A cloture vote is a vote to end debate on a bill. The problem here is that we're leaving out the "debate" portion.

Make them hold the floor, hold up other work and publicly debate the bills. You'll see an immediate change in public perception.

Scrapping the filibuster is the only cause progressives should be pursuing right now. It's the source of all their problems.

The chamber is broken, and Republicans are standing over the shattered pieces holding a hammer.

Don't worry, once the Democrats fall back into a minority role, they will use cloture very sparingly, as it was intended.

"That may seem like a bit of an exaggeration, so CNN fact-checked the claim."

Now they're fact checking assertions made by politicos? Oh that's right. It's okay to lie if you're a Republican. Some liberal media.

The very threat of the nuclear option got results when Republicans were in charge. I wonder what would happen if Reid leaked that he was having research done on the nuclear option? Hummmm.

The chamber is broken and Republicans are standing over the shattered pieces holding a hammer

@steve b, Brilliant line one of your best ever IMHO.

@qwerty, Ouch, the truth hurts. Now how can we change it?

Toilet paper spool = journalism degrees

Benen: There are still some in the political world, including far too many media professionals...

Hey young-un...
Are you lazy? Stupid? Hate books, math, history?
Have you thought about majoring in journalism?
It's a cake walk, easier than Sociology!

May this resound throughout the land. Just a couple of days ago in the Oregonian, a RepuG wrote, "But, the Dems had control of Congress the last two years of Bush and what did they accomplish". I have seen this argument used in other papers, as well. RepuGs have a habit of not remembering such events as the Boll Weevils of the Southern Democrats joining with their RepuG brethern to pass budgets for Reagan, then, saying "But, The Dems Controlled Congress".

On a personal note: I used to have a subscription to the magazine, but let it fall by the wayside. I'm glad I'm back, and I want to particularly thank Mr. Benen for his insightful posts. Great work, y'all :o)

Yep, nope, it wasn't designed to function this way and it doesn't function this way, but it sure stoops those horrible Democratic policies from being put into effect, doesn't it?

Those people who are happy to have this the new normal? Republicans and the Villagers who are thrilled to promote them.

Villagers love how smart Republicans make them feel without requiring them to do the least little bit of thinking or reading, and it's a pleasure to hose those god-damned Democrats who keep making them look stupid.

It takes guts/cojones/fortitude to end Senate filibusters. It can be done at ANY time (NOT just the start of a session) by using what is sometimes termed the "nuclear option". The Republicans will surely do it if they control the Senate. The time for Democrats to do it is now. All the excuses not to do so are simply excuses.

There is a simple solution, fortunately. At the start of the 112th Congress, assuming Democrats are still in majority, the cloture rules can be set by a simple majority vote. 55, 50 votes for cloture, whatever you like.

Since I doubt the Republicans will ever again control the Senate, having turned into a regional Party, there is little chance they will be able to return the favor.

@gdb, Just end the filibuster, I agree. I think it was steve who posted on this blog about a week ago some links to the federalist papers that emphasized the "majority rules" plans for the senate. Hey, when the republicans take the senate, it's majority rules, when the dems take it back, it's majority rules, fair enough.

As the line goes--elections have consequences. But in the current case, thanks to the odd makeup of the senate, those representing something like 10% of the population can thwart the goals of those representing the other 90%, which means we gotta problem with elected representation, meaning the rules of the senate

two side notes

one, I'm up for charles schumer as majority leader

two, why isn't biden out there every day forcefully debunking all the outright lies the repubs are spewing? I know he has things to do, but to me none are more important than this. What's the point of having a megaphone if it gathers dust in a closet?

"The chamber is broken, and Republicans are standing over the shattered pieces holding a hammer."

Nearby, the Democrats are on their knees, wailing.

WTF guys, pick up a hammer and start beating the shit out of assholes. Call press conferences, force debates on the issues. CHANGE THE FUCKING RULES. Nothing will change until they start feeling some heavy pain.

karen marie@10:42: Villagers love how smart Republicans make them feel without requiring them to do the least little bit of thinking or reading, and it's a pleasure to hose those god-damned Democrats who keep making them look stupid.

Simple, yet insightful angle on the Beltway crowd. Not sure why I never thought of this.

in a better world, for a political reporter not to know the history of the filibuster should be a firing offense (or a non-hiring one).

churchyard, speaking of needing to know your history, i hate to break it to you: they did make them filibuster in the '50s, and you know what? the filibuster worked, there was no vast outcry against it, and the cloture threshold remained in force at 2/3.

i mean, i know it seems like just making 'em filibuster would destroy it, but that isn't past performance....

@howard:

I think the dynamics at play here weren't present then. Keep in mind the point is to educate an ignorant public who doesn't even follow this stuff enough to know why nothing happens in Congress since the Democrats took over.

In fact, what happened in the 50s? The filibuster remained rare for four more decades. If the same happens this time, educating the public will have been a success.

Howard, your point is half correct. Sometimes they work; other times they are defeated. The civil right bills of '57 and '64 are good examples of the latter.

From the wikipedia filibuster page:

A filibuster can be defeated by the majority party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else. Indeed, Strom Thurmond's own attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak, and the matter eventually was forced to a vote. Thurmond's afore-mentioned stall holds the record for the longest filibuster in U.S. Senate history at 24 hours, 37 minutes.

That said, I'd also like to see the whole question completely dispensed with, along with courtesy "holds" on nominees.

But in the absence of a complete dismantling of the filibuster, I am strongly in favor of making them actually publicly debate the issue to the exclusion of all other senate business. Instead of spending a year on health care, spend a couple of weeks watching the blowhards wail and gnash their teeth on CSPAN, until all have spoken. Then, invoke cloture and pass the thing with a simple majority vote.

Shine a spotlight on them, and beat them at their own asinine game.

You'd think the concept that Republicans are simply trying - and succeeding - to arrest any effort toward governing the country in hope that the electorate will perceive them as the lesser of two failures would need no further explanation. However, it would be helpful to amplify here that "unprecedented" really does mean "never before".

Even under Tommy "the Hammer" DeLay, the Republicans never achieved this measure of party discipline, whereby every single Republican would vote with the party regardless their personal beliefs or the pressure from their constituents. James Fallows explained it as well as I've ever seen it done, in The Atlantic;

"Bipartisanship in the American sense means compromising on legislation so that a sufficient number of members of Congress from BOTH parties will support it, even if (as is typically the case) a few majority party members defect and most minority party members don't join.

Bipartisanship consists of getting ENOUGH members of the minority party to join the (incomplete) majority in voting for major legislation. It can't happen if the minority party members vote as a block against major legislation. And that can happen only if the minority party has the ability to discipline its ranks so that none join the majority, which is the unprecedented situation we've got in Congress today.

The GOP now maintains party discipline by the equivalent of a parliamentary party's tools: The GOP can effectively deny a candidate the party label (by running a more conservative GOP candidate against him or her), and the GOP can also provide the needed funds to the candidate of the party's choice. And every GOP member of Congress knows it. (Snowe and Collins may be immune, but that's about it.)"

This kind of lockstep moonie obedience is a consequence of an iron fist in the background. Anybody think that's Mitch McConnell? Michael Steele? Ha, ha!!! me either. So, who is it?

The rest of the article is well worth reading, and you can find it here;
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/02/why_bipartisanship_cant_work.php

churchyard, to clarify a(n important) fine point: the '57 legislation was extremely weak precisely because the filibuster did work.

and note that i said the '50s: yes, cloture held in '64, the last moment when there were a substantive number of northern liberals in the gop. however, that was cloture, pure and simple, it wasn't that the debate went on for days exposing the racist swine resisting the civil rights act and a righteous public smote them down.

in fact, of course, at the end of the day, we know that the side that broke the filibuster - the democrats - lost in the political long run, regardless of the moral correctness of what they did. that is, southern whites migrated to the gop and made it the majority party electorally.

I got through a debt settlement company, and i can say it's safe and effective as long as its a company A rated by the better business bureau.

Between me and my husband we've had over 20,000 in debt and had to use a company to get out of it. We made sure it was legitimate through use of the BBB lookup.