No doubt he'll follow up with a strongly worded letter. That should take care of the problem!

When Democrats filibustered some of Bush's judicial nominees, the GOP not only went crazy, they constructed a meme - "obstructionism" - that went national rather quickly. The contrast here is telling and suggests why Democrats will not have similar luck. The power to set the conversation is a privilege accorded to one side only. It comes from having a network of radio and cable-TV outlets willing to fluff the meme. Republicans do this very well, along with deflating the Democrats' memes. What, if anything, will be different this time?

The public is not wanted here , if the evidence of public support for HCR is of any use . Upwards of 60 percent of Americans consistently supported key elements of HCR . This was hard to incorporate in an intelligent conversation , with the furor over nonexistent elements within the HCR debate , which despite not existing dominated it .

"The American people want to see government solve problems"

Perhaps, but entire strategy of the Republican Party is the notion that government can't and shouldn't solve problems, so the Republicans have to go out of their way to make sure no problems get solved. They have no vested interest in a government that works. For them good governance is bad governance. Why anyone would vote for a people that believes this, I have no idea.

Be careful what you wish for.

Remember Bush trying to push extremist judges on us? The filibuster was the only weapon Democrats had available to fight back.

Any reform of the filibuster has to recognize that the "tyranny of the majority" is very real and needs something to counter it. I am very unhappy about the way HCR failed* because of the filibuster giving two or three rightist extremist senators a practical veto, but that doesn't mean the entire concept is flawed or needs to be thrown out. And much of the problem here isn't that filibuster but the failure of the Democrats themselves to maintain a proper whip.

* Yes, yes it did.

the filibuster abuse is a symptom of the idiocy of the clown car senate.

"getting rid of" the filibuster would produce new abuses of some other kind because the clowns in the senate are abusers...
mostly as puppets for corporate america agst the people of this country.

That was a great interview on the PBS Hour. What I found refreshing is that Jim Leher asks a question and then shuts up so that the president can answer the question thoroughly without being interrupted. David Gregory could learn from Jim.

President Obama comments on the abuse of the filibuster showed just how frustrating it has been to get anything done. Legislation flies through the House and then comes to a screeching halt in the senate.

I would love to see more focus on the filibuster abuse by the media. But unfortunately, the media is more interested in chasing down "tweets" from former lame duck Governor Sarah Palin.

It's starting to happen.

No, Steve, it's not. I'll wish right alongside you for hopeful signs from the DC crowd on filibuster and magic ponies, but that's not going to make it so. All you've pointed to are a few of the most thoughtful non-DC pundit types who are routinely ignored inside the Beltway, and the grave remarks of a president notable for refusing to use his political clout in Congress on anything but sending more troops to Afghanistan. Obama has been rolled so often by the Republicans that the carpet in the Oval Office needs replacement for wear. You really think a few timid words from Mr. Bipartisan and non-DC types are the start of Something Big?

Steve, thank you for more fawning worship of our President-king. But if the legislation would have an anti-competitive effect, wouldn't filibustering it be the competitive thing to do? That would seem to be Civics 101, on which you and Obama are now hereby schooled.

Do you agree with everything Obama says just because he's black? You're a racist!!

All of this might serve for a lead-in to a very nasty set of dynamics in the next senate, if the democrats lose one or two senators (e.g., Dodd), and the republicans take to heart the message that they can shut everything down as long as they can hold fast against every democratic proposal, without paying a political price for it. Even worse, they might learn from the Lieberman / Nelson / health mess that they could probably get any "compromise" they care to name by letting one republican senator vote with the democrats. Since Lieberman and Nelson are probably relishing their influence (and Bayh and ilk are thinking that they gave up their votes a little too cheaply, there probably are enough votes to change Senate rules. The best solution, then, would seem to be to elect more and better democrats.

what is surprising to me on this issue is that senate democrats seem largely okay with the brokeness of their chamber. Harkin has mentioned trying to change the rules, but I have seen few signs of support for this in the dem senate caucus.

So DO something about it -- there are 37 US Senate seats up in 2010.

That's 74 candidates who could take one of three likely positions: retain the 3/5s of Senators duly sworn, restore the 2/3s of Senators present and voting, or "I dunno".

Remember, the key to the failure of the filibuster isn't the percentage, but the removal of the "present and voting" requirement. The true filibuster (as used against arming US merchant ships before WW1, against repealing Prohibition in the 1920s, and against civil rights in the 50s and 60s) required the minority to maintain at least 17 Senators for the fight at all times the Senate was doing business -- and the minority would still lose as soon as the majority got its act together.

The main reason the modern filibuster is so common -- and cheap -- is because it requires only "Senators duly sworn", which means that no actual floor presence is necessary either to stage one or to break it. The modern filibuster is not a public act on the Senate floor.

Too bad, because Byrd might have staged a real one against the Iraq War, or Kennedy against torture: don't be in too big a hurry to abandon the filibuster altogether. Just restore it to "present and voting", say I.

But do you want to complain how much the filibuster needs reform -- or do you want to get it done?

Ask all 74 -- and post the answers.

ASK the Senate candidates -- and post their responses.

The 'fear' of Republicans taking advantage of a modified cloture rule in the future is unfounded. The Cons got through everything they wanted anyway, and threatened to use the 'nuclear' option if they didn't get their way. We got two extremist Supremes regardless.

Now would be a good time for Reid to call for a rule change. We're between legislation, so there isn't any hot button issue to tie it to.

JWK - on the contrary, the "Nuclear Option" stalemate ended when a group of Republicans met with a group of Democratic Senators and hammered out a compromise, which ensured the more extreme picks Bush made for the judiciary didn't get accepted.

It could also be argued that the only reason the filibuster is working now is because Reid can't get his act together. At least one of the senators making threats, Lieberman, actually had a lot to lose by doing so, or would have done if the party wasn't staffed with cowards. In normal circumstances, you either don't use technicalities to undermine your party's agenda (voting against it once in a while is one thing, using the filibuster is quite another), or you expect consequences.

Lieberman's issue is he knows he can run against the official Democratic nominee for his state, then campaign against the Democratic nominee for President, lie about him, support the Republican, lie for him, and still keep all the privileges, including committee chairmanships, associated with being a long standing Democratic senator. Of course he's going to use the filibuster.

The Democratic Party in the Senate might actually be able to defeat filibusters if only it was a party, rather than a group of senators who just pretend there is one.

The problem of the filibuster is only a symptom of the larger current situation: the GOP has become an ideologically unified party operating with a very very high degree of caucus discipline. The GOP has evolved into a party that acts as though there is a parliamentary democracy. The Dems, however, still act as under an older system -- ideologically diverse parties with weak caucus discipline. The GOP has a very serious advantage at this point. But the situation will continue to evolve.

What seems to be happening is that the GOP's ideological unity will lead to further and further isolation. Eventually, it will become clear that in a case of ideological unified parties, the filibuster allows the minority to win and rule. This is now clear to most Dem and liberal activists, and the HCR debate is a vivid opportunity for the larger public to learn this lesson. (Obama shows rather than tells, which frustrates activists who want him to tell others what we have figured out.)
The other way that it might evolve is that the self-defeating nature of GOP ideological unity will cause GOP Senators to start breaking ranks.
The GOP hope is that if the Dems cannot make policy, the GOP will return to power in 2010. The conventional wisdom is that when governance is going well, the public votes the outs in and the ins out. But that pattern is based on the old understanding of non-ideological parties with weak caucus discipline. The Outs and the Ins are now VERY different. People figured that one out in 2006, acted on it in 2008 and will act on it again in 2010. The public is not done with punishing the GOP yet, and won't be until it gives up on the course it started in 1994.

The Republicans have made it clear that they would be willing to replace the filibuster rules with one requiring a simple majority of Republican votes.

The easiest way to get rid of the filibuster abuses would be to actually MAKE THEM freaking filibuster instead of folding under the THREAT of a filibuster.
Let's see the Republicans talk day and night a few times on some rather unimportant bills and see them stop the tactic pretty quickly.

There is also the matter of personal and committee "holds" on legislation and appointments. There should be time limits on these things. While it may be reasonable to require a supermajority for Supreme Court and other lifetime appointments, appointments should come up for a full-Senate vote within a reasonable time.

...in order for the public to feel outraged, the mainstream political discourse will have to shine a light on the problem.

Which means that not only will filibuster reform be treated as a partisan issue, talking about filibuster reform will be. "Jim Lehrer asked about filibuster reform? He's a flaming liberal!!!"

Ladyhawke raises an important issue..the media just loves to chase down Palin tweets and the like at the expense of covering precisely the extent and damage of filibuster abuse..these needs to become the new issue Americans are educated on..I frankly had no idea that the dependence and use of the 60 rule is relatively new until this divisive and demeaning debate played out..and it's not over yet..watch and see what the right does over the break..and how much coverage it will get from the
media.

Perhaps they could create a rule where a party gets a limited number of filibuster attempts per session - I'd say one but no more than two per session.

The list of commentators calling for change is growing. On Wednesday (12/23/09) Daniel Schorr came out against the current practices on NPR's All Things Considered.

There's talk of trying to ban the filibuster. Let's get to the root of the problem and dismantle the Senate.

Tom Ames is closest to the truth.

The Senate has been dysfunctional from the get go. Why do states boundaries have so much power to define our politics? It is a completely arbitrary deliberative body with SIX YEAR terms. I understand the need to resist the whims of the majority, but the Senate goes too far.

The Senate, of course, will not be dismantled. But if you're going to argue against the filibuster, you'd be a fool not to point out that the senate is a most undemocratic institution.

LOL -- way to go, Inkadu. And let's abolish time zones, too!!!!

This is only a political crisis for a Democratic president/Democratic Senate.

A Republican president/Republican Senate would declare any bill important enough to them as being outside the filibuster rules.

After all, that is exactly what they were prepared to do regarding the fiibustering of judicial nominees, until the Democrats caved.

Hey. I love guest books, keep up the good work. Help me! Need information about: Knock off designer shoes. I found only this - designer shoes and boots. Most of the wallpapers miss to get their heels so you should diagnose how to decorate them in nice protection, designer shoes. Designer shoes, hair bounded by paul wise, after trendy flower on christian louboutin shoes. Thank you very much :-). Jered from Nicaragua.