They are forgetting the value of public opinion that would be formed from a filibuster aren't they?

While it would be less dramatic than forcing someone to speak, forcing someone to be there to make these moves would get the point across: Republicans are obstructing an incredible amount of legislation. Make them keep someone on hand, actively blocking a vote. Getting rid of the filibuster is a terrible idea.

waitaminit...I can't be reading this correctly, because it sounds like the senate needs 51 votes to pass a piece of legislation, unless the majority party objects, in which case, 60 votes are needed.

Which, for all practical purposes, means the senate needs - and has always needed - 60 votes to pass legislation.

Which means that every time Democrats were in the minority and let Republicans pass legislation WITHOUT the 60 vote cloture rule, they were just letting the GOP have their way?

Please tell me I'm missing something fairly major here...

Wow! Why the hell hasn't anyone mentioned this before? So many liberals want Reid's head on a spike over this issue and it sounds like a non-issue. It was one thing when Hilzoy mentioned the quorum issue last week, but this settles it: The filibuster is a joke and we're basically screwed.

Of course, I still don't think we should get rid of it, assuming we can alter it properly. I obviously don't know enough to give any ideas on this, but something needs to be done. I mean, if all it takes is to have one Senator sit in the Senate to hold up all other business, the rules are a farce.

As for Jamie's question above: What good would public opinion be? Republicans have been spitting on the public for years and don't even learn from repeated electoral disaster. I see no reason why they'll listen now. It does them harm in the long run, but they don't seem to care. And the smaller their party gets, the less they'll need to care. This dynamic helps us, but not so much right now.

The senate requires unanimous consent, or a vote to do anything. If any single senator wished to slow down the Senate, s/he could force a vote on every decision. (Just listen for "without objection", each objection would require a roll call and then a vote.)

Also, any single senator can cause endless delay on anything.

Worse, the filibuster threat is the only thing which guarantees any debate.

But I just don't understand the reasoning that the majority would benefit from removing the filibuster. If this reasoning were true, why do we have, after 230+ years, the filibuster? There is always a "majority" in the Senate. But somehow there has never been a "majority" which agrees to do away with the filibuster.

Why is that? Are the senators all just a lot dumber than the Steve Benen's, Hilzoy's and other so called "progressives"?

If Reid knew this for the past 12 years, why in heaven's name didn't the Dems do the same in order to block some of the previous horrible neocon rightwing legislation?

Methinks Reid is playing the Democrats in America. Either now, or else for the last 12 years.

It is time for the Senate Dems to grow a pair, get rid of Reid, and put the Republicans in their place.

So many liberals want Reid's head on a spike over this issue and it sounds like a non-issue. -Doctor Biobrain

Actually, this should make us even more upset with Reid. Being aware of this, Reid certainly should have blocked more despicable legislation when he was minority leader.

It's the difference between being incompetent and being incapable.

While the talking thing is a nice visual, the point of actuall making the GOP filibuster is to make people understand that the GOP is the one stopping something from happening. If you forced them to actually hold up Senate business, even if it's just for a day, instead of just letting them cast one vote, it become much, much easier to make the point.

Mike

Which means that every time Democrats were in the minority and let Republicans pass legislation WITHOUT the 60 vote cloture rule, they were just letting the GOP have their way?

Michael - It's a bit more complicated than that. The problem is that Democrats care about public opinion and overly care about media opinion. Republicans were great at communicating outrage to the media and public, which scared the Dems into not filibustering. But Republicans have the media in their pocket and don't care about public opinion, so they have no such qualms.

The upside to this is that public opinion wins elections, while media opinion creates a bubble that makes it hard to see public opinion. So in the long run, we win elections. Unfortunately, we only have elections every two years, while Senate votes happen all the time, so it's kind of taking awhile for our advantage to work for us. But it has been and will keep working, as long as Republicans continue to ignore public opinion. It sucks, but when your opponent is willing to sacrifice long-term gains for short-term victories, that's what's going to happen.

It take 2/3 or the Senate to change a rule, including getting rid of the cloture vote.

Michael - The reason Dems didn't use it as much as Republicans do is that it has always been deemed a rather extreme measure. When Dems did it, cable news would always talk about obstruction and the unfairness of not allowing an up and down vote. When Republicans do it, that's a different story.

If this reasoning were true, why do we have, after 230+ years, the filibuster? -tomj

This comment obtusely and inappropriately presumes the filibuster we are presented with today, as well as the Senate, has remained unchanged for more than two centuries, and as such should be immune to any further revision.

We know this to be false.

I still think the best idea is to flip the rules. Make the objecting party keep all 41 votes in chamber to continue debate. The minute one of them leaves, debate over. If their objections are that grievous, they should be willing to do this. It solves the problem with the repubs' current abuses while keeping the filibuster as a protection from abuse of future majorities.

Just out of curiosity, how many senators need to be present for there to be a quorum? I probably knew it once, but have forgotten.

I think JoeW is on the right track. The onus should be on those obstructing.

Seriously guys, could the ones who insist that Reid should have been filibustering as minority leader please debate the ones who say we should let the Republicans filibuster because it makes them look like obstructionists? You guys really have much to discuss and it doesn't really involve those of us who think you're both wrong.

Yes, it would have looked bad if Democrats had filibustered and Dems didn't want to take big risks with their political fortunes. No, Republicans have no such qualms and, in fact, require big risks in order to compensate for a lack of real agenda or ideas. As I've said above, Republicans don't care about public opinion, and their electoral defeats are proof of that.

And it all boils down to: Democrats care about looking like responsible adults, while Republicans prefer temper-tantrums and outrage. And so filibuster rules favor Republicans whether or not they're in the majority. Thus said, I remain agnostic on the issue of banning filibusters, as that requires a deeper knowledge of Senate rules than I care to ever learn.

So basically republicans need 51 votes and democrats need 60 to pass legislation. There is only one man to blame for this non-sense, Reid.

tomj--

If you click through, what the article, and memo, say is that there has been a steady historical trend to making it harder for a single senator to stop legislation from coming to a vote. Before 1917, one senator alone could block legislation. So the cloture vote, to end debate, made it harder for a small minority to obstruct. At that time the number needed for cloture was 66. In 1974, that number was changed again, again in the interest of making it harder to obstruct the bill, to 60.

To Michael, the reason the Republicans were able to do as they wanted is because they had about ten to a dozen supporters on the Democratic side. You really have to consider that this stuff got voted in because between the Republicans' bloc voting and the presence of red state democrats the senate got what it, as a body, wanted.

While we like to blame the democrats for caving, they weren't caving. They were supporting the legislation. But the real fault still, in my opinion, lies in the hands of Republicans like Snowe, Collins, Coleman, Chafee, Smith who were not voting their constituents' interest, but their parties'.

This is yet another side effect of the gradual completion of the fallout from the civil rights act. The elimination of the populist segregationist in the South, and the hard ball tactics of the southern Republican leadership in keeping the caucus in line has destroyed the comity and the regional/industrial alliances that trumped party alliances on individual bills.

In fact,Schumer and Reid believed, given the deep unpopularity of Bush's policies, that the Republican senators (not the house gerrymandering keeps them safe) would prefer to hold their seats than their party discipline. they were wrong.

Also, the deeply disturbing complete unconcern with the effectiveness of public policy that now characterizes the republican party was not true 30 years ago. People like Bill Cohen, Howard Baker actually were concerned with good public policy, not in gamesmanship with legislation intended to generate an ad sound bite, or fodder for Rush.

It's gonna take one more election. 2010 looks bad for Republicans already. If they keep up this obstruction and stupid talk, then I think they'll be looking at 36-37 seats, giving Obama and the democratic leadership a shot at transformative change.

That is,if they want change from the big corp/government alliance at the expense of taxpayers and consumers. Evidence on that score is still out.

"There is only one man to blame for this non-sense, Reid."

You mean the other Democratic Senators don't take any blame? Did ANY of them try ANY obstruction techniques? Supposedly any Senator can put a secret hold on legislation. It took Dodd to do it before we found out that it didn't apply to Democrats. Before that, though, did any of them try to put a hold on anything?

You can't blame Reid. He was merely doing what the rest of his crew wanted him to do. Considering some of the Blue Dogs in the Senate, I think he would have had a considerable problem getting a filibuster through.

Doctor Biobrain--

They didn't filibuster because they didn't have the votes. The simplest explanation for the 2001-2006 period is that there were 60 senators who supported the legislation that was proposed by the president and written up in the dark of night. That number had to include ten or so Democrats, every time.

There's a point where Occam's Razor comes into play.

JoeW is correct. The onus belongs on the obstructionist.

Random observations: a "filibuster" does not require filibustering, entirely contrary to popular belief. By constitutional structure of the Senate a NY vote is less well represented than the cows in WY and by extra-constitutional Senate rules on filibusters, the representation of the cows in WY is magnified yet more.

I still think the best idea is to flip the rules. Make the objecting party keep all 41 votes in chamber to continue debate. The minute one of them leaves, debate over. If their objections are that grievous, they should be willing to do this. It solves the problem with the repubs' current abuses while keeping the filibuster as a protection from abuse of future majorities.

Posted by: JoeW on February 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK
__________________

That only makes sense if the objection is the pevailing opinion of the entire party. With today's Republican party being what it is, I can understand that misconception (HA!) But the truth is, IN THEORY, a single Senator can feel passionately about a piece of legislation being wrong. IN THEORY, there may only be one senator, all others could be in agreement on the passage of a bill. That lone Senator, or small group of Senators against a bill, could be bipartisan, bucking each of their respective parties. They should have the right to at least try to sway opinion, and if they feel that passionately about the issue, they should have the right to filibuster. Idealistic, perhaps, but it's why the filibuster is in place, and if you made it a strict partisan issue how would you judge who should be there on a nonpartisan issue? What if it really is one lone holdout? To say nothing of times where an independent or third-party sitting Senator is the one leading the charge?

What I think is that the misperception of the filibuster SHOULD be the way filibusters are handled. Make people debate endlessly, make them obstruct all other business, let the people - the VOTERS - see what someone is risking his or her political future to fight, and then decide if the fight is worthwhile. Were that to become the standard to which filibusters are judged, you'd see far fewer of them, as most Senators are big Pu$$ies who'd rather blend into the woodwork until fundraising time. Make 'em rock the boat if they feel that passionately about it.

...could the ones who insist that Reid should have been filibustering as minority leader please debate the ones who say we should let the Republicans filibuster because it makes them look like obstructionists? -Doctor Biobrain

A touch of false equivalence in there.

I'm not as concerned with appearances as I am with dead soldiers and tortured innocents. You let me know when obstructing a stimulus package or housing assistance is equal to obstructing illegal wars, wiretapping, and torture.

You said it yourself, public opinion wins elections, and I say it's a failure of Reid's abilities not to have stopped some of this awful legislation because he would have or could have had the public backing him.

Reid ignored the tools he was given to stop or slow the reckless nightmare that was the Bush administration.

Instead he sat idly by while our nation did awful things. I'm not as ready to absolve him from that as you seem to be.

I also think it's a little shallow to assume public opinion is based on the obstructionist label. I'd rather like to think it's based on policies and platforms.

You let me know when obstructing a stimulus package or housing assistance is equal to obstructing illegal wars, wiretapping, and torture. - doubtful

Has there been an illegal war bill or a wiretapping bill that could have gotten 41 anti-cloture votes? Has there been a pro-torture bill?

Either my memory is playing horrible tricks on me, or this is just plain inaccurate.

I was around when the '64 Civil Rights Act was passed. It happened only because a filibuster was broken. The segregationists did have to talk 24/7.

Thing is, breaking the filibuster was tough on the majority as well. Because the Dixie contingent could always object that there was an absence of a quorum, the proponents of the odd view that black people were also citizens had to be ready at all times to provide a quorum. So Senators slept on mattresses in the halls, to be ready to dash down to the floor, provide the quorum, and force the filibusterers to continue talking.

In the face of those tactics, the filibusterers also had to sleep in the hall. Because if they failed to show up in sufficient numbers at one of those quorum calls, they'd lose the cloture vote.

Whether they just gave up, or whether (being older and frailer on average than the pro-rights Turks) they eventually failed to muster the votes against cloture, I don't recall.

Reid is, I think, wrong on principle but right on practicalities. That sort of grueling marathon is nothing you make your own members go through for anything short of the moral equivalent of World War II. It certainly can't be used to beat back Republican intransigence on bill after bill after bill.

It seems to me that you have it all wrong.

If they HAD to speak, read from the phone book, etc. it would look much more dramatic and like they were really dedicated to their cause. By making it look like they are shutting down the Senate with little or no effort, I think the filibustering side would look much worse.

Steve,

Please remind me. Back when the republicans controlled the white house and had a majority of the senate and house, and a number of republican hot heads wanted to do away with the fillibuster (as I recall, they called it the "nuclear option"), did you support them?

Why support the nuclear option now?

A touch of false equivalence in there.

Doubtful - I wasn't making an equivalence at all. Half of you seem to think that filibustering would work and that the public would support us, while the other half seems to think we'd look like obstructionists. And again, a key point is that this is all a big gamble. We don't know how the public would react if we shutdown the Senate for every nomination or bill we didn't like. Republicans require big gambles as substitutes for strategy and that's obviously backfired on them.

And the point about public opinion is that if one side ignores it, it only really counts at election time. And it worked. We won the last two elections by large margins. But to suggest we'd have been equally successful had we made a big gamble and shutdown the Senate constantly is a bit of a stretch. I think public opinion might have gone against us if we shut down the Senate.

And as someone else suggested, I don't think there were any pro-torture bills. Similarly, there weren't many crucial issues where we had 40 firm votes. As a reminder, most of the talk of filibusters involved judicial nominees.

And as another reminder, the most egregious offenses were committed entirely within the Executive Branch and only impeachment could have really prevented those. I definitely don't think we ever had enough votes for impeaching either Bush or Cheney, and we'd have needed to get rid of both of them at the same time to do any good. When Republicans don't even acknowledge the power of subpoenas, the only recourse we have is to continue defeating them every two years.

slappy magoo,

I took JoeW less literally in terms of 'party.' Instead of political party, I thought it meant the group of people who wanted to block legislation.

I took it as, if you have 41 people who want to continue debate, regardless of affiliation, then debate shall continue.

Essentially, at least for me, the idea is that it's too easy to halt the legislative process. It should take commitment. I don't know if JoeW's way is the right way, but I definitely think it's on the right track in that there should be a cost for those who wish to impede legislation.

Has there been an illegal war bill or a wiretapping bill that could have gotten 41 anti-cloture votes? Has there been a pro-torture bill? -Danp

It's impossible to say at this point; it's purely academic. I can imagine that, with a better leader, there would have been a chance, but like I said, it's all conjecture. But ultimately, didn't this just prove that 41 isn't required? Just one to repeatedly suggest the absence of quorum (which is 51, for anyone curious)?

I didn't know guaranteed success was a prerequisite for taking a principled stand, though.

As to your second point, it wasn't a pro-torture bill, but rather a weak, vague anti-torture bill. It didn't go far enough, and should have been kept open to debate until it did.

Don't think nicteis has it quite right. Losing a quorum vote didn't hurt the filibustering party, they could get some sleep. What could hurt them would be a quick "seeing no indication of further discussion" from the chair when their speaker was in the bathroom or wherever.

The solution is to make the cloture vote based on 60% of those present and voting, not the whole senate. That way the minority would have to keep all it's senators ready to vote in case the majority swooped in for a quick cloture vote. The majority would only have to keep a few rotating senators handy for quorum calls.

"JoeW is correct. The onus belongs on the obstructionist."

Shouldn't the onus be on those who want the filibuster to go away?

The false premise is that there is some magic about 51 votes. Fifty One senators could represent much less than 51% of the country. Everyone here that wants to do away with the filibuster probably also wants to do away with the electoral college.

If the electoral college is unfair because it allows a minority to "pass" their candidate into office, why is it fair for the senate to allow, in every case a minority to "pass" legislation?

Right now a minority can block legislation, and maybe cause compromise. But a minority cannot pass anything.

The onus is first to rationalize getting rid of the electoral college AND the filibuster.

Of course, some people will just keep finding magic in 50+ as the basis of democracy.

Shouldn't the onus be on those who want the filibuster to go away? -tomj

I think there should be a cost to halting the progress that a simple majority of state's representatives think should um, progress.

The false premise is that there is some magic about 51 votes. Fifty One senators could represent much less than 51% of the country. -tomj

If you accept that we need a Senate, then that is an irrelevant point. Each state gets equal representation in the Senate, regardless of population. It's an undemocratic institution at it's core.

The only 'magic' of 51 votes is that 51 votes are required for passage of a bill in the Senate. Only that's not magic. It's just a fact.

Sure, you could change that. Make it 60 votes for passage. Or how about a supermajority? Of course, with every additional vote you require, you make it that much harder to get anything passed.

Certainly sounds like something someone who thinks government is the problem would advocate.

doubtful - I called Sen. Byrd's office and asked if a series of quorum calls can be used indefinitely to stall legislation. The aide I spoke to had never heard of it being done, and couldn't find anything definitive in his rules book, but he said he would check and call back. If he calls back soon, I'll post it here. If not, I'll just put it as an OT on whatever thread is running.

What Snoey said - just make it 60% of those present and voting (it was 2/3 of those present and voting before the 70s) rather than 60% of duly sworn members. That way the filibusterers have to be there or they lose cloture votes.

Why didn't Reid's office make this clear 2yrs ago? It certainly explains a lot and would have kept the overwhelming criticism of Reid at bay. How many times have you heard or read "why doesn't Reid make them actually filibuster " etc., and Reid's office doesn't say a thing. The public would have been more attuned to Reid's frustration if he just would have explained how this "senate" rule actually works in practice.

Now we know. All I can say to Reid is WTF is wrong with you. Now there is only one option to prevent political obstruction in the senate...remove this filibuster rule...it's anti-democratic. Do it now and watch the country rally behind you.

I called Sen. Byrd's office and asked if a series of quorum calls can be used indefinitely to stall legislation. -Danp

I just have to say, that's incredibly awesome. I love the commenters here.

btw...when you think about it, the entire senate is anti-democratic as 2 senators from Utah have as much control over legislation as 2 senators from California which has almost double the population. That means 21 small states could control the legislative decisions over 2/3rds of the population. That's probably off but you get the point.

Dr. Biobrain said: Seriously guys, could the ones who insist that Reid should have been filibustering as minority leader please debate the ones who say we should let the Republicans filibuster because it makes them look like obstructionists?

I agree with both positions, and don't see the contradiction.

I'd be all in favor of a filibuster/cloture rule that forced the minority to inconvenience itself in order to block a bill from coming to a vote. I think it works in favor of the good guys, whoever they are, whether they're the ones in the majority or the ones conducting the filibuster.

Suppose the Dems are trying to pass a minimum-wage hike, and the GOP's filibustering. (Again, assume we're in a world where the minority actually has to show up in strength to maintain a filibuster.) Which party looks bad? The GOP, because they're having to be far more visible than they'd like about their opposition to a very popular measure. It's a pretty good bet that having to be highly visible in their opposition would cause them to cave.

OTOH, suppose the majority GOP's trying to pass yet another tax cut for the rich, and the minority Dems are filibustering. Which party looks bad? The GOP, because the Dems are drawing attention to the GOP's effort to force the tax cut through, and the Dems look like heroes for blocking it.

My point is that a real filibuster inherently works to the advantage of the side with the greater popular support on the issue being debated, whichever side that is, and that's a Good Thing.

@bjobotts
Your point about the Senate being fundamentally undemocratic is right on, but it's far worse the you describe. California doesn't have "almost double the population" of Utah, it has more than 13 times the population of Utah.

There are certainly are plenty of obstructionist 'progressives' in evidence here. Wait 'til 2010 or 2012 when we REALLY have the power, do away with the electoral college at exactly the same time or don't do anything, republicans are extremists who work for short term power(stealing takes less time than earning)so we should be careful not to do anything that might upset our short term awesome gains, the media is against us so doing much that the right wing doesn't like must inevitably fail,...

O Ye of little faith, what's the point of going to church if you don't really believe? The rest of the developed world is much more progressive than we are because of the ideals we espoused and fought to make possible. What the hell happened to us?

Race was the proximate cause of our demise, but naivete', a lack of diligence, underestimating a 'defeated foe, and greed played significant roles. We now have an AA president who is a sharp cookie, a real,hard worker, world-wise and not in it for the money. We have been dealt our best hand in decades, it's time to double down.

The real difference, the fundamental difference that no one is picking up on is that the Democrats want to pass legislation and the Republicans don't. The Republicans would be perfectly happy if 2009 went by without a single bill passing the Senate. Not the budget, not the stimulus, nothing. The Democrats, on the other hand, have all sorts of things they'd like to get done. When one party's only goal is to have nothing happen they have a very simple job.

Beyond that, can we talk about clipping the powers of the undemocratic Senate in general?

Doubtful,

You said "It's an undemocratic institution at it's core."

This is exactly my point about the presumption you and Steve Benen, and others make: democracy means majority rule, everywhere and anytime.

You claim that it takes 51 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. This is not true! The stimulus bill required 60 votes in order to wave the Budget Act.

In California, it takes 2/3 majority to raise taxes.

If we got a 50+% requirement in both houses of congress, they could immediately pass a bill requiring 100% agreement on raising taxes, or anything else.

You look at this issue as a partisan issue. It isn't, it is a coalition issue. If the filibuster was a partisan issue, we would not have passed the stimulus, instead we got three republicans to go along.

Something else you forget is that there will always exist a middle few senators on any issue. If we required 45 votes to pass a bill, the Senate would find a need to negotiate with a few holdouts who find themselves not quite convinced.

In short, you look at the complex negotiations in the Senate in the same way you view an election. But in the Senate, and even the House, there will always be a middle ground that focuses power. If we needed 51 votes in the Senate, the plan may please only 50, but with changes we get 51.

You just cannot compare the election goal of 50+% to elect our representatives and any particular requirement for a vote (one friggin' vote!) to pass into law.

If you want to talk about unfair, look at presidential vetos! There is no democracy in a veto. A veto forces a 2/3 agreement from both houses of congress.

How can one person force a 2/3 vote in both Houses?

Tomj said :This is exactly my point about the presumption you and Steve Benen, and others make: democracy means majority rule, everywhere and anytime.

Exaggerate much? People object to a system that is too easily stymied. You are correct when you say, as we all know, the system has contained many impediments to simple majority rule since its inception and most would agree that a certain amount of that is a good thing. But as with virtually everything in life, it's all a matter of degree. Objecting to change simply because there is lot more to do is defeatist and reveling in the current state of affairs just because it is that, is process serving.

And I hope that you can get elected to the Senate an add your 1% vote to introduce 50% rule!

I can't wait! The fifty least inhabited states decide to force investment in these states.

Again: please rationalize the filibuster with the electoral college. To review: the electoral college allows a president to be elected with less than 50% of the national vote, which allows the president to enforce 67% of both houses of congress to vote yes on any bill. The filibuster allows 41% of the Senate to block a single vote, not even a bill, and excludes the possibility of negotiation (a veto allows no negotiation).

To my progressive soul-mates: please consider more than one part of the overall equation to passing a bill.

The real travesty in our system is the 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court! Why not require a 2/3 majority to change constitutional law?

Anyway, live with your fantasy of progressive democracy. The next time that Republicans get 50% of every house, or heck, even Democrats, expect ideological destruction.

I sense that both parties know they need the center to moderate their outrage, and that is the principle reason we maintain the filibuster.

The author states:

"Now, can we talk about getting rid of the filibuster altogether?"

I would like to know what the authors opinion on the filibuster was when the democrats were in the minority and the republicans were trying to push through right-wing judicial nominees. Remember the "Nuclear Option" of Bill Frist, and the gang of 11?

I'm just curious if the authors opinions are consistent on the filibuster, or just tied to who is in charge and what is at stake in the Senate. I encourage the author to not be like FOX News, an institution he seems to hold in contempt, but an organization that also changes it's opinion according to which party has the power. Don't be Fox News, it's disappointing to read a statement like "Now, can we talk about getting rid of the filibuster altogether?" if you are not consistent.

I'd really like to believe in someone, allow me to believe in Washington Monthly.

To follow up on my last message. It was the Gang of 14, I was wrong. I searched the archives and found a relevant quote from the previous blogger of Washington Monthly and the subject of the so called Nuclear Option:

"My broader point is that the real issue in the filibuster fight isn't the filibuster itself — or blue slips or Rule IV or any other specific rule — it's the general principle that rules shouldn't be cynically changed en masse just because your guy is in power and you've decided they're no longer convenient. As it happens, I'm not much of a fan of filibusters myself: their history has mostly been anti-liberal, and in principle I think majorities should be able to pass legislation if they can muster the votes. However, the rules shouldn't change midstream. If Republicans and Democrats could agree on a broad set of rule changes that eliminated the filibuster but didn't take effect until 2009, I'd support it."

So this is what I get from this: Kevin Drum (the previous blogger) wanted democrats and republicans to come together and decide on a fair rule to take effect after the next election. While Steve Benen just wants to change the rules because he is not getting what he wants. Maybe I'm wrong about Mr. Benen, but Mr. Drum certainly comes across as much more reasonable, read this quote from Mr. Drum: "it's the general principle that rules shouldn't be cynically changed en masse just because your guy is in power and you've decided they're no longer convenient." No offense Mr. Benen, but I think you are wrong and should listen more (or read more by) Kevin Drum. I was really disappointed when I read the simple line that we should just get rid of the filibuster.

btw...when you think about it, the entire senate is anti-democratic as 2 senators from Utah have as much control over legislation as 2 senators from California which has almost double the population. That means 21 small states could control the legislative decisions over 2/3rds of the population. That's probably off but you get the point.

According to Wikipedia, as of July 1, 2008, the estimated population of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the other insular areas of the United States was 305,986,357.

Of that total, the most populous 29 states have 88.62%; DC, P.R., and the other areas that have no Senate votes have 1.43%; thus the least populous 21 states have 9.95% of the population, and the power to filibuster legislation supported by nearly nine times their number.

That would look even worse on television!

Imagine, one guy just sitting there and occasionally he raises a finger and says 'er, no, I suggest the absence of a quorum'.

Could anything so define the over-privileged?

I encourage the author to not be like FOX News, an institution he seems to hold in contempt, but an organization that also changes it's opinion according to which party has the power.

Oh, honey. Your credibility went poof with that line.

most populous 29 states have 88.62%

Neal Deesit - That is an interesting statistic. I did a spreadsheet in which I assigned half of each state's population to each of its senators. Assuming Minnesota goes to Franken, the Dems represent about 62% of the US population while the Rep Sens represent just under 38% (I ignor DC and PR completely).

While theoretically (and statistically), you are absolutely correct, today's Senate is not quite that bad. If you add blue dog Dems from smaller states to the Rep side, I suspect you would have even more evidence of how difficult it is to get progressive legislation passed.