'what's needed here is "political will" to address the dysfunctional process that "represents the single greatest threat to the Democratic Party's progressive agenda and its political future."'

Yes, yes, yes. The Dems need to play tougher with these Republicans and stop being such wimps. We don't back people who will go be road kill for the extremists in the Republican Party.

Democrats! Stand up for yourselves and for US!

Am I missing something? Name the last 5 instances of an actual flibuster.

The nub of the problem is that there are almost certainly nowhere near 51 Democratic senators willing to make the necessary change in Rule 22. The case has to be made to Senate Dems that as the party of change they have more to gain than to lose by instituting majority rule. It needs to be made by Obama.

Indeed, I would like to see a push from Obama to end the filibuster rule. Don't the Dems understand that frustrating their agenda is the Republican plan to getting back in power and that enacting their own agenda will win them power for a generation?

Read the Cohen article. He gives examples of recent filibusters, including three that had to be overcome to pass the extension of unemployment benefits.

The Constitution was written to prevent majority domination, but the Senate rules (and to a lesser extent the House rules) have added multiple other anti-majoritarian features: the filibuster, secret holds, and various other delaying tactics.

I think we should give the authors of the Constitution for successfully preventing majority dictatorship, and strip out all of the extra-constitutional anti-majoritarian features embodied in Congressional tradition.

Every veto point in Congress is a toll booth for extortionists, bribe-collectors and deal-makers, and that's exactly how the system works. I have no idea how "conservatives" justify that kind of law-making process, which goes directly against most of their supposed principles.

It's also hard to see why minority rule or a minority veto is superior to majority rule. If there were only one majority and one minority, protection of minority rights would be intelligible, but there are dozens of overlapping minorities, and only a few of them are able to play the system to get their own way. Not only does the majority lose under this system, but most minorities do too. (The filibuster's main contribution to American life has been the protection of segregation for many decades).

Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority, and they should be. But they won't be, because every single Senator of either party profits from having the toll-booths for bribery.

Rule 22 is in desperate need of some serious clarification. The so-called procedural filibuster is the dumbest thing ever. The thing is they don't have to change the number of votes for a filibuster, and they don't have to get rid of it. All they have to do is force the filibusterers to put some skin in the game every once in a while, and things will change.

I'll betcha Beck already has a script prepared on this:

"And now it is truly revealed. The dictatorial takeover of our country by Godless socialist despotism, operating under the guise of majority rule. Wake up America. They are taking away your rights."

We got this same nonsense out here in California and you can see just how well it is working.

The majority party always hates the filibuster. When the pendulum swings back the other way (and it will) you'll be fans of it once again.

I think that politicians in Washington must live in a bubble that has an "Alice in Wonderland Reality" permeating it. We have all these problems and the Dems argue amongst themselves. We have all these problems and the head up the ass Repubs play endless games for nothing more than partisan gain. There are real people out heree suffering. The latest statistics show that more people are going hungry in this country. More people are losing their homes. More people are losing jobs. More people are without health insurance or have inadequate health insurance. And yet these fuckin bastards fiddle away like modern day Neros.

I don't mean to be a dick, but I don't remember Democrats leading the charge in 2005 to reform the filibuster, when they were actually threatening to use it.

We can sit here now and grouse about the Republicans and Lieberman all we want, bitch about how this means the minority rules, and it's an abuse of the system and whatnot. But the fact is, reform isn't going to happen until we the Democrats can are back in the minority and can still say the filibuster is a bad idea.

mwl -
It's not the filibuster that I disapprove of, but rather the ABUSE of the filibuster. The Dems did not abuse the tactic when they were in the minority. The GOP has broken records in half the time for use of the filibuster. There is a huge difference in the complaints we have now and the hissy fits they threw back in the Dark Days.

.
.
.
The majority should get 3 'filibuster flags' during each session of congress so that they can get their policies enacted.
.
.
.

It doesn't help when my Senator, "progressive" Russ Feingold, obsesses about "czars" in the Obama administration rather than trying to fix his own dysfunctional legislative body.

When Feingold takes the same aim at Senate obstructionism that he takes at Obama, he can reclaim the mantle "progressive."

Chrenson is a big silly. The filibuster will be abolished (or the number reduced to 55) when and if the party in power decides that it's to their advantage to do so and is able to get 51 votes. The opinion of the minority party will have nothing to do with it. Now would be a good time.

What he seems to be saying is either that it will only be OK to abolish the filibuster if the minority party agrees, or else that it would be wrong, wrong WRONG! for the majority party to selfishly abolish the filibuster. But those considerations are really of no importance. Abolishing the filibuster would be cynical politics, but filibustering itself is cynical politics. Politics is like that.

I would seriously question the wisdom of moving toward majority rule. The Rethugs are perfectly capable of implementing horrible law with a minority in both the house and senate and a GOP president. On the other hand, the Donkeys could't pass gas with a 60% majority in both houses and a Dem president. Find a way to fix THAT problem. Maybe the solution is electing better Dems and enforcing party discipline. Just saying...

As Tony and Christopher said, the problem is the procedural filibuster. The solution is for Harry Reid to require an actual filibuster, where the Republicans would have to be present and continuously talking, and then embarrass them in the Senate and press for doing so. The majority leader has that power under Rule 22.

Of course, that would require Reid show some courage, which seems to be lacking not only in Harry Reid, but all Democrats these days.

Chances are that 51 votes to change Rule 22 don't exist and won't no matter who is in power. Obama has demonstrated a timorous approach to every one of the big problems facing the country, and California has led the way to total dysfunction.

I expected little from the Democrats, and they haven't disappointed me because there is no bottom. Whenever one thinks it can't get any worse, it does. Our system of government is terminally ill, and can't heal itself.

Thus we will see the right-wing gain strength by promoting a dictatorship that will, allegedly, clean up the corruption, and end the stasis. Don't forget: Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hitler put people back to work. Simplistic reasoning, anger, dire need, and economic pain, will justify a swelling of ranks among the fascists. It always does.

My option for fixing the filibuster:

Modify the minimum required vote from 60 senators to the number of senators needed to represent 60% of the population.

Each senator would represent 50% of their state's population.

Greg, a real filibuster would require the Democrats (well, at least 50 of them at any given time) to sit there while the Republicans go on and on and on and on...

And well, unfortunately, Senators like their time off.

Republicans don't give a rat's ass about the legislature, so for them the filibuster is all about thwarting democratic legislation which only happens when democrats are in the majority. They're only too happy to be using it now, and will be happy to use it until they regain the majority, at which time they won't need it because they don't legislate, except to consolidate executive power and pass tax cuts (always popular with everyone).

yer fuckin' kiddin' me!

you think a sensible reasoned article by some government geek on "filibusters as the 'mercury in retrograde' of american politics -- w/footnotes" is gonna astonish all the diaper-wearin' gov leaders in Congress and the Obama admin. into feisty "git 'er done" gutsy reformers?

ha! it is to say "ha!"

just shoot me. there's yet to be a goddam filibuster. the kabuki filibuster scares 'em enough...

you think they want to "fix" the clown car? hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
i just pissed my pants
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha

This is why I favored the "nuclear option" when the Rethugs were pushing it. They got most of what they wanted anyway - and I knew it would come back to bite 'em in the ass.

"..., Democratic leaders ... were tasked by the electorate to rescue the economy, resolve two costly wars, improve the struggling job market, address a crushing debt, and fix health care, energy policy, immigration, a housing crisis, a collapsing U.S. auto industry, and the Gitmo mess."

You can add Global Warming to the list, plus DADT for good measure.

We had Republicans in charge of both chambers of congress as well as the White House. As bad as the outcome was, would you really have wanted it to be even worse, giving Repubs the ability to do anything on simple majority rules? Really? The damage that they were able to do has a lot more to do with the spinelessness of the Democratic Party than the institutional rules of the Senate. The problem is that the Repubs are doing this on purpose. They threatened to get rid of the filibuster when the last time they controlled the senate but couldn't because they didn't have 60 votes. So, now that they are in the minority, they will abuse the hell out of the filibuster in hopes that the Democrats, in their frustration, will be dumb enough to toss it.
The issue is not that the Repubs are filibustering everything, its that Reid and the Dems won't make them stand up and do it the old fashioned way. At the moment, all they have to do is signal their intentions and Reid backs down. Make them actually filibuster the vote to start debate on a bill. Then run clips of "Up-er-down vote!!" circa 2003 right up their asses.
And, really. The majority of voters are going to go to the polls in 2010 and say to themselves, "Gosh am I mad at those Democrats for not getting anything done. I'll show them! I'll vote for the Republicans that prevented them from getting anything done!"???
The Republicans didn't fuck everything up overnight. We won't be able to fix it all in a year or two either. In fact, it's probably going to take more than one election cycle to fix things. And I would much rather be the folks running the campaign ads that say "we just need a lot less obstruction-at-any-cost Republicans in order to get things done" than the ones that say, "Vote for us! We'll vote NO on any damn thing!"

Keep the filibuster but make it painful to use. That's how it was when senators would have to stand and talk to maintain their filibuster. I get why it changed -- we don't to deny the filibuster from, say, Robert Byrd, because of his physical limitations. There are other options, though:

- Grant one filibuster per term for each state. Both senators from the state must agree to filibuster

- If you choose to filibuster, all legislation with your name on it goes to the bottom of the list

- For any committee business, you're at the bottom of the seniority list while you're filibustering

Just move the terrorist trials to the halls of Congress and the whimps will be askeared to show up.

Limitations to elderly Senators notwithstanding, a filibuster should be a filibuster. If one Senator doesn't have the stamina to make the filibuster a reality, then let another Senator simpatico with the one leading the filibuster do the time.

It may also cut down on the entrenched "lifers" in the Senate. While some of those veterans may be truly trying to do the will of the people, far too often they wind up being elderly shills of corporate interests, who keep paying the necessary money to keep their re-elections a reality. If they're too frail to possibly perform filibusters, then perhaps it's time to retire, because (in theory) they're not able to do all their constituents need them to do.

The reason the Democrats can not break filibusters is very simple: lack of party discipline.

Cloture votes are not the same as final votes. It would be unethical to force any representative to vote against their district or their conscious. But a cloture vote is about which legislation reaches the floor for a final vote, and in this regard the fact that any member of the Democratic caucus feels that they have the right to filibuster their own caucus is crazy. Do you really think the Republicans would tolerate this?

No party can function as the majority if their members feel no obligation to the majority leader regarding cloture votes. Any member that does this should be force to surrender their chairmanships, or their support from the party.

John Emerson,

Everyone knows that I'm a "big silly." No one's debating that.

My point [and I did have one] was that the majority party always wants filibuster reform the second the minority party threatens to use it. I've heard Democrats asking why Republicans were against the filibuster in 2005 and so willing to use it today as if, in this case, Republicans were the only hypocrites.

You're absolutely correct that "going nuclear" is cynical politics. It's the equivalent of a spouse who brings up "divorce" during every argument. And it's a way of saying "the will of The People be damned!"

All I'm saying is that we, the Democrats, weren't calling the filibuster "cynical politics" four years ago. So today, we should be careful how we label it. It won't be too long before we're the cynics again.

There were Democrats arguing that we should hav e let the Republicans abolish the filibuster a few years ago, and considering that the Lieberman Gang of Six got nothing from their compromise, except for Lieberman, the anti-filibuster Democrats were right.

Such short memories. The dems invoked Rule 22 20 times during the 108th congress alone. When the Repubs were in charge filabustering was cool. Hypocrits on both sides.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/28/20041228-090340-4897r/

Why not just propose legislation that 60 senators favor? If you write a law that the majority of the voting public actually favors, there would be no problem passing it.

Hmm... maybe if the laws being considered were any good and had broad public support, maybe if there was an effort to actually compromise, maybe if there was truly an effort for bi-partisan legislation there would be no need to filibuster. Filibusters are a brake on one party shoving its agenda down the peoples' throat. Perhaps our law makers should be working on building consensus... what a novel idea.

Give me a break, Steve. If the Democrats were in the minority, you would be the first one to sing the praises of the beautiful and elegant procedural tool called the filibuster. At least be honest about this: you simply want to advance the Democratic agenda and even 60 votes aren't enough for you; you want TOTAL CONTROL.

Wow, first time reading this site. You are a bunch of crazy liberals. It still amazes me that you are not listening to the core of the country. Job, jobs, jobs. Sorry, I mean real sustainable jobs, not government jobs which have been spoon fed this year, what about next? Stop concerning yourselves with the filibuster and doing something to help businesses grow jobs. You want health care, fine, add 5 mil people to medicaid this year, boom, move on to jobs. Add more next year. Idiots.

Where was your outrage when the Democrats were filibustering Republican legislation from 1995 until 2007? The Republicans today aren't doing anything that wasn't done to them in spades. But go ahead, repeal the filibuster. It will make it that much easier to repeal all your garbage laws once we regain complete control of Washington in 2012.

You, or Cohen, claim that the fillibuster is being used to block all not just bad legislation. You are missing the boat on this one. Most of America equates the current Democratic Legislative Agenda as "bad" legislation. So your statement is incorrect. The threat of a fillibuster, not an actual fillibuster as I have not observed that for some time now, is being used to block bad legislation. Give us a break Steve and admit that the country does not espouse liberalism by fiat.

Am I forgetting something or didn't the Dems threaten many of Bush's judge appointments with a fillabuster thus requiring a 60 vote super majority?

Am I missing something or didn't that lead to the gang of 11 (or 8 or something - I forget) senators to make an agreement....

What am I missing? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I doubt you would feel this way if the Republicans had all the control and wanted to push through far-right fascist legislation.

The Democrats constantly filbustered Bush's judicial nominations. They're equally guilty.

LMAO! Who couldn't have predicted liberals immediate switch in attitude about the filibuster once they had the reins of power, and the Republicans' embrace of the sanctity of the filibuster. Nothing ever changes, and probably never will. The filibuster is here to stay, I am afraid.

Forget the biased editorial by Bevan, forget whether or not you are right or left. (I do know quite a few lefties and righties who are legitimate patriots even at opposite ends of their reasoning points). In the end - this is simply a very very very bad HC Bill. What is needed is for the centrists of both parties to get together, enjoin the Insurers and the government agencies and first and foremost get the fraud out of Medicare. Be realistic - the gov't cannot control this one thing and we want to turn over the whole thing to them.?? com'on now - what the hell are you smoking? Drop the idealism and get real for a minute! Get this one thing under control and then proceed to public options with triggers, states opt out rights, torte limits, rewarding good health behaviors for reduced premiums and on and on....

By your rules 50%+1 means ring it up and do it. Well, there's no reputable poll that Obamacare at anywhere near 50% approval with the American people, so Congress should not even address the issue, right?

The sputtering hysterics! The self-righteous outrage! The imperious trashing of the minority as soon as the majority (Democrats) can't unify their own ranks (because their legislation is so utterly offensive even their own members hesitate to cram it through)!

Please, someone bookmark this piece and its posts from the harried progressives until 2 or 4 or 6 from now, when it's a 57-43 Republican majority again (it will happen, and I'm not even cheerleading or calling a "renaissance"; it's just political physics). Then we'll see how consistent you were in wishing away the rights of a unified minority when single-party moves like an abortion ban, privatization of social security, defunding of the NEA and PBS, repeal of Davis-Bacon, and outlawing of public-sector unionism reach the floor.

Hypocrites.

What a briliant piece! Just kidding. So it sounds like the framers fell a bit short and Mr. Benen is just the man to tweak the Constitution.

The Senate rules are set up the way they are to keep us from constant flip-flopping from one extreme to the other and mob rule. Also, since we have yet to see an actual vote in the Senate, we have no way of knowing for sure if there are even 50 Senators willing to vote for this turkey. They could easily be doing what they've been doing for the last 10 years - blaming everything on the republicans. Has the author considered the chilling effect of the Stupak Amendment on the potential votes here? What about the Doc Fix vote that went down in flames across party lines? The real life Senate is nowhere near as dumb and shallow as you all portray them to be. One final thought: if we end up not getting a full government takeover of healthcare, you'll all be thanking those filibuster rules - progressives and conservatives alike. You really don't understand how bad it is what you're wishing for. If you did, you wouldn't wish for it.

Waaah. Dems have 60 votes - and they still find a reason to whine about being unable to get something through the process! Contrary to the author's rant, the filibuster, which has been in place for quite some time, is one of the reasons the Senate is, as was intended, the brake on the passions of the House (note to the spitfires, go back and watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"). And in this century, from 1917 to 1949, and from 1959 to 1975, cloture took a two-thirds (!)majority (which would be 67 today, for the more mathmatically challenged), and yet, these wimps today can't imagine having to hit 60 on anything. It should tell them how out of step the agenda is politically, but who cares about that, huh?

To require an "actual" filibuster (requiring both sides to demonstrate their resolve), which I don't believe has been tried since 1992, all Harry Reid has to do is call the question, but he doesn't have the stones. So you'd rather abandon the rule altogether than put enough skin in the game to make that happen. It shouldn't be surprising that modern Democrats are that weak, but there we are. Good thing senators in 1964 didn't weren't that pathetic, or the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act (led by Democrats Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., and still-sitting Robert Byrd) would have likely derailed the CRA.

Just remember, if you change rule 22, you take the Genie out of the bottle, and empower conservatives to do whatever they want any time they hold a simple majority of the Senate, including the confirmation of conservative judges that were once held up for years by filibuster maneuvering. Once rung, this is a bell you cannot unring.

Sure, you liberals would love to get rid of the 60 vote rule in the senate and exactly how do you intend to do that? And wouldn't you whine and sinvel and demand it be re-instated when you lose power and the Republicans pack the Supreme Court with Alitos and Thomases. You Bolsivicks would I suppose compose the rule to only pertain when Democrats hold power? And as to the founders being upset about the use of the filibuser, I belive they would applaud it. They didn't trust federal government. Maybe you should read the federalist papers to get a little education before opening your pie holes.

INTJ - I just read the other day that it used to be 3/4, not 2/3, for a filibuster-proof majority. Maybe you're right, not sure.

Either way, liberals should really want to keep the threshold at 60%. Why? Very likely scenario that in 2010 or 2012 the Republicans will retake the majority in the Senate in response to this nightmare of a Presidency we've had so far under Obama. At that point, the logical first step will be to repeal every single aspect of Obamacare and start over from scratch, if we care to. And it will be much easier to do so if the filibuster threshold is lowered to 50%, or in essence done away with. So, not only is it disingenuous on the part of liberals to want to change the rules, it's short-sighted and downright stupid. Wait a minute - why am I surprised?

DUH!

How much longer must we tolerate a dysfunctional senate before something is done to stop the abuse of the filibuster. This post is similar to the thousands that have already been posted saying exactly the same thing.

It's a corruption of democracy. Even appointments are prevented. It's ridiculous. It's not democracy.

I dont recall the dems having any problem using the threat of fillibuster to derail the republican agenda. In fact when republicans wanted to impose regulations on Fanny and Freddy that might have mitigated the housing fiasco it was Chris Dodd who threatened a dem fillibuster. When a few whacky repubs sugessted a nuke option to do away with dem fillibuster of federal court nominees the Dems cried that the repubs had a disregard for the Constitution and the traditions of the senate. The reason the dems wont change the rules and the reason the repubs did not employ the nuke option is that they both know that sometimes they are in the minority, and when they are they like to have a voice.

The purpose of the Senate is to stop bad bills from passing. The vast majority of things (especially now) coming out of the House are disastrous. No rule changes need to be made. Sorry to spoil the liberal dreams, but most Americans don't want what you want. Now they want to change the rules to ram everything through. Typical.

Convenient truth is what you have- good for us if we use it, but bad for them. It is a bad idea, a bad bill, bad logic, bad.....

Poor Steven Benen the little pouting blogger. Filibusters were wonderful and constitutional from 1994 to 2006. Only inconvenient now the Democrats are in power. The sad thing is Republicans have only 39 votes and they are so powerless that they cannot even filibuster and he is still whining.
This reminds me of the hypocrisy in MA whereby after the 2004 election, the MA legislature voted to strip then Govenor Romney of his power to appoint the next Senator in case Kerry won the presidency instead calling for a special election and now in 2009 the legislature voted to change their own previous law because now that there is a Democratic governor so the law should be different. The people should not be allowed a special election as there is a Democratic governor who could appoint a Democrat Senator immediately as his vote would be needed for health care. Even with this MA Senator which gives the Democrats the 60 they need, it is not enough for this pathetic blogger.

Geez...a lot of stupid responses here...talk about missing the point.

The point is not the filibuster...the point is the ABUSE of the filibuster. Go look at the stats...it's like 180 to 5 filibusters with repubs the 180 part compared to when dems were the minority and usually dems would break their own filibuster (looking at you Joe Lieberman).

It's not being done because of concern for the issue...but merely to obstruct ANY legislation put up by dems. There's like 80 holds on nominees...the abuse of the filibuster lacking any sense of integrity and used solely for political gain has made the senate dysfunctional and it's not a question of 'both sides do it'...only one side has abused it beyond its intended purpose.

Let the minority rant and rave when filibustering so the issue is well vetted. Let all other issues be put on hold while the one under the filibuster is debated...for 3weeks it should be THE MOST IMPORTANT issue so important that it required a filibuster...so there is maximum deliberation...and then let it end and a vote be taken. This will make it rare to use and put it before the public in such a manner as to affect elections.

That is the spirit of the filibuster...the spirit for which it was intended...and certainly not for the way it is currently being abused.

Centrist Dems. are either going to get a knife in their back now for voting against Obama, or fired by the voters next fall if they do. It really has nothing to do with filibusters. It has everything to do with implementing a left-wing agenda.

What most of the folks on here fail to realize is that YOU are the minority. Actually, maybe we should change the rules... facilitating the conservative initiatives that will be coming after you folks get sent back underground next November. You are truly ignorant to think that enhancing majority power will help YOU. You folks are wearing blinders, as usual. There are even people talking here talking about 'Progressives' dominating for a generation !!! Lol... you folks are really out to lunch. You have no idea of the tsunami that will hit you a year from now.

Alright, who directed the WND crowd to this blog?

"The dems (sic) invoked rule 22 20 times in the 108th congress alone..." Ryan @ 4:09 PM.
The 108th Congress lasted for 2 (two) years. 24 months. 730 days (minimum). Now, compare that number with the Republicans usage of the filibuster/threat of filibuster. Oh, and thanks for the Washington Times source; really gives validation to your post.

"...if there was an effort actually compromise...truly an effort for bi-partisan legislation..." vaken @ 4:21 PM.
Such efforts requires the good faith of BOTH parties; something severely lacking in the present Republican Party, which looks at any piece of legislation as simply partisan fodder in their neverending election campaign - even when the elections are over and actual governing needs to be done.

"Where was your outrage when the Democrats were filibustering...from 1995 to 2004?" Jim C @ 4:33 PM.
In storage since the use of the filibuster by Democrats from 1995 to 2004 was rare. Republicans are the party of "No" and they have justly earned it with their Senatorial filibustering alone. Simply google "filibuster, Republican" and "filibuster, Democrats" and look at the difference.
Oh, and just so your not too disappointed: the 2012 elections will most decidedly NOT sweep the latest incarnation of the "Know Nothings" back into power. We have ways of ensuring the "proper" results; ask Karl, he knows what I'm referring to...

"Most of America equates the current Democratic Legislative Agenda as "bad" legislation. So your statement is incorrect." Bill @ 4:37 PM.
As you have provided no facts to maintain your assertion, I am forced to the conclusion that it is YOUR statement that is incorrect. Have a nice day!

"What is needed is for the centrists of both parties to get together..." Tom O @ 5:06 PM.
Well, I'm fairly certain that the Democrats could muster twenty or thirty people. I have no idea how you're going to manage though; Ike died forty years ago and I don't really think there's been such a creature as a "centrist" Republican since.

"...there's no reputable poll that Obamacare (sic*) at anywhere near 50% approval..." Manny52 @ 5:11 PM.
How 'bout 49%? Twit! Numerous polls (obviously NOT those for Faux) have continually shown HCR at anywhere between 45-55% for. Expecially when the question is bias-free and there is no attempt to "lead" the responders to a desired answer.
*for the grammar, not the stupid.

"...abortion ban, privatization of social security(sic), defunding of the NEA and PBS, repeal of Davis-Bacon, and outlawing of public-sector unionism...Hyprocrites!" Dubious @ 5:18 PM.
Well, let's see: odds are you're male*, thus ruling out any direct need for an abortion. And apparently you are willing to sponge off your children in your decling years. Or next week, whatever. NEA is a PRIVATE organization and PBS is a public corporation that relies mainly on donations. I'm not acquainted with Davis-Bacon; is it anything like Canadian bacon? Delish! As for outlawing public sector unionism; you might want to take that up with your local police and fire departments...
*as opposed to, say, a man.

mike-usn-ret @ 6:04 PM: entire rant.
Spellchecker is your friend, use it. I would also suggest that you read the entire "Federalist Papers" and not just the excepts that support your pet peeves. As to what the "founders"(sic) would have felt about the filibuster: the next time I'm invited onto the TARDIS I'll request a trip to 1787 from the good Dr. to poll them on that very question.
ps: I do NOT whine nor sinvel!

"...but most Americans don't want what you want..." Mark @ 6:36 PM.
And you have queried "most Americans"? I must request that you cite the polls that support your assertions or else conclude that are you relying on various, shall I say, dubious, misleading and possibly even drug-addicted, sources of information?

I think most of you are missing a HUGE point. Many Democrats, especially those from Red States, love this filibuster, so they don't have to actually vote on the disaster that came out of the House.

Also, this is very much "bad" legislation that they are blocking. As proof, how many of the people actually know what is in the 2,000 page bill? Anything that big and cumbersome is by definition "bad."

Sure,if you can't win change the rules, that will certainly build respect for democracy

As proof, how many of the people actually know what is in the 2,000 page bill? Anything that big and cumbersome is by definition "bad."- Mark @ 8:04 PM

Gotta agree, man. I've never read the Bible, but it's so big, it must *really* suck.

The comments are off on this thread, and Hawken wins the internets.