the bill to vote for cloture but against the final bill. That way it still wins and the blue dogs avoid severe punishment by the party. I expect that Rahm Emmanuel will be behind the scenes twisting arms.

Today's GOP -- A case study in relevance anxiety. And fortunately dems have such a large majority, it will be difficult for even them to screw it up. Difficult, but not impossible.

joe buck has this right: it's all about snowe, collins, and ben nelson.

as for the notion of let 'em filibuster: it's important to read this posting in the context of its immediate predecessor. the gop is withdrawing into its shell; it's all the current generation of gop politicians knows. they don't care what anyone other than their base think.

so i'm far from convinced that simply saying "fine, let's rumble" is such a great idea: this stimulus bill is overdue. it should have been on obama's desk on his first day; indeed, it should have been on bush's desk 3 months ago.

putzing around making them filibuster rather than figuring out what does it take to get snowe and collins and hold ben nelson is not seeing the forest for the trees.

Time for the nuclear option.

Not yet. That's the last, not the next, option, Cal Gal.

Steve had it right in his earlier post --- this is a national emergency, and Obama and the Dems had better damn well hold the GOPs feet to fire like it is.

My information consumption is limited almost exclusively to blogs such as this one, Atrios and TPM, so if Obama and the Dems were sounding the sirens of national emergency, I would know about it. They haven't. There is no sense of urgency here like there was on, say, the awful Medicare bill the 'pugs passed in '03. Or Bush's horrible, misguided Social Security privatization.

Those bills were multibillion-dollar giveaways presented under the guise of a crisis, whereas this stimulus bill is a response to an actual crisis. So why the hell aren't the Dems selling it that way?

I opposed the 'nuclear option' when the 'pugs held the Senate, and I oppose it now. Let the Dems make their case --- the strong, urgent case they so far have not been making --- and then see whether the 'pug caucus hangs tough to oppose it.

I'm sorry but this whole game --- the GOP posturing and the weak Dem response to it --- is bullshit. In December there was talk about having this bill on Obama's desk on Jan 20th. He's been in office 2 weeks come tomorrow. Enough posturing and 'reaching out'. Get it done. Now.

At what point in time did it become necessary to have 60+ votes to pass every fucking bill in the Senate regardless of whether the minority party ACTUALLY filibusters?

I guess Republicans are glad that they didn't scuttle the filibuster when they had control of the Senate.

Also guess they no longer hold with the whole "up or down vote" shtick they liked to throw out to sound like the Reasonable Party (as opposed to Democrats Obstructionist Party).

I would love (though won't hold my breath) for the Democrats and media "liberal" types to start calling them on this on MTP, etc.

Going nuclear SHOULD be the first option. The filibuster is an undemocratic relic that should have been done away with a long time ago. The Democrats rarely made good use of it when they were in power, and on average and in the long run the filibuster has always done more to stop progressive policies than conservative ones. Indeed, that's essentially its purpose.

From one of many conservatives who voted for Obama, we were looking for something outside the box. Well, with the stimulus bill from the House, we get the same old same old, this time from the progressive left. Thanks guys!

Pah. The filibuster's not "undemocratic," ferchrissakes, and it's not the problem; abuse of it--including abusing it by either continually threatening it or continually caving to threats of it--is the issue.

What Steve LaBonne said. Make'em go full metal Jimmy Stewart.

Or get rid of the filibuster altogether.

On that note, I'd be surprised if Bullyboy Blowhard Shelby hadn't been an advocate of the nuclear option in the summer of '06.

From one of many conservatives who voted for Obama, we were looking for something outside the box.

Like what exactly, Jeff?

Ckelly, it's been that way for a while. Can't remember when it started. BTW, are you from Missouri?

@ckelly:

Since Harry 'The Spineless' Reid decided to allow the "gentleman's filibuster" to substitute for the real thing. The blame rests squarely in his lap.

The party that maintains its unity wins and causes the other party to split. The key is not whether Reid is tough on McConnell, but how tough he will be on Nelson -- and that is where we come in.

The GOP strategy right now is to force a split between Obama and the Dem legislative leaders -- to Carterize Obama, and free the Blue Dogs from any party discipline. Dems who don't stick with Obama should be as nervous as that GOP schmuck who spoke ill of Rush Limbaugh and abased himself on the radio to get back in his good graces. GOPers fear their base.

John S., you are simply wrong in your history.

ckelly, the question is: if you say let's rumble, what makes you think the gop won't rumble? filibusters worked in the '50s and early '60s most of the time, because the filibusteres didn't care what people outside of their constituency thought. why do we assume this current generation of republicans is different?

No nuclear option.
Quite the opposite.
NOW is the time for the GOP to agree to make the filibuster the law rather than just a procedure.

Then amend the stimulus and remove all the sweeteners.

Offer sweeteners one by one to the 40 Republicans. The first one to cave gets a piece of pork.

It'll take iron faith that the other 39 will back him up. Someone will drop.

Best to let this stew awhile though.

Hurting America? Call your Senators. It's not our fault.

There is nothing "undemocratic" about the filibuster. As was pointed out earlier, it isn't the filibuster that is the problem, it is the abuse of it. Some here are starting to sound like the GOP hypocrites of 06 with this talk of the nuclear option.

I fully expected that the Republicans,in their tiny and deserved minority, would play games as they did the entire last session, even with potential economy-saving legislation. That's all they know. The only difference is that now we have the bully pulpit of the Oval Office and a popular president who can effectively communicate directly to the American people. It's on the Dems and President Obama to effectively sell this and to sledgehammer the GOP with their own obstruction.

A filibuster with a small margin brings up the horrible question: What will Joe Lieberman do? I'm sure he's peddling his vote to both sides right now.

want to oppose a rescue package in the midst of a serious recession,

They want to oppose this rescue package. They might oppose any rescue package, and for good reason.

despite the endorsements from economists

From some economists. Other economists, indluding Nobel laureates, have written that the bailout will do more harm than good.

Meanwhile, Americans are saving more than before. That will allow the U.S. government to borrow more of the stimulus from Americans and correspondingly less from foreign nations. The stimulus may not promote a net increase in economic growth, compared to doing nothing, but at least our children will owe more of the debt to each other as a result of this recently increased rate of saving.

Ron Byers: The GOP governors have sent a strong message to the Senate. They want the Federal money to pay their bills.

Lending to the federal government has the same net immediate cost to the economy as lending to the state governments (maybe cheaper long term, if the feds get lower interest rates, but that isn't an immediate and temporary "stimulus", as this is advertised to be.) So there is no national net gain in letting the states pay their bills out of federal borrowing. It may encourage ALL states to run in to debt in the future (the "moral hazard" problem), as no state really wants to bail out other states that are more frivolous.

I think I read her last week that Obama's people were going to post a break down by state so the republican congressmen's districts would know what they are voting against.

There is nothing "undemocratic" about the filibuster. -GiggsisGod

I disagree. Certainly, there is wisdom in keeping debate open until all who wish to participate have been included, but in it's current incarnation, requiring 60 votes to bring debate to a close but only a simple majority for passage makes the filibuster superdemocratic.

That's not to say it should be eliminated, but I think it unwise to deem it democratic. Any tool that allows for a minority to halt entirely the progress of the majority of elected representatives procedurally, like a hold, is not a democratic process.

The filibuster rule on cloture is a method of conforming to the Senates Constitutional requirement of extended debate, the founders put in to slow things down from the passions of the moment. Without the filibuster rule, the minority could slow action in the senate to a crawl. They could just keep people talking on every single piece of information and nothing would get done. And the way the rules are now, when the filibusterers do it the old fashioned way, the majority has to keep it's members in the chamber to satisfy quorum requirements. Senate repubs nuclear option threat was only for Judicial appointments and would have changed things for legislation. It is here to stay, because without it, the senate would be tied in knots, baring a constitutional amendment changing the extended debate clause. It is the job of the majority to exact a political price for obstruction in the next election.

Fair enough, doubtful.

And also to preserve minority rights. And the nuke option would(not) have applied to legislation.

Fine. MAKE them actually filibuster. Make them actually physically obstruct passage of the bill, with the press in there taking pictures.

here is the thing as I see it. By not voting for it in the House the GOP made Obama and the Dems "own" the package. If it doesn't work the GOP can say I told you so. That is a whole lot different from obstructing the bill in the Senate. If the GOP does that then they continue to "own" the wretched economy, will be labeled and viewed as obstructionist by everyone including their base and Obama and the Democrats can use that to get larger majorities in 2010 without ever having to prove that their ideas would work. The GOP is in trouble as a national party. A filibuster would be its death knell. There is no base that wants to see a Greater Depression than the Great Depression

It is here to stay, because without it, the senate would be tied in knots

Compared to what? The way it's been for the last two years?

Oh, Stuck, another thing? Would you mind quoting the "extended debate clause" in the Constitution? I'm having a little trouble finding it.

I think what others have said that if they filibusterer, you have to actually make them do it - we haven't had a party do an honest to god filibusterer in forever. Make them stand up there and talk and talk and etc., none of this gentleman's agreement that because they have the filibuster votes we can all just pretend they are doing one.

Squeaky

The Founders explicitly gave the Senate the power to make it's own rules, thereby making said rules a constitutional clause of sorts. One of the first ones they made was for a 2/3 majority to make or change any rule. Or at least that's been the rule for a long time, and before the cloture rules were created. So in practical effect all rules of the Senate are constitutional clauses of sorts, and by proxy.

**I realize saying calling it a clause misleads to think there are specific words in the const., I have heard senators call it that too. Like Senator Dodd, who describes it in detail

Gawd, I hopetheydo/wishtheywould. Stinger @ #1 is correct, though. Since 2006 The esteemed Harry Reid has caved every single time there was a threat. For this one time only Republicans should have to stand up in front of everyone and obstruct this legislation out loud. An actual filibuster is a newsworthy event that does not happen that often; it might get carried live on more feeds than just C-Span. And to make things really nasty, even with enough votes to cut off debate, they should not. Make them stand up there for hours and hours.

Of sorts and by proxy doesn't count, Stuck, because it doesn't require a constitutional amendment to change something that isn't in the Constitution.

Whatever squeaky, Scalia would likely agree with you.

The filibuster's not "undemocratic," ferchrissakes

Sure it is, but then so, by design, is the US Senate as a whole, with or without the filibuster.

(And not merely undemocratic but antidemocratic.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Lance Griffin, who both you and Schor quote, actually "have the story first"?

Somewhere in book land there's probably an excellent read on the history of the filibuster.