Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Looking for a silver lining on filibuster reform? (updated)
Last edited Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:13 PM - Edit history (1)
The Morning Plum: What’s next for filibuster reformers?
Now that the smoke has cleared from the wreckage of yesterday’s filibuster reform debacle, what’s next for those who want to fix our broken Senate? There is no denying that yesterday’s outcome was a terrible disappoint for those who still hold out hope for functional government. At the same time, there are some silver linings.
There is now an infrastructure of outside groups and activists that has shown the ability to mobilize at least some public concern about an extremely arcane problem, dramatizing the need for better governance and the dangerous consequences of having a Senate that has functionally ceased to be a democratic body. What’s more, we’ve now seen that the ongoing influx of energetic and liberal reform-minded Senators has proven able to force the old lions to embrace some change and to pay lip service to the need to change the way the Senate operates. If reformers maintain that outside infrastructure, and elect more energetic Dems to the Senate, that could boost the possibility of more reform later.
In an interview with me this morning, one of the leading proponents of filibuster change — Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico — reflected on what reformers had accomplished and on what’s next, and vowed to revisit reform “every two years” if necessary.
“When I started this three years ago, it was pretty lonely,” Udall told me. “But there are millions of Americans who now want to see a changed Senate. They understand it’s broken. They understand we have to change the way we do business. The Senate is now a graveyard for good ideas, and we need to change that.”
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/25/the-morning-plum-whats-next-for-filibuster-reformers/
Now that the smoke has cleared from the wreckage of yesterday’s filibuster reform debacle, what’s next for those who want to fix our broken Senate? There is no denying that yesterday’s outcome was a terrible disappoint for those who still hold out hope for functional government. At the same time, there are some silver linings.
There is now an infrastructure of outside groups and activists that has shown the ability to mobilize at least some public concern about an extremely arcane problem, dramatizing the need for better governance and the dangerous consequences of having a Senate that has functionally ceased to be a democratic body. What’s more, we’ve now seen that the ongoing influx of energetic and liberal reform-minded Senators has proven able to force the old lions to embrace some change and to pay lip service to the need to change the way the Senate operates. If reformers maintain that outside infrastructure, and elect more energetic Dems to the Senate, that could boost the possibility of more reform later.
In an interview with me this morning, one of the leading proponents of filibuster change — Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico — reflected on what reformers had accomplished and on what’s next, and vowed to revisit reform “every two years” if necessary.
“When I started this three years ago, it was pretty lonely,” Udall told me. “But there are millions of Americans who now want to see a changed Senate. They understand it’s broken. They understand we have to change the way we do business. The Senate is now a graveyard for good ideas, and we need to change that.”
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/25/the-morning-plum-whats-next-for-filibuster-reformers/
To some this will look like a silver lining, to others it'll seem like a pipe dream.
Updated to add the roll call: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00001
I don't understand why they didn't include the talking filibuster with the measures that passed. Ending the filibuster could still have been subject to a high-vote threshold, ideally 55 votes. I'd even accept 60.
Fact is that it would be much better to have Senators defend their obstruction for all Americans to see/hear. Better to put the arguments out in the open, and then let Senators defend their vote.
Filibuster reform dead until at least 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022257250
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
"Fact is that it would be much better to have Senators defend their obstruction for all Americans to see/hear."
And you're wondering why this didn't happen.
all kiding aside, I'm pisssed that it didn't get done. You're NOT alone.