Dems need to make Republicans actually go to the floor for some of the filibusters, not just threaten one. The public may not know that 60 votes are needed, but will get the idea when they see a Senator have to read from the phonebook on CSPAN in order to allow insurance companies to deny people due to preexisting conditions.

Teach by example. FORCE the Rethugs to filibuster. DUH. Word will get out.

This is precisely the reason why the big fight should be to eliminate the filibuster. As a first step let have a few real filibusters on some popular bills. Watching real filibusters on the cable news channels will educate the public very quickly what a minority-led paralysis is.

If this poll is correct, then there should be little politic price to eliminating or restricting the filibuster.

Steve, this also relates your earlier post regarding Durbin's "with impunity" remark. Yes, the electorate is not well-informed. Whose job is it to communicate to the electorate those things that are important for them to know? Why, that's the responsibility of the elected officials, is it not?

IIRC, "impunity" comes from the word "punish". Does anyone else see the irony in the Majority Whip complaining about lack of punishment and discipline in the caucus? I just called Durbin's office and made that point.

The reason Republicans get away with this crap is because Democrats don't raise hell. They ought to. Every single day.

Their argument essentially relies on a fairly deep level of procedural knowledge and interest.

Hell, I'm as elitist as the next overeducated liberal, but I wouldn't call a high school civics level of understanding of the Senate "a fairly deep level of procedural knowledge." Interest is different. Maybe if we started Fantasy Senate Leagues, with betting.

ROSS PEROT redux

While Brooks is talking about the President. The rest of the Democrats would be well to heed his words and Fight Like Ross.

From David Brooks' column in the today's NY Times

"There is a specter haunting America: the specter of a saner, updated version of Ross Perot. He is lurking out there, ready to ride the free-floating anger and distrust of Washington. He is out there now in one of his homes or private jets, getting madder by the day. He is large of ego, full of money and cranky in mien.

"When he enters the arena, he’ll say that Washingtonians, all of them, are a bunch of failures. Over the past five years, Washington has tried to reform Social Security, immigration, health care and energy policy. All of these efforts have either failed or are close to failure — thousands of people working millions of hours and in all likelihood producing nothing.

"He’ll point out that Washingtonians, all of them, breed selfishness. Republicans refuse to accept tax increases. Democrats reject spending cuts. They’ve put the country on a highway to a fiscal crisis, and there are no exit ramps.

"When he comes, he’ll present himself warts and all. Yes, I’m an obnoxious S.O.B., he’ll say. But you need me right now. Yes, I am a blank slate, but people are so desperate that they’re voting for blank slates. When he comes — this billionaire Simon Cowell, this political Bobby Knight — he will change the political landscape, at least for a time.

"If I were one of those fellows advising Barack Obama, I would tell him that you can either get run over by that saner Ross Perot or you can be the saner Ross Perot. You’re not ornery, but you are a bit of a loner. You’re not a billionaire with a huge ego, but that’s because you’re not that rich. God gave you self-esteem. You might as well use it for good."

Lets hear it:

Fight Like Ross.

Louder

Fight like Ross!

LOUDER

FIGHT LIKE ROSS! FIGHT LIKE ROSS! FIGHT LIKE ROSS! FIGHT LIKE ROSS! FIGHT LIKE ROSS!

All that matters is what the talking heads on Faux News say, and what the corporate "donors" want. The Dems don't give a shit about anything else.

The media and the Democratic Party are also to blame. The GOP tactics should come as no surprise here. What surprised me was the media/Dem response. Why on earth did we spend a single minute debating death panels? Where was the discussion about the real death panels (Aetna, United Health). Why were GOP allowed to misrepresent the bill by labeling is "socialist" or "government take over" . The media needs to grow a set of balls and the democrats need someone who is willing to charge the mound when necessary.

Just more evidence of how utterly stupid the citizens of your country are. The key word above is 'believe': evidence to counter that belief notwithstanding. That defines the stupidity of your citizens. Essentially, a country who 'believes' in delusions that want to be considered 'reality'. No wonder a majority of your citizens 'believes' that the Earth is less than 10,000 year old. A country that 'believes' that government is the problem not the corporations that are destroying it. A country is which that 'believes' in American 'exceptionalism' despite the fact there is not exceptional at all. What is exceptional when you have a country that only constitutes 5 percent of the world population yet uses 25 percent of the Earth resources ? What is exceptional in a country who houses 10 percent of it's population in prisons ? The highest rate of imprisonment in any country in the world. What is exceptional about a country where 30 percent of the population is morbidly obese ? And another 40 percent overweight and fat ? A country in which your doctors kill over 95,000 of your citizens every year through mis-diagnosis and error ? A country in which over 300,000 of your citizens who go into a hospital end up with some disease or infection that they did not have prior to entering the hospital ? A country in which over 30 percent of your citizens, and have a family of four, earn less that $21,000 a year ? And thus under the poverty level of existence while at the same time less that 1 percent of your citizens control 95 percent of all the money ? Does that sound 'exceptional' ? How about a country in which 30 percent of your citizens can't even find your own country on a world map ? A country in the 1820's created the doctrine called MANIFEST DESTINY that justified the genocide of the Native American population who lived there before the Europeans invaded it and took it over as there own ? Does that sound 'exceptional'.

And of course, now, a Corporate Media who does the bidding of the Corporations themselves and thus generates lies and propaganda to further the Corporate agenda and needs that start with enriching themselves. And now the decision by your "Supreme" court that has turned over what was left of your government to the Corporations. In essence, now making your country nothing but a FACIST STATE ? Just like Mussolini's Italy. A facist fucking country. Does that sound exceptional ? And, again, a population that is so fucking stupid that it is truly a danger to the rest of the planet. Your country is a total fucking disgrace. And it is the biggest danger to the rest of the planet. YOUR ENEMY IS WITHIN. And that enemy is your CORPORATIONS WHO ARE ABLE TO CONVINCE THE STUPID CITIZENS OF YOUR COUNTRY that the government who tries to create programs that will help them, the middle class and the poor, are actually against their own interests. AND A CORPORATE MEDIA WHOSE INTENTION IS TO KEEP YOUR CITIZENS STUPID.

Dems should ask "WWRD?" -- What would Republicans do? I'll tell you what Republicans would do. They'd pass Senate rules, which only require a majority, to restrict the filibuster. Then they'd all go on Fox News and explain that Democrats were blocking needed legislation. And they would pay very little price at the polls. But Harry Reid, who's afraid of his own shadow, won't do that. Maybe Chuck Schumer will, when chickenshit Reid loses his seat in the next election -- if the Dems still have a majority.

Yes, but....

The people who do pay attention in detail have doubts about the Democrats sincerity about delivering on health care.

And Democrats regularly provide statements that reinforce doubt about their commitment to passing a good health care bill.

So, Democrats partially need to win over the people who are paying close attention so we will go out to our family, friends, neighbors and co-workers and say, the Democrats are really trying but the GOP is using procedural roadblocks to prevent the bill from being brought to a vote.

Also, the media is obviously a problem. Democrats might try showing some spine and calling media coverage low quality.

That is why they must be forced to actually filibuster. The networks will scream and accuse endlessly, but they will have to cover it, and then people will know.

First of all, it is painfully obvious that the media has been hopelessly inadequate at informing their viewers about what's been going on in the government - which used to be the whole point of a free press in the first place. The US is quickly gaining the reputation for having the worst media in the world, especially when most people abroad know more about our issues than the average American. For instance, the contrast of information broadcast by CNN international vs. the CNN we see in the US would blow your mind.

Second, it's about time we start publicly embarrassing the interviewers who fail to catch the lie or mistake the people answering the questions make. To me, it proves the interviewer is either clueless or complicit in the lie. Either way, they need to be called out on it and face repercussions - preferably of the unemployment kind.

Stephen, a bigger and thornier question is how did we get here?

At a time in our republic's history when it is easier to know how our government works, less people actually know.

Something to ponder. where was the talk of civics and civics responsibility for the last 30 years?

A stupid electorate benefits two classes; incumbents and the wealthy.

Heck, Blue, every single one of those things makes us exceptional. Just not in a good way.

Re some of the earlier comments: If I understand correctly (and if I don't, put me in a category of those who read this blog but still don't understand all the issues properly), you can't force an old-fashioned filibuster any more without changing the rules, which requires 2/3 of the Senate once a session has started. The Republicans' 'nuclear option' was to force an end to a filibuster, not to force one to take place the old-fashioned way.

The seemingly unasked corollary to the public's ignorance is the question of whether Dems would be punished by the shitstorm that GOPers would try to unleash if the Senate were to loosen cloture requirements. Would they really miss something they never knew about in the first place? would they interpret GOP protests as whining (especially if it came on the heels of passing legislation)?

Kiweagle, the US has always had terrible news coverage. The day after I moved to the US nearly 40 years ago, I was horrified to discover that the Detroit Free Press had exactly one item of non-Vietnam-related international news in it: a one-inch item headlined "Dog wins pig in Lima, Peru, raffle".

It's interesting to me that the first few posts seem to carry a mild implication that the ignorant masses are up to date on what's on CSPAN or the cable news channels. If it's just a shorthand for saying that it enters the news cycle, fine, but please realize that we're not talking about high-information voters who are watching those channels.

However, I do agree that forcing the Republicans to carry out a literal filibuster is in the Democrats' best interest. It will take a while to get these images of obstructionism out to low-information independents. But having the actual images is still valuable, and as they start to spread virally through Facebook and Myspace people will start to get the point.

Just saw N. Wells' comment. If the Dems agreed to rules that preclude a literal filibuster at the start of the session, then they're idiots and deserve all the blame they're going to get.

The follow-up question in that poll should have been: "How many times a week do you watch or read the news?"

I bet a lot of these people watch or read the news at least once a week. That says a lot about our MSM.

Call it: Force feeding stupid some smart pills

What this bloke said...
Michael7843853 on January 29, 2010 at 11:31 AM:

That is why they must be forced to actually filibuster. The networks will scream and accuse endlessly, but they will have to cover it, and then people will know.

I like Kurt's idea -- like Ross, Obama can even say "I'm all ears"

A vicarious sticky anecdote

I can see why this one never left you N.Wells.
Hell, I don't think it will ever leave me:

The day after I moved to the US nearly 40 years ago, I was horrified to discover that the Detroit Free Press had exactly one item of non-Vietnam-related international news in it: a one-inch item headlined "Dog wins pig in Lima, Peru, raffle".

Brains on the ground, brains on the ground, lookin' like fools with your brains on the ground!

This is the crux of the political dilemma the American nation is facing at present - an uninformed electorate. It really is worth thorough and exhaustive scrutiny, even though it may finally prove to be intractable.

Clearly there are forces at work promoting and thriving upon willful disinformation. There are also agencies who should be helping to keep the electorate informed but fail to do so, either willfully or through incompetence. Political parties can propagate accurate information only to the extent the media are disposed to facilitate it. Since the media themselves are largely at the mercy of vested interests and corporate agenda, they typically fail to be of adequate assistance in informing the electorate.

The bottom line is education, which has tended to lapse and decline in America over recent decades. It takes a very long time for improvements in education to filter through to the political arena, and so immediate solutions can not be found there, even though long-term benefits would be guaranteed.

The provisional impression is of a nation in terminal decline, spirally down through inextricable cycles of self-propagating destruction. Which ever way you look at it there is no obvious exit strategy available. It's the ultimate, all-encompassing Catch-22.

- Unless someone can prove me wrong.

Question?
How many times have you voted in the last ten years?

Steve reported earlier that 48 million Americans watched the SOU. Many of them are probably not as versed on the political intricacies of Senate votes as are most readers of this site.

Wouldn't it have been useful, then, if Obama had used part of his SOU address this week to actually explain what Republican obstructionism means, instead of just mentioning it in vague terms (e.g., "just say no")? Tell them the 'math'--as simple as it is--such that even the most politically-obtuse viewer could understand?

Here was a excellent opportunity to converse with the (sadly uninformed) masses what exactly has been going on. To explain (with examples) how his hand has been reached out on numerous occasions only to be slapped away. And had that hand not been slapped, what might have been. And what could be.

Alas, it was a missed opportunity. One wonders whether that was deliberate...

Well I am still waiting for a plan that doesn't rely on Senators giving up their power voluntarily. Anything that does is going to fail.

Americans are bloody idiots and are getting exactly the quality of government they deserve. Not only are they ignorant about how their own government functions, but they are willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, as well.

Even after almost ten years of war, most couldn't point out where Afghanistan and Iraq are on a map, and god forbid you ask them to explain the difference between Shiites and Sunnis or what the Five Pillars of Islam are.

Blue, I agree completely with everything you've said. Very well said!

N. Wells - Senate rule 22 refers to the 60-vote threshold for cloture. If cloture fails, it could normally signal the beginning stage of a filibuster. But instead of allowing such to proceed, the Majority Leader has been dropping any further action on the bill. It is Harry Reed that could decide that a traditional filibuster MUST then occur, but he has not done so. The 67-vote threshold refers to the required number to change Senate Rule 22 (or any other Senate rules) which can only be done at the start of each Congressional year. The "Nuclear option" that the Republicans threatened was changing the Rule in the middle of the Congressional year back to the original Constitution - that is a majority vote would invoke cloture or stop a filibuster.

Republicans electorate et al watch FOX propaganda and consider it absolute news. Republican electorate only knows what Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh blast from their entertainers mouths.There is no interest in finding out the truth. Democrats need to control the conversation not the Republicans. Accountability to the public would help. There is no accountability in public media. Impeachment of Alito for lying to Americans would wake up some. However the democrats will not fight that. They just let injustice roll along such as Cheney /Bush, Yoo , Tenet, MullerIt's up to Americans who have too small a voice in government. Just pay your taxes and shut up .

If tax payers could withold money say for 709 billion dollars for department of defense that would make politicians stand up and take notice.

It's the kind of poll that makes me wonder that if the electorate is so ignorant on these sorts of things, then they are really not going to give a rat's ass if the D's start doing everything they can through reconciliation -- or, for that matter, the much-ballyhooed "nuclear option." The only thing they apparently notice is that things aren't getting done. They don't know about, and/or just don't care that much about, process -- they simply care about outcome.

This is very much what is happening in California.

There has been a sizable democratic majority in the legislature, but not quite the >2/3 majority needed to actually control the government. The averagely informed (aka the grossly uninformed) think that the democratic majority runs the place. This leaves them frustrated or angry. You get a permanent "throw the bums out" mentality because the legislative majority can't do anything. The minority gets little blame for the situation because they are a minority and people assume that the legislative minority can't be the problem. The voters also don't blame themselves for all the bad initiatives they have voted for.

In both situations what the majority needs to do is find a way to run the place in spite of the minority.

The Senate needs to reform the filibuster.

I think the California democratic party needs to start governing through the initiative process. The power to control the budget has been removed from the legislature so they need to stop trying to use the legislature to budget.

Another unmentioned point, there's this perception that the Dems will suffer somehow if they force issues through reconciliation. If John Q Public doesn't understand the filibuster, why would they suddenly pay attention to the even less well known path around it?

"If John Q Public doesn't understand the filibuster, why would they suddenly pay attention to the even less well known path around it?"
Posted by: short fuse on January 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Because the mass media would tell them to.

The DNC needs to adopt a policy and organization of the kind we used to call "guerrilla marketing." We are out of power in the media, but what are our strengths? Massive mailing lists, highly articulate and passionate supporters, for one thing, plus superior policies. Breaking through with bending the national media -- and ultimately isolating Fox to the propaganda limbo it deserves -- requires constant and intense planning. The blog world has actually made some inroads with some of the national press. That's way too small, but it shows the potential.

@ terraformer: Wouldn't it have been useful, then, if Obama had used part of his SOU address this week to actually explain what Republican obstructionism means, instead of just mentioning it in vague terms (e.g., "just say no")? Tell them the 'math'--as simple as it is--such that even the most politically-obtuse viewer could understand?

Hmm, maybe he could say something like:

And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. [source]

And then perhaps there would be a break for applause.

You can listen to endless TV programs about American politics bemoaning the gridlock and Obama's failure to get his agenda through without anyone mentioning the reason why: the nihilism of the Republicans and the filibuster. That is a subject that is verboten in DC.

No wonder ordinary Americans are ignorant.

Don't have to be too smart to know a 2000 page monstrosity is garbage and Nan is a captive of lobbyists.

Sorry, kp, but the "people" don't watch C-SPAN.

Unfortunately, they DO listen to Rush Limpbrain and watch FAUX TV.

Jim said "I wouldn't call a high school civics level of understanding of the Senate "a fairly deep level of procedural knowledge."

I'd be interested in knowing when you went to high school, and I'd be interested if this is "on the test" that controls everything kids learn in school today.

You know why no one knows about the filibuster? It's because Republicans are using it, and they own the news. If Democrats were doing it, we'd be hearing about it every night.

So, why didn't the Democrats do it when the Republicans were in power, and they were screwing up the country and getting us into an illegal war? I think the answer is that they were either too feckless or too cowardly. There certainly was no other good reason.

As much as I understand and concur with the fact that people aren't being informed about this, I also can't help but note that the very people responsible are now in power.

When the shoe was on the other foot, Republicans pushed a simple message: “All we’re asking for is an up or down vote.” Dems should give it a try.

The Dems have had the majority control for a year now and could have passed anything they wanted to. They did not need the Republicans at all, and did most of their "debate" in closed door meetings and deal-cutting with special interest groups. They could not come to an agreement even within their party. All this talk that the Republicans are stalling is crazy...the Dems didn't need them. Now they have waited too long and the American people have given the Rebulicans a gift with Mass. The discussion that this is the Republicans that are causing this problem is ridiculous. So now (via this article), we are trying to blame the people for being idiots and not understanding procedural issues that weren't even applicable over the last year? Come on...Mass. is just the beginning. People do not want this bill (in it's current form). When the polls don't agree with the Dems, they just say the people are ignorant and don't know what's best for them. People are smarter than liberals give them credit for.

My great regards to Steve Benen and Charlie Peters two I rate As Best Ever in reporting TRUTH.

Obama's next press conference should begin with a chart and an explanation of the filibuster rule, and how it has been used by the Republicans. From there, he should explain how to pass legislation with the reconciliation procedure, and how that was used to deepen the deficit - contrary to the rules - when the Republicans passed the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

Robert Gibbs should be instructed to follow-up on that discussion in his remarks to the press the next day.

The week after that, Obama should start a press conference with statements regarding the deficit by any number of Republican Congressional leaders, and then demonstrate how those same Republicans created the deficit, and how they are still not willing to cut anything significant(no, not even entitlements)or to increase any taxes to reduce that deficit. Hypocrisy exposed.

And Gibbs should follow-up. And Obama should enlist other experts from the left, such as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, to support his view.

This should continue for several weeks, with new issues discussed or repeats or responses performed, as necessary.

The Republicans and their lying machine, led by Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and their plush think tanks, will retaliate of course, and public opinion will stay confused. But Obama should stay this course, calmly, but firmly, to educate the public and, if nothing else, clearly draw the distinctions and the battle lines.

The inability to govern with significant majorities is ridiculous, and the reasons for that need exposure. Likewise, the oligarchic interests and hypocrisy of the Republicans demand loud and high level refutation. Polarization? Sure. Bring it on. More of it, to really clarify the issues. Will there be confrontations? Will the public be disgusted? Hopefully enough so that they will understand what is at stake here, and finally get informed and involved enough to truly deserve a democracy.