Thanks, Harry Reid, for running the show with UC agreements that require 60 votes.

Make the minority filibuster, you putz!

First Steve Benen was complaining that a vote of 399 to 1 wasn't unanimous enough, and now he's complaining that 60 to 40 is too unanimous.

Liberal double standard as usual.

Obstruction works for the Republicans but not the
Democrats because Democrats want government to do something. Not so for the Republicans - they consider themselves elected to obstruct, not govern.

Is it worth pointing out what "supermajority" rule has done to California? I realize Republicans are okay with this, but any Democrat who falls into this trap of endless appeasement to the minority party (they're in the minority for a good reason, folks) should be ashamed.

the GOP has been laying this groundwork for many, many years. They've known their bullshit would voted down eventually, but they wanted a way to keep power in spite of that. And now they have it.

I am so disgusted with the Democratic Party right now..there are no words. They're either dullards, chickenshit bastards, or outright in thrall to the same corporate interests that bought and sold the GOP long ago. Probably some of all three.

And Reid. Not worth a bucket of warm piss.

More and better democrats. Less of people like Reid and Rahm..a lot less. It'll take a generation, probably, with the goopers fighting dirty the whole time, but they spent 40 years destroying our politics and our country..we better be ready to spend at least that long repairing both.

It's time for the nuclear option. Change the Senate rules.

[quote]...we're dealing with a procedural dynamic that has never existed in American history. There's never been a time in U.S. history in which a Senate minority caucus could simply stop the majority from bringing... [anything]... to the floor for a vote.[/quote]

Works for California, right?

Time to go back to the 'old' normal. Let the GOP fillibuster. WHO CARES???? Is there anything they can do that DOESN'T make them look like morons? It is the JOB of the Senate to make GOOD law. Standing up against it, fillibusting, LYING is making the public crazy...and the last time I checked, we still VOTED.

The same people who brought us Reagan in CA, also brought us the required 2/3 vote requirement for passing a budget. Look where it got us in CA.

Now they have insinuated this idea into the federal gov't, in the form of the filibuster.

Conservatives have become traitors. They put their ideology before their country.

This is why I'm a self-loathing Democrat. They allow themselves to be painted into a corner without even the semblance of common sense.

Could anyone possibly imagine the Republicans with 60 votes and not voting for cloture on every single occasion? (Of course not, because there would be Dems voting for it, too. But still.)

Can we please have the cloture vote already? Until everyone is on record, all this speculation is just nonsense. If cloture fails, consider this - there is BIPARTISAN agreement to obstruct. At that point, the Donkeys need to grow a pair and put their own defector(s) in some serious hurt.

"Quickly and quietly, the political establishment came to accept that 60-vote minimums on everything of significance are customary."

This truth further demonstrates the right-wing bias of the so-called liberal media. When Senate Dems threatened to filibuster Bush judicial nominees under exceptional conditions, the media threw a fit. When Republicans filibuster by default, the same media outlets are complicit.

This "tradition" will vanish the second Republicans ride dissatisfaction with assholes like Reid into the Senate Majority again.

Only Democrats would make up and abide by rules that guarantee in-fighting and unilateral disarmament.

Why do we even have a Senate? It seems to be such a disfigured, overpowered version of what it was intended to be. I can't be alone in thinking the House is more than enough to represent the country.

Think of the money and time savings as well as the regained ability to get things done that would come with disbanding the Senate.

The Senate seems only able to destroy good legislation and is far too entrenched in special interests. As long as the Senate exists, there will be no real progress in this country.

I realize it's an unrealistic pipe dream, but the Senate is the bottleneck of progress and the brothel where corporations shop for whores. I can't help but wish it didn't exist.

Came here to post basically what I see Jay B. just said.

Don't worry: this tradition will evaporate the instant Republicans get 51 seats. Reid is apparently more committed to non-constitutional Senate traditions than he is to policy, but that certainly won't stop the Republicans.

Anybody have a link providing a synopsis of how this (filibuster) might be changed? I realize it's probably a forest of weeds unfriendly to a synopsis but I'd like to get some idea of how we got here and especially how we move on.

Being Canadian, I really don't get why a filibuster doesn't literally require someone filibustering anymore.

Whomever brought about that change probably got the idea from the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMoi-nDd6cQ&feature=PlayList&p=972470A9173B1637&index=0, from 6:50 to about 8:00...

To be fair, though, lousy (and sometimes deliberately biased) coverage of politics by the corporate media is one of the reasons why the Democrats find themselves constantly on the defensive on stuff like this (even when they shouldn't be).

Perhaps the Democratic Party needs to take a page from their opponents and apply that here ...

"... we only need 51." - Karl Rove.

The nuclear option article has extensive details on changing the filibuster.

"Being Canadian, I really don't get why a filibuster doesn't literally require someone filibustering anymore."

The reason is because the Senate is an ossified insider's game that is more about protecting power stakeholders than about making politics in a democratic system. (This is not how the Republicans see it. They are interested in overlordship). Indeed Reid endlessly organizes with more respect toward the minority than he does toward the political goals of his party! The American Senate is the House of Lords before the long age of reform put it on mothballs. For a generation, and more, the Southern minority used the filibuster to frustrate civil rights reform. Now they have turned it into a veto on anything they don't like no matter how small their minority- in terms of actual numbers in the Senate or the number of people they represent.

It is the weak leadership of the Dems that lets this go on. God knows toothless Reid needs to be put out to pasture.

We need some kind of filibuster. Getting rid of it is a very bad idea because there really are exceptional cases where the minority has to put on the breaks.

I think the problem is, as others have pointed out, that it is extremely easy on the filibuster-er to maintain a filibuster. The impetus is on the majority to take extraordinary measures to stop it. We should change that. One interesting idea I've seen is changing the rules on the cloture vote. Instead of 60 yes-votes to end the debate, it should require 40 no-votes to continue the debate.

That puts the burden on the filibuster-er to maintain the filibuster, instead of the filibuster-ee to end it. At the same time, it still leaves the obstruction option open for the extraordinary circumstances where it might be needed.

"The reason is because the Senate is an ossified insider's game that is more about protecting power stakeholders than about making politics in a democratic system."

I do get that... But I understand that in the past, a filibuster required someone to stand up, and literally filibuster. I even recall a West Wing episode where that happened, although I think it was at the HoR.

A literal filibuster at least ensures that the frivolous opposition goes away. I really don't think Bayh or Nelson will even be talking about supporting a filibuster if they have to commit to the physical exercise.

Like many have suggested, I have yet to see a filibuster run its full course. Perhaps if Reid actually forced them to do it, I could see what one looks like.

Don't you get it? The filibuster is a very convenient excuse for the Democrats to do what they want-nothing. It has reached the point where Senators no longer give a damn about being in the majority or minority, only holding office.
Obama should simply say he will actively campaign against any Senator who won't vote for cloture. Reid will do nothing.

Not having to physically filibuster is gentlemen's etiquette. Just signal your intention and I will not require you to be uncomfortable. It means that the majority agrees that the minority has a veto that can be exercised with no criteria. It is corrupt, power-worshiping and anti-political. The politics are fought against the progressive activists in Reid's own party. The filibuster itself is senseless in a modern democratic country. The Senate as an institution already gives regional minorities too much power. The new incarnation of the filibuster gives the minority in a minority empowering institution veto power over a great majority.

At least three others have said as much, but it bears repeating: look at what supermajorities have done to California. This is one "innovation" from CA which should not be exported.

Thank you, PeakVT.

I've probably watched too many episodes of West Wing, but why isn't Reid getting tough with the Nelson boys, Bayh, Landrieu, etc.?

This shouldn't be tough. Reid simply tells them they vote for cloture on every bill the leadership supports, or they will not receive one dime of support from the DSCC or the party establishment in their next election. Because after all, if they won't support the party, why should the party support them?

The Senate blue dogs make me sick, and Reid's inability to get them in line makes me sicker.

Oh, brother, wouldn't you know Nixon was the one that saddled us with this lunacy. I thought we were more or less done with him, but he speaks from beyond the grave.

The Dems simply need to grow a pair and stomp on the Republicans' pair a few times. Rush needs to be put on trial for libel and Savage, Hannity and O'Reilly need strokes.

God, what you can you do about this?

Reid simply tells them they vote for cloture on every bill the leadership supports, or they will not receive one dime of support from the DSCC or the party establishment in their next election. Because after all, if they won't support the party, why should the party support them?

Because as someone pointed out in another thread, the rubes don't pay attention to cloture votes, but the powerful business interests who've bought jerks like Bayh do, and they don't even need to threaten to withdraw their support threat; the so called "Blue Dogs" full well know the score and do the bidding of their masters.

"The nation" neither knows nor cares.

The problem isn't the filibuster, it's a Democratic Party that's scared to death because there are fewer and fewer Republicans to hide its conservatism behind anymore.

I thought Obama had already said he was going to do health insurance reform under the budget reconciliation process, which cannot be filibustered?

Those demanding that the Democrats force a physical filibuster don't understand the rules. Unfortuantely, a physical filibuster is much more demanding on the proponents of a bill than on the opponents, becasue the filibustering opponents only need one of their senators present, while those supporting a bill being filibustered need enough senators present to constitute a quorum of the senate.

It should be noted everytime the word "filibuster" is used that it has been abused...abused and heralded by republicans as "the means" to prevent democratic successes. That's it...filibuster everything to prevent democrats from becoming too popular.

Filibuster for political gain only...it has nothing to do with the actual policies being filibustered. Since dems became the majority the abuse of the filibuster began.

A filibuster should be rare...used only to make the senate more deliberative not to prevent the majority from governing.

The country is relieved finally that the filibuster can now become rare again...so to hear Bayh and Nelson etc make such statements that they may join in this obstructionism is just infuriating. The filibuster rule has become so abused by constant use that it is now just obstructionism to prevent any legislation from even getting voted on simply because it might be too successful and make the other party look too damn good. Just pathetic.

I hope Bacon's article at least showed a graph of its increased use since repubs became the minority.

what JMG said

From what I have read, the Washington Post is in serious financial difficulty.

So its reporters had better hope a public option is available for them after it goes under.

There's a cold wind blowing out there.....

What dr. sardonicus said.

Out here in CA, they made that concept into a law for budget bills....two thirds needed to pass, enabling a small group of virulently right wing GOP legislators to spend every day uttering one word....NO to any attempt to pass a budget.

The results so far have been loads of fun for everyone involved....and vendors are eagerly anticipating receiving their first IOUs for work done, college students are being told that the State University will waive their payment of fees (tuition) until a budget settlement reinstates funding for the Cal Grant scholarships which currently are not funded (the Governor is calling for new grants to be abolished entirely in the next year's budget), and a growing number of state employees are moving from two day per month furloughs to three per month.

It's time for the nuclear option. Change the Senate rules.

Yup. Back during the Janice Rogers Brown days when you people were running around like chickens with your heads cut off about it, I wondered what you were thinking. Historically filibusters have been used far more often to kill progressive legislation than to block wingnut nominees.