That would be mind-numbing enough if ...
Famous last words of General G Custer
His high honored majestic decidederer when claiming "We do not torture"

Ronny Raygun said "Government IS the problem."

That goes a long way in explaining the GOP's continuing efforts to destroy it. . .

Don't blame the Republicans alone. Democratic Senate leadership is also to blame. I haven't seen Democrats do anything to change the rules or to even put pressure on Republicans to knock it off. Democrats have been willing victims.

My guess is Democrats anticipate being in the minority sooner or later and they want the same power to block anything they don't want. Goody, legislative road blocks as far as the eye can see.

The government is broken and the media is broken. The fact that these holds have not been more widely reported and exposed is outrageous. This sentence says it all:

Put simply, the failed and discredited Republican minority is effectively breaking the United States Senate.

Democratic Senate leadership is also to blame.

It is ENTIRELY to blame. The Thugs are what they are, but there is no reason on God's green earth for a 60-seat Democratic caucus to empower them.

I'm with Ron Byers in this one. It's been glaringly obvious since the stimulus vote that the GOP (Including its so-called moderates) was determined to bring down Obama and the Democrats even if it meant harming the country. And, frankly, this strategy could work in next year's midterms The real problem, of course, is that there was ZERO Democratic strategy to push through Republican obstructionism -- and despite the mewlings of such presidential apologists as Yglesias, Klein and yes, Benen --this can be traced right back to Obama himself, his ironclad commitment to his own messianic persona. And for what? Olympia Snowe's vote on healthcare reform? Exactly.

Steve, rather than chirpy bromides, I'd really, really like to hear your thoughts on the 3-5 things that the administration has gotten wrong this year. It might earn back a little bit of your readers' trust.

The "holds" seem different than filibusters to me because, as far as I can tell, they seem more a matter of tradition than any particular rule. That is, there doesn't seem to be any reason, other than courtesy, that Reid needs to honor any of these holds and I seem to remember that, in some cases, he has specifically declined to do so. Am I incorrect about that? What rule stops Reid from saying today: "screw your holds! We are moving ahead with Senate business."?

Holds and filibusters are part of the same problem: Senate tradition. They both can be broken by majority vote. Google "nuclear option" to see how it is done to remove the filibuster and make votes on nominations or any bill depend on a majority vote of those present. All it takes is 50 Senators plus the VP to reuse to honor what are increasingly disfunctional traditions. The Senate democrate majority is part of the disfunction by not acting to eliminate holds and filibusters.

You think the Republicans would not have used the nuclear option in 2005 if what they wanted wasn't handed to them by a "Gang of 14?? [ They wanted a set of right-wing judges approved for Federal bench positions -- and they got most of what they wanted by threatening the nuclear option.] You think they wouldn't use it again to pass whatever once they again become a majority? Get Real.

If 50 Democratic Senators and the current VP don't have the spine/ cajones to do so, then in all likelihood forget fairy tales with happy endings for this Senate and Chief Executive -- and Democratic control of US Government.

If there are not 50 votes to end a filibuster, bills or amendments in 2010 to really improve health care reform, climate change, whatever, are essentially exercises in "pass inadequate bills and pronounce those bills as ground-breaking". And hope the American voters don’t notice. Voters on average may be generally uninformed, but they are not THAT dumb.

In health care and other issues, Obama and Senate Democrats and many Broderesque -bloggers constantly reinforce a meme that liberal or progressive Democrats are easily rolled by those making intransigent demands. This reinforces a long-standing meme that they are wimps, wusses, chumps-- pick your term. McCain, Coker, deMint and most Republicans may be batshit bonkers pushing insane ideologically-based solutions, but they appear much more willing to take a lot of flack to push their agenda. To coin a phrase, politics ain't beanbags. Voters consistently reject candidates they view as weak wimps, no matter what their ideology or personal heroism (Google: McGovern, Carter, Kerry, Dukakis, etc).

Holds and filibusters are part of the same problem: Senate tradition. They both can be broken by majority vote. Google "nuclear option" to see how it is done to remove the filibuster and make votes on nominations or any bill depend on a majority vote of those present. All it takes is 50 Senators plus the VP to reuse to honor what are increasingly dysfunctional traditions. The Senate democrate majority is part of the dysfunction by not acting to eliminate holds and filibusters.

You think the Republicans would not have used the nuclear option in 2005 if what they wanted wasn't handed to them by a "Gang of 14?? [ They wanted a set of right-wing judges approved for Federal bench positions -- and they got most of what they wanted by threatening the nuclear option.] You think they wouldn't use it again to pass whatever once they again become a majority? Get Real.

If 50 Democratic Senators and the current VP don't have the spine/ cajones to do so, then in all likelihood forget fairy tales with happy endings for this Senate and Chief Executive -- and Democratic control of US Government.

If there are not 50 votes to end a filibuster, bills or amendments in 2010 to really improve health care reform, climate change, whatever, are essentially exercises in "pass inadequate bills and pronounce those bills as ground-breaking". And hope the American voters don’t notice. Voters on average may be generally uninformed, but they are not THAT dumb.

In health care and other issues, Obama and Senate Democrats and many Broderesque -bloggers constantly reinforce a meme that liberal or progressive Democrats are easily rolled by those making intransigent demands. This reinforces a long-standing meme that they are wimps, wusses, chumps-- pick your term. McCain, Coker, deMint and most Republicans may be batshit bonkers pushing insane ideologically-based solutions, but they appear much more willing to take a lot of flack to push their agenda. To coin a phrase, politics ain't beanbags. Voters consistently reject candidates they view as weak wimps, no matter what their ideology or personal heroism (Google: McGovern, Carter, Kerry, Dukakis, etc).

None of this matters. Those who think that the Dems didn't do the same thing to Bushit's minions is drinking the tea...

The senate has not worked in a couple of decades. The government hasn't worked morally since we began to torture and slaughter middle eqastern people by the truck loads. They are all in it together. Dems, GOPers, Independents, MSM, Corporate America, etc. All of them.

Think about this if you will. A terrorists from Nigeria on a watch list, buys a one-way ticket (with cash) to the USA on a Visa signed-off-on by the Bushit regime (Tthe Brits wouldn't let him into England), no luggage or passport, strapped with explosives, and yet somehow finds a way to board a plane w/ 300 people aboard.

And you don't think they are all in on it? There is soooo much money to be made keeping people in fear and constant war then there could ever be made making money off of 300 civilians . This and past governments of this once great Republic have slid into a money-oriented nihilistic reality that we should all be ashamed and in fear of. Nauseating...

Holds are just an extension of Senate rules on unlimited debate.

This is how they work: unlike the House, the Senate functions on unanimous consent. In the House, every piece of floor action requires a Rule, written by the Rules Committee and passed with a party-line majority vote. That's why the Blue Dogs are so vital to the Democrats (and the Hispanic Caucus was, in the last Congress) -- there were enough of them to bring down a Rule, if they voted with the Rs.

But there are no holds in the House, and it only takes one Senator to prevent Senate action, or more precisely it takes 60 Senators to over-ride one Senator who doesn't want the Senate to take up a nomination or a bill.

A Senate hold simply means that a Senator has given the leadership a note which says they intend to object when unanimous consent is asked. Since that's necessary in order to proceed on anything, the hold has become, oddly, a more efficient way to sort out what can get unanimous consent for action and what has yet to be negotiated.

If the leadership decided to refuse to recognize holds, there would still be the option for even one Senator to object to a unanimous consent request. (This is what Franken did when Lieberman wanted another minute to finish his speech. Since one Senator objected, Leiberman didn't get unanimous consent, and couldn't finish his speech.)

If Reid required every Senator who wanted to hold up every nomination to be physically present on the floor to object, they still wouldn't have to state their reasons -- which, after all, is the embarrassing part.

But it'd still be fun to see -- and good for the country, frankly: open it all up, say I.

Gibbs needs to begin every (and I mean every) press conference with 5 minutes just naming the top appointments being obstructed by the Republicans. He should emphasize that he is limiting himself to just 5 minutes. He should name names and explain why each appointment is being obstructed.

He must do this over and over until the press picks up on it.

I wouldn't mind if he characterized an anonymous hold as a hold placed by a coward without the courage to stand up and be counted.

This reinforces a long-standing meme that they are wimps, wusses, chumps-- pick your term.

No kidding. A President Richard Bruce Cheney would have already announced a policy of not submitting anyone for Senate confirmation prior to their recess appointment.

Cartoon reasoning , cartoon politics .
Popeye loses Olive Oyl because Bluto convincingly sneers at Popeye's insurance proposal . Covering children until they are independent is "Socialism" is for sissies . Meanwhile Sweetpea' measles breaks Olive Oyl's budget , because Bluto has been having his diaper changed in between legislative toe touching stall holds . Popeye who has been dismissed as a poor provider choice , mostly because he opposes double talk as made clear in his famous speech "I yem wot I yem" .
All is not bad news though , Sweetpea's legacy won't be touched because it comes in at about 9 million $ and Bluto investigates another bathroom stall unconstrained by money woes .

What happened with the TSA funding? I know that most or all of the republicans voted against it, but did it eventually go through.
Also what was the reason that in Amsterdam, although they have the really efficient body scanning machines they do not use them for passengers coming to the US?
Does anyone know?

Sen. Bunning is something of a hero up here in Canada -- the candy-flavoured cigarettes are a great way to get our kids hooked on a cancer-causing habit, so any minor inconvenience to the U.S. federal bureacracy is well worth this worthy cause.

GDB is making a big mistake on one particular -- it would be a CATASTROPHE if 51 Senators changed the rules in the middle of a session of Congress.

Every two years, both the House and the Senate adopt their rules for that Congress. Then they abide by those rules until the next election. Changes in the rules are rare, and generally quite marginal. Everybody knows what the rules are.

What GDB is advocating -- the "nuclear option" -- involves a majority of the Senate deciding to dissolve the rules at any time, simply because they CAN. (Essentially, the nuclear option is for the presiding officer to make a rule, e.g., you can't do this, Senator, most likely following the Parliamentarian's advice, and for that ruling to be appealed, and then for that appeal to be overturned by a simple majority vote.)

That would be a spectacularly bad idea. I don't want 51 Senators deciding that there need be no rules for the Senate at all, except what any temporary majority of the Senate wants them to be: no rules, no precedents, no traditions, no history -- just force.

Bear in mind, as few as 1/6th of the nation's population can be represented by 51 Senators.

No, the right way to change the Senate rules is at the beginning of the next Congress: January, 2011.

And the right way to do that starts with the 37 US Senators who will be elected next year. Hell, that's an extraordinarily high number, historically -- let's take advantage, by just ASKING every one of the 74 major party candidates for the Senate to commit to specific rules changes.

LOL -- or would y'all rather gab about abolishing states?

Stevio, do your homework. A lot of Bush's legislation, including the egregious "USA PATRIOT" act, was passed with bipartisan support, for which the Republicans of course then punished Democrats in the midterm elections. In a number of other cases, Republicans would deliberated introduce "poison pills" into legislation to force Democrats to vote against it so that they could then make campaign ads saying that "Senator Clelland voted against funding for the troops!" and then morph his face into Osama bin Laden's. But when Democrats even threatened to filibuster, the Republicans threatened them with the "nuclear option" of abolishing the filibuster altogether, and the Democrats always backed down. No, they did not do what the Republicans are doing now. They were spineless, but not shameless.

Americanist wuss/wimp: It sure wouldn't have botherered the Republicans to change rules in the middle of a session. Your argument: keep bad rules in place.. Wait for the next session when you may not even have a majority b/c you refused to act when you could. If you represent a majority of Democratic chumps, no surprise if voters chose "anyhing but". Do nothing so that you can feel better and rightous by keeping-on-griping.

[I'm being purposefully argumentative--- because UNLESS you and others can be convinced by reason or browbeating to make changes quickly, a lot (even all)may be lost].

Norbert, you are misreading what Bunning is trying to do. He's trying to get the import ban REMOVED, thereby allowing the candy flavored ciggys to be imported to kill your Canadian kids. If he's a hero up North, then you guys are in a Bizzaro World...

"Put simply, the failed and discredited Republican minority is effectively breaking the United States Senate."

Put Simply that IS the Republican platform Destroy America.

Why doesn't Obama use recess appointments?

GDB -- you're ignorant. It remains to be seen if you are also stoopid and dishonest. Here's a test:

Item one: You claim "It sure wouldn't have botherered the Republicans to change rules in the middle of a session..."

As it happens, when I was working in the Senate in 1982, Lowell Weicker's filibuster against school prayer wound up on a parliamentary situation in which a school prayer amendment got attached to a bill, which resulted in IIRC, tax deduction for segregated schools, abortion and gun control were all attached. (This is called 'filling the tree' -- legislation can only be amended to the second degree, i.e., an amendment, then an amendment to the amendment, so that you 'fill the tree' with four amendments.) To bring down the whole mess, then Majority Leader Howard Baker told his colleagues that he was going to force them to vote against their ratings by organizations like the pro-life crowd, the NRA, etc. There was a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair. It was Barry Goldwater who persuaded 'em -- he said, look fellas: nobody has better conservative credentials than I do. But I will vote with the rules of the Senate. If you vote as if this snarl is about the issues, you will bring down the rules of the Senate that we all agreed to when this Congress started. Thomas Jefferson started that practice, and we'd be fools to break it, because this place will be around long after we're gone -- unless we break the Senate, too, when we break the Senate rules.

Wise advice.

Item two: "keep bad rules in place"

Nope. As you promptly noted, I'm in favor of changing bad rules at the beginning of a Congress, which is when rules are adopted.

Item three: "UNLESS you and others can be convinced by reason or browbeating to make changes quickly..."

LOL -- Lord, you're full of shit.

The way to win -- in the Senate, or pretty much anywhere in politics -- is, yanno, to WIN. Bitching about the rules isn't winning, it's losing. CHANGING the rules requires knowing how it's done.

A hold, for example, is tradition rather than the rules as such. That is, while it'd be a serious breach of protocol if Reid was to say that he will no longer honor holds, if you want to object to proceeding to this, that, or the other thing, Senator, you're going to have to show up to make your objection, it'd be entirely consistent with the Senate rules.

But it'd be even more of a breach of Senate tradition if he didn't notify Senators, like Bunning, that he intended to bring Sapiro's nomination to the floor, f'r example. Then if Bunning wanted to object, he'd have his chance -- IF he wanted to do it in public, as a Senator from Kentucky.

For Reid to take that step would require a very solid, if informal, consensus among his 59 Democratic colleagues, nearly all of whom have used holds, or the threat of a hold, at some point, in precisely the same way that Bunning has been using his.

It really does help to know what yer talking about, e.g., when you're demanding the Senate Majority Leader ask 59 Democratic Senators to give up (or at least make it distinctly inconvenient to use) one of the more effective levers of their power. Your posts do not exactly demonstrate a grasp of this elementary point.

Item four: "a lot (even all)may be lost.."

Get a grip -- LOL, I'm not the wimp in this exchange, in case you haven't noticed. (And you haven't.) That's cuz I'm pointing to the way to get it done. You're not.

There are 37 Senate seats up next year -- an extraordinarily high number. (This is cuz so many Senators now serving were appointed, e.g., Burris, Gillibrand, etc.)

The Senate rules are not generally particularly important election issues. They don't move votes. But for that reason, they can be actually easier than other issues to get a firm commitment -- an incumbent Senator, even a rookie like Franken, is responding to his colleagues on a rules issue, while someone who has never served in the Senate is far more likely to respond to any constituent interest at all in something to esoteric.

And even a senior Senator like Schumer is alert to voter interest in damned near anything.

So you get 20, much less 37 Senators on record favoring something SPECIFIC -- none of this bullshit 'something must be done', but an actual proposal* -- to reform the Senate rules, you have a bloc of Senators who COULD actually insist on changing the rules in 2011.

LOL -- or you could keep kibitizing: your choice.

*As a f'r instance: Restore the "present and voting" language to Rule XXII, and require Senators to be physically present to object to a unanimous consent request, while prohibiting the Majority Leader from deferring to holds in written form.

GDB -- you're ignorant. It remains to be seen if you are also stoopid and dishonest. Here's a test:

Item one: You claim "It sure wouldn't have botherered the Republicans to change rules in the middle of a session..."

As it happens, when I was working in the Senate in 1982, Lowell Weicker's filibuster against school prayer wound up on a parliamentary situation in which a school prayer amendment got attached to a bill, which resulted in IIRC, tax deduction for segregated schools, abortion and gun control were all attached. (This is called 'filling the tree' -- legislation can only be amended to the second degree, i.e., an amendment, then an amendment to the amendment, so that you 'fill the tree' with four amendments.) To bring down the whole mess, then Majority Leader Howard Baker told his colleagues that he was going to force them to vote against their ratings by organizations like the pro-life crowd, the NRA, etc. There was a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair. It was Barry Goldwater who persuaded 'em -- he said, look fellas: nobody has better conservative credentials than I do. But I will vote with the rules of the Senate. If you vote as if this snarl is about the issues, you will bring down the rules of the Senate that we all agreed to when this Congress started. Thomas Jefferson started that practice, and we'd be fools to break it, because this place will be around long after we're gone -- unless we break the Senate, too, when we break the Senate rules.

Wise advice.

Item two: "keep bad rules in place"

Nope. As you promptly noted, I'm in favor of changing bad rules at the beginning of a Congress, which is when rules are adopted.

Item three: "UNLESS you and others can be convinced by reason or browbeating to make changes quickly..."

LOL -- Lord, you're full of shit.

The way to win -- in the Senate, or pretty much anywhere in politics -- is, yanno, to WIN. Bitching about the rules isn't winning, it's losing. CHANGING the rules requires knowing how it's done.

A hold, for example, is tradition rather than the rules as such. That is, while it'd be a serious breach of protocol if Reid was to say that he will no longer honor holds, if you want to object to proceeding to this, that, or the other thing, Senator, you're going to have to show up to make your objection, it'd be entirely consistent with the Senate rules.

But it'd be even more of a breach of Senate tradition if he didn't notify Senators, like Bunning, that he intended to bring Sapiro's nomination to the floor, f'r example. Then if Bunning wanted to object, he'd have his chance -- IF he wanted to do it in public, as a Senator from Kentucky.

For Reid to take that step would require a very solid, if informal, consensus among his 59 Democratic colleagues, nearly all of whom have used holds, or the threat of a hold, at some point, in precisely the same way that Bunning has been using his.

It really does help to know what yer talking about, e.g., when you're demanding the Senate Majority Leader ask 59 Democratic Senators to give up (or at least make it distinctly inconvenient to use) one of the more effective levers of their power. Your posts do not exactly demonstrate a grasp of this elementary point.

Item four: "a lot (even all)may be lost.."

Get a grip -- LOL, I'm not the wimp in this exchange, in case you haven't noticed. (And you haven't.) That's cuz I'm pointing to the way to get it done. You're not.

There are 37 Senate seats up next year -- an extraordinarily high number. (This is cuz so many Senators now serving were appointed, e.g., Burris, Gillibrand, etc.)

The Senate rules are not generally particularly important election issues. They don't move votes. But for that reason, they can be actually easier than other issues to get a firm commitment -- an incumbent Senator, even a rookie like Franken, is responding to his colleagues on a rules issue, while someone who has never served in the Senate is far more likely to respond to any constituent interest at all in something to esoteric.

And even a senior Senator like Schumer is alert to voter interest in damned near anything.

So you get 20, much less 37 Senators on record favoring something SPECIFIC -- none of this bullshit 'something must be done', but an actual proposal* -- to reform the Senate rules, you have a bloc of Senators who COULD actually insist on changing the rules in 2011.

LOL -- or you could keep kibitizing: your choice.

*As a f'r instance: Restore the "present and voting" language to Rule XXII, and require Senators to be physically present to object to a unanimous consent request, while prohibiting the Majority Leader from deferring to holds in written form.

Americanist. Sorry-- but All your arguments on what CAN'T be done are really based on "tradition must be maintained". Perhaps because, it seems like you worked for one of the "good old boys"... and you regard anyone wanting to break traditions of the good old boys as dumb. You can get riled up at me...Good, you have a little bit up gumption. Why not get riled up at those that block the system and work to change it at this time rather than by getting your jollies by griping?? What's the matter with majority rule?

I'm surprised that you cast the blame in only one direction - at the Republicans. Harry Reid is also to blame, because he has the unilateral power to ignore a hold, power he exercised when a member of his own caucus attempted a hold. Harry Reid is responsible for allowing all these holds to stand. He is failing to lead. Which party is Reid serving here?

Ahh... gdb: so having established that you're ignorant, we're moving on to demonstrating your stooopidity. I suppose that's progress.

No, the observation that the Senate rules are adopted at the beginning of each Congress for the entire Congress is not insisting that "traditions must be maintained." A Senate "tradition" is bean soup on every menu, or the way fresh snuff is supplied every month (even though the last Senator who used the stuff died in the 1930s: I'm not arguing the place is too quick to change).

I'm arguing that it is important to a democracy that rules and laws apply to EVERYBODY.

Are you really that fucking stooopid, or are you dishonest, as well?

Yer pissed that Senators representing a bit more than 40% of the national population can stop legislation -- so you're advocating that Senators representing just 17% should be able to pass legislation.

Or are you too ignorant to do the basic math for your own opinions?

And if the rules don't allow pretty much anything, you want to empower Senators representing one-sixth of the nation's population to be able to change those rules any time they choose.

WTF is WRONG with you?

I adore forgathering utile information , this post has got me even more info! .