It's a reminder that no one wants to give up a weapon they might want to use themselves someday.

True, but that's not really relevant here. I don't recall minority Dems filibustering anything during the Bush years --- and they famously caved, led by the 'sensible, yoosta bee' Democrat Joe Lieberman --- when it came to keeping those assholes Roberts and Alito off the high court. We can put the blame for Citizens United at the feet of Lieberman and the rest of the so-called Gang of 12.

But my point is, when Democrats return to the minority in the Senate, two things are certain:

1. Democrats will use the filibuster rarely, if at all, and certainly not when it matters.
2. If Democrats do filibuster something the Republicans really want, Republicans will not hesitate to use the 'nuclear option' and do away with it.

Bottom line: The filibuster will never again be an effective tool for Democrats to thwart a Republican majority. So any Democrats who are currently willing to allow Republicans to continue abusing the filibuster to the country's great harm are simply cowards.

Maybe. I'd say it is more or a matter of Democrats

a) having a convenient excuse to not do hard things
and
b) feeling empowered by Republican filibusters because they can extract demands more easily. It's the swing votes that are most powerful.

What needs to happen is that a chunck of Democratic Senators need to simply inform the rest of the caucus that they will not vote for the leader of the party choisen by the caucus for majority leader unless the filibuster and other rules used to stop the work of the Senate are reformed. Without reform you might as well be in the minority because nothing is going to happen anyways.

Also David Bailey is absolutely correct.

Further evidence that the problem is not the filibuster rule; it is the Senate itself which is the problem. Down with the House of Lords! This antiquated body is what keeps the govenment from responding to the will of the people.

David Bailey hit it on the button.

The Senate leader should start making the Republicans actually filibuster; make them read from the phone book for all to see on CSPAN. All other legislation is halted during the process. They've replaced the actual filibuster with the threat of a filibuster, and there are no longer any consequences for their actions.

The problem isn't that all bills of consequence require super-majorities to pass, it's that the super-majority requirement only applies when the Democrats control the Senate.

Who would Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and the rest of the "centrists" be without the filibuster? They'd never get any time on TV and be largely ignored by all the big special interests. The filibuster is awesome for them.

bailey: I don't recall minority Dems filibustering anything during the Bush years...

False and disingenuous statements like this simply don't help make the case.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

Bobsled beat me to it. If they went the Senate to stick to their time-honored rules, then call the obstructionists' bluff, and make them actually follow through with it. Show the American public their Senate in 'action'.

These guys don't realize: the minute the GOP gets a majority, as well as the Vice-Presidency, the filibuster's gone? They don't realize contributing to this obscene dysfunction in which truly existential problems go unaddressed only hastens that moment?

-- a government incapable of passing legislation...

Isn't that the point? Drown government in a bathtub?

Render it incapable of functioning as a positive entity so that the argument to privatize EVERY facet of society is easier to make?

It's a shame, all the people over the centuries who fought and died to make this country great, only to see it dismantled by greedy ignorant bastards. You'd think Americans would wake up.

Fearless predictions:

1. The Democrats will not have the nerve to get rid of the filibuster in 2011.

2. The next time the Republicans have 50 votes in the Senate plus the vice presidency (say, 2013 or 2017), they are going to get rid of the filibuster so fast your head will spin.

3. When that happens, the Senate Democrats will go on TV and cry like whiny little kittens about how they thought Mitch McConnell was their nice friend (sniff).

4. The Senate Democrats will also tell themselves that the public will never stand for this Republican hypocrisy, even though the last 50 years of political history are entirely to the contrary.

5. The Senate Democrats will also tell themselves that the public will think this is an outrage against constitutional democracy, even though most Americans don't understand what a filibuster is.

6. In response to this terrible Republican outrage, the people will take to the streets to usher in a sweeping new era of liberal utopia, unless there is something on TV that night, in which case never mind.

The senate is only one, small part of the greater problem the united States finds itself in.

Parallels to the twilight days of Rome come to mind; bread and circuses for them, food stamps and television for us.

We have become slaves to a corporate universality that cares not a whit about the serfs, the law, or national boundaries.

So, why are we not in the streets, with torches and pitchforks? Let me remind you of the old saw about the frog and the pot of water. . .

@alkali

Excellent argument! You've convinced me! Democrats are TOTAL IDIOTS! I'M going to go out and WORK AND VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS this year, and get everyone I know to do the same!

(that was your point, wasn't it?)

Jack Kennedy disagreed. Ran on getting rid of the filibuster in 1960. Fifty years ago.

Methinks some Democrats in this 'group of five' have spent too much time inside looking out instead of outside looking in.

They have no idea how their inactions are hurting the plebeians. If they care at all. They have their sinecure, and it's a chummy club - why soil the carpet and disrupt things?

Good points made above, and DAY has it nailed. One day we're going to look up and realize how messed up we are, and by then it'll be too late to change anything - if it isn't too late already.

Who would've thought that people in America would look on Britain's system of government with envy? That's where we are, as we continue to spiral down the drain instead of realizing the bright promise of what we could have been.

People supporting filibuser reform would be better off voting for Republican candidates for the senate. You can be sure that the Republicans will eliminate the filibuser as soon as it suits their purpose.

Just wanted to second the excellent point of NHCt: Those refusing to remove the filibuster know full well that the wealth of influence and power they possess comes from leveraging their 59th or 60th vote. Without it, they'd never be able to weaken pending legislation or demand pork.

day: Parallels to the twilight days of Rome come to mind...

Another FDL Paranoia Winner!

@cr: Wow 'false and disingenous [sic]', huh?

Okay, the Democrats forced cloture votes when they were in the minority. But please raise a relevant objection to my statement:

I don't recall minority Dems filibustering anything during the Bush years.

Can you name an important part of the Republican agenda that Democrats successfully blocked with a filibuster? Such as: tax cuts, invasion of Iraq, Supreme Court nominations?

If not, I don't think I'm the one who should be targeted with the labels 'false' and 'disingenuous'.

bailey: @cr: Wow 'false and disingenous [sic]', huh?

Uh, yeah. In fact, so false and disingenuous that you even changed the spelling so it would look like I spelled disingenuous wrong.

And if you really meant that dems didn't filibuster anything IMPORTANT, then why didn't you say that (even though that's also false) rather than making "anything" bold?

Your disinguity is too obvious, and not helpful to the cause. Your arguments are the kind that keeps redstate in business.

Steve Benen wrote: "... these anti-reform Dems are inviting a disaster -- a government incapable of passing legislation."

For the bought-and-paid-for corporate stooge Senate Democrats, that's a feature, not a bug.

I'll let cr and David B duke it out, and point out that the main problem now is that the republicans still in the senate that were part of the "bipartisan" gang of 14, no longer seem to support the idea of refraining from the use of the filibuster except in exceptional circumstances ... and you'll never see an equivalent gang with a democratic majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

@cr (in response to me): Excellent argument! You've convinced me! Democrats are TOTAL IDIOTS! I'M going to go out and WORK AND VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS this year, and get everyone I know to do the same! (that was your point, wasn't it?)

Well, no, not really. But I am tired of the alternative Democratic strategy, which is to move heaven and earth to get a creaky Senate supermajority together.

Here is what my calls with Democratic fundraisers are like, at least in my imagination:

Me: Hello.

Dem Fundraiser: Gosh, thanks for taking my call after screening me for 500 times. We were really hoping you could contribute today, because it could really make a difference for the Democrats. You see, the incumbent Republican Senator in South Mississippi is vulnerable.

Me: How so?

DF: Some tape has come out of the Senator having sex with goats.

Me: Wow. How did that get out?

DF: Well, actually ... he put it out. Most of the incumbent's commercials in that race show him having sex with goats in various positions. But here's the important thing: the Democratic candidate -- a Rhodes scholar and war hero -- has narrowed the gap to just 15 points.

Me: 15 points?

DF: Well, in some polls. What I'm getting at is that your contribution of $2000 could make the difference in picking up this vital seat. We want to do a big media buy. So can we put you down for $2000?

Me: What's the media strategy?

DF: Well, er, we want to show our candidate getting back to nature. Sort of an environmental thing. So can we have your pledge of $2000? I could take your credit card number.

Me: You're going to say that the Democratic candidate also has sex with goats, aren't you?

DF: Look, this isn't Massachusetts. We have to run centrist candidates in these races.

Me: (click)

@alkali

Very funny, but I'm a little confused now. Does this mean I should only vote for Republicans who fuck goats?

@cr: I generally assume they all do.

Seriously, Democrats should really consider the unintended consequences of this. Crap failing 57-41 is beyond frustrating and yes leads to legislative paralysis but it will also help protect from Republicans being able to undo all manner of legislative achievements should we end up with another Republican WH and Congress.

Do a thought exercise of a worst case scenario: President Palin, VP John Thune, Senate Majority John Cornyn, and Speaker of the House Mike Pence.

Reform should be considered but Democrats shouldn't jump headfirst into the shallow end because they're frustrated they didn't get everything they wanted for Christmas. The best argument could be made for eliminating anonymous holds and reforming the nominations process.

If I may offer a historical point, take a moment to consider the Articles of Confederation. The Founders rejected the idea of a paralyzed government in the most explicit way possible: They wrote a fucking Constitution!

"Republicans becoming more historically conservative"

Why doesn't Steve Benen just come out and tell it like it is?

The traditionl Republican party no longer exists. Those wearing the extremely tarnished Republican label are Fascists-totalitarian, corrupt, and incompetent.

@JRinDallas: Seriously, Democrats should really consider the unintended consequences of this. Crap failing 57-41 is beyond frustrating and yes leads to legislative paralysis but it will also help protect from Republicans being able to undo all manner of legislative achievements should we end up with another Republican WH and Congress.

The flip side is that under the current system, Republicans are constantly running for office by suggesting that they would support all kinds of nutty crap -- e.g., abolishing the IRS -- when they know they actually couldn't do that without creating mass chaos. Likewise, voters vote for Republicans on the implicit assumption that all they will do is check Democrats and won't actually pass an agenda. Abolishing the filibuster would make Republicans actually responsible for what they say.

@Day re: the twilight of the Roman republic. You have it exactly right.

It was the Roman Senate, descending into factional dysfunctionality, that brought on the Caesars, who need to be remembered as having been initially seen as reformers of a broken system.

Let us recall that Mussolini was initially seen as being good because he made the trains run on time. Hitler was seen as good because he ended unemployment. In each case, they succeeded a broken democratic republic that was filled with factionalism (in both these case, factionalism promoted by these leaders and their parties).

The Democratic Senators who take this position prove the absolute necessity of imposing term limits on these people. We'll be generous and give them two terms in the Senate maximum and four in the House. Somehow, the government has to be brought around to representing the will of the governed, and the Senate - on both sides of the aisle - does not do that.

Neither side wants to take responsibility for the negative consequences of the laws and policies they enact. It's better to have someone else to blame in the next election cycle.

Akaka should know better.

Do a thought exercise of a worst case scenario: President Palin, VP John Thune, Senate Majority John Cornyn, and Speaker of the House Mike Pence.

We don't have to imagine, we just had frickin' years of this! Tell me what substantive part of the Bush agenda was blocked by Democratic filibusters during that time, instead of asking us to imagine what they might block next time.

The reason we need to get rid of the filibuster is because we have a Democratic party that respects the will of the people, and therefore allows government to function when the people elect Republican administrations and majorities, and a Republican party which cares only about ruling, not about the will of the people or the good of the country, so they will abuse any part of the rules to prevent Democrats from accomplishing anything (and abuse the rules to pass legislation when they're in power, but that's beside the point.)

We have two options:

- Weaken the filibuster to restore it to its original purpose (extended debate) or eliminate it, and give up the occasional legitimate use on both sides in return for eliminating the massive abuse on one side, or...

- Have the Democrats act like Republicans and abuse the filibuster equally, in which case Republicans win because they prefer having a government that never functions to having one that functions when Democrats are in power, or...

- Continue to have the country move to the right despite the will of the people, because Republicans can enact most of their agenda and Democrats can't.

Those are the choices. Pick which one you prefer.

LEAVE THE FILIBUSTER ALONE. I'm guessing it is the main reason that Social Security isn't privatized. You could return it to requiring that Senators actually stay up for 24 hours making speeches, which would make it more fun.

The only way around this is to change the way people think, so they vote for more Senators to do the right thing. If you aren't up for that fight, then changing the Senate rules isn't going to matter anyhow.

Benen, you keep adding to the bullshit. Why can't you end a post like "with dems likely to increase their majority in the senate, republicans...." instead of, "...with the senate majority due to shrink..."?

All evidence points to the GOP being detrimental to America to the point of insanity but here you are mentioning in nearly every post how repubs are going to increase their numbers in the mid terms, almost as if you are trying to get readers to just become complacent and just accept that the insane republicans are taking over...nothing we can do about it.

With democrats sure to increase their majorities in the midterms it's important to get better more progressive dem agendas underway. Just accept it, nothing you can do about it...only by cheating can repubs, even with all their money, still get into office.

Return the filibuster to its original form, thus placing the burden back on those wishing to halt/delay legislation. As it now stands, those wanting to halt a filibuster have to have both more than 50 votes and also remain available for quorum votes. Those carrying out the filibuster only need to have one member in the Senate chamber at any period.
It is this, rather than the filibuster itself, that has caused the problems the Senate faces today. How many of those Democratic Senators who are against getting rid of the filibuster would support a return to its original form?
Has anyone asked?
Why not?

We rob banks.

abercrombie jackets