Ending the filibuster is critical. And only Liz Warren supports ending it.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

https://crooked.com/articles/democrats-delusion-filibuster/


I admit I’m a Liz Warren fan girl.
But we will get ZERO done if we don’t end the filibuster. Republicans will rule via minority forever and block all Democratic action when they are in the minority. UNLESS we get to 51 Senate seats AND end the filibuster.

That’s why I’m for Warren for pres, and for Beto to run against Cornyn for Senate. Let’s do this!


(Ps Always read Brian Beutler)

In her speech announcing her candidacy earlier this month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) warned supporters against the temptation to turn the page. “Once [Trump’s] gone we can’t pretend that all of this never happened,” she said. By no coincidence, Warren is also one of the few candidates who hasn’t run scared from the idea of eliminating the filibuster. “Everything stays on the table. You keep it all on the table. Don’t take anything off the table.”

Her insight is that these objectives are related. You can’t defeat antidemocratic forces by cementing their minority rule, and there will thus be no meaningful reckoning for Trump so long as the filibuster remains in place.

The modern history of American politics is one in which tens of millions of voting-age Americans have been cheated out of their democratic choices. After the first election I was old enough to participate in, multiple partisan institutions brought their power to bear to deny the presidency to the candidate who won the most votes and who, in a fair counting, would have won the electoral college as well. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 brought about a mass forgetting of this theft, which in turn allowed President George W. Bush to implement disastrous economic and foreign policies while dodging most questions about how much responsibility his administration bore for not detecting and stopping the attacks. Bush, who should have never served a day in office, appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, both of whom have many years of service ahead of them.

In the eight years between Bush and Trump, under a Democratic president who won both of his elections with substantial popular majorities, Republicans turned the filibuster into a tool of nullification, used routine legislative deadlines and threats of harm to the population as means of extortion, and stole a Supreme Court seat.

[hlthe2b]

1. loss of the judicial filibuster is why R's are stacking all the courts right now and for decades...

What does Warren have to say about that? Seriously... I'm asking...?

[shanny]

4. If we had been willing to nuke

the profoundly anti-democratic filibuster in 2009 we could have had a stimulus package appropriate for the size of the financial crisis, we could have had a much stronger ACA with a public option, we could have passed card check and the DREAM act, Obama could have had the appointments he wanted--including but not limited to Merrick Garland and a great number of other things (rescinding tax credits for fossil fuels would have been a major bonus in my view).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/05/17-bills-that-likely-would-have-passed-the-senate-if-it-didnt-have-the-filibuster/?utm_term=.37a76612d902

And maybe, if we had been able to deliver on more of our agenda, we wouldn't have lost the House in 2010.

Regardless, I have a problem with the rule of the minority in a democratic republic. There are too many chokepoints that can prevent the people from getting what they want/voted for, and the pukes are adept at using them all. The Senate is a BIG one, where 8% of the population can elect half of its members. Anything we can do to level the playing field is a good thing.

[hlthe2b]

6. Exactly how, with R's holding Senate & refusing Garland a hearing or vote, might we have prevailed?

Please be specific.

[shanny]

12. Why were Rs able to take the Senate?

Do you not think that failure to deliver has consequences for a party over the long run? Did you miss the stunning collapse of the Democratic Party at the national, state and local level in the years following the wave elections of 2006 and 2008? Yes, an extraordinary man held the White House but what about the rest of it? Do you think that happened in a vacuum, or that it was just part of some natural cycle? If the answer is yes to either of those, why do you bother with politics at all?

Do you not get that the mantra "we can't do x because Rs will do it too" is a recipe for inaction, inertia and ultimate defeat? Have the Rs ever held back when they had the reins?* Did these last years have no lessons for you?

* and yes, I get it: they will do it again. Which is why we have to be equally bold, play offense just as hard and DELIVER! Seems to me we have been on our heels ever since the late 60s and jaysus H am I sick of it. Also too: it ain't working for SHIT. So, yeah, I don't see a benefit in doing the same shit on a different day and expecting different results.

[hlthe2b]

18. Gerrymandering for the House, Voter Suppression for Senate. Perhaps you might want to google that...

[shanny]

20. Very helpful in Senate races and governorships.

Seriously. Read the excellent post #8 if you can't be bothered to click through to the article. The author says it much better than I ever could.

[shanny]

24. oh honey

You do recall Obama won re-election in the middle of gerrymandering and voter suppression. Right? So it can be done. If you are really better than your opponent, you can win. Shouldn't have to be that way, and it should be addressed, but we can't keep blaming all our woes on the bad guys, especially when it has been amply demonstrated that a good guy can win, despite obstacles.

But by all means, continue excusing our own failures instead of addressing them. I'm sure that will work.

*btw, speaking of failures, why are gerrymandering and voter suppression only coming to the forefront in the last couple of years? The purge of the voter rolls in Florida started in May 1999. 20 effing years ago! And we did what, exactly? Did we take bold action, a pro-active stance? Did we raise holy hell about that?...or did we conveniently blame Ralph Nader? let me think

[hlthe2b]

25. Oh, honey, you STILL haven't answered why exactly Merrick Garland would have been confirmed

with an R- Senate refusing a hearing or vote as you clearly stated if we had only had eliminated the general filibuster long ago. Nor have you addressed the impact of losing the judicial filibuster that has allowed the R's to load the courts for the next four decades. Honey?...

[shanny]

26. See! You can do offense! I'm proud of you.

Now you just have to direct it where it counts. I know you can.

[hlthe2b]

27. meh... you are not worth my Friday evening... Knock yourself out.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

23. Yes- bold! Exactly. nm

Respect norms, but act boldly. Take action. Pass big sweeping legislation to expand the vote, address climate change, add states, stop gerrymandering. Zero of that will pass without ending the filibuster.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

8. Thank you! This is all well explained by Beutler in the article.

What these senators mean is that for all the broad left’s justified alarm about the brittleness of our democracy, and the hardening of minority rule in America, 41 out of 100 senators, representing much less than 41 percent of the U.S. population, should be allowed to doom their ambitions. Even a Senate that could reliably pass legislation with 51 votes would still not be a majoritarian institution. The senators from the 25 smallest states would still have as much power as the senators from the 25 largest states, and because of how our population is sorted, the Senate would still allow a minority of the country, through their elected representatives, to hobble the progressive agenda.

Still, abolishing the filibuster would at least give the next Democratic president a fighting chance to govern. It would also strike a blow for core democratic principles liberals claim to stand for, bringing the country closer to a one-person, one vote ideal. Democrats who support its abolition could appeal to voters not just on the basis of policy checklists and anti-Trump sentiment, but as tribunes for a more responsive democracy. The problem is that many Democratic senators seem to believe that this would be bad. And unless that changes, the primary will be less a contest to determine which ideas a unified Democratic government might enact than a grand but meaningless celebration of liberal empowerment. A laboratory simulation to determine where consensus among Democratic base voters lies, before that consensus gets dashed upon the shoals of Republican obstruction.

As these candidates have staked out their positions, Mitch McConnell has constructed a fine-tuned machine for confirming right-wing judges who, left to their own devices, will be shaping life in America for decades to come. President Trump is assembling a committee of climate-change deniers to dispute the consensus that global warming threatens national and global security. The last five years have been the hottest five years in recorded history. And nothing of substance can pass the Senate with less than 60 votes.

There is a famous New Yorker cartoon that depicts three children and a grown man huddled in a post-apocalyptic outpost around a campfire wearing tattered clothing, and the caption reads, “Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.” It’s a perfect satire of the brutal myopia of corporate capitalism, but it could be easily refashioned into commentary about the absurdity of Democratic politics. “Yes, the planet got destroyed. But would it really have been worth saving if it meant a majority of legislators could make laws in America?”

The most frustrating thing about this whistling past the graveyard isn’t that it places all of civilization at risk. It is possible (though terrifying) to imagine us muddling through the climate crisis with a combination of clever legislating, regulation, innovation, and waste, while leaving the filibuster intact. What makes that thought truly bewildering is the hollowness it reveals. The poverty of ambition, the limp resistance, the fear of democratic accountability, the willingness to let year after year of right-wing abuse go unanswered. Whether driven by cynicism or delusion, the idea is that Democrats should claw their way back to power by inflaming the righteous and passionate Trump opposition with false promises, and then hope their disappointed voters will blame Republicans for the ensuing squander.

[shanny]

19. Thank you too.

Love your sig line (only reason I'm undecided is I can't pick between the 2 candidates Wall St. hates).

[EndGOPPropaganda]

13. Sorry but this is naive: GOP was just waiting to nuke it

All Democrats did is filibuster for one SCOTUS judge and the GOP nuked it. ONE.

If the first time you use something the other side nukes it— you never had it to begin with.

This is a national crisis. In the past, as with FDR and LBJ, Dems won power and used a majority to lock in gains with sweeping legislation. That’s what’s on the table here: sweeping legislation or permanent Republican control of America. That’s it.

And frankly, we may not even get a Senate majority in 2020. Then you’re looking at four decades of the GOP SCOTUS knocking down every single law a Dem president passes, including voting rights laws— the Republicans will have complete control for decades. We must win the Senate, we must end the filibuster. And if we don’t do either of those two things, kiss every law goodbye.

[hlthe2b]

16. That is NOT what I asked. I asked you to address YOUR claim that we could have gotten Garland

with the R's having the Senate and refusing a committee hearing or vote. Exactly how do you argue the general filibuster end could have made a difference there/

Please be specific. Accusing me of being naive when you dodge the actual question asked does your case no good.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

21. That wasn't me, and I asked you to address Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

You said

loss of the judicial filibuster is why R's are stacking all the courts right now and for decades...

If the first time you try to use something, it gets nuked and you don’t get to use it — did you ever have it?

[shanny]

28. Sorry but are you aware you are talking to--

actually chastising--the wrong person? Is this indicative of anything?

[hlthe2b]

30. Your twin.

You still have't answered so I figured your alter ego might. But I'll just leave you to talk with yourself.

the profoundly anti-democratic filibuster in 2009 we could have had a stimulus package appropriate for the size of the financial crisis, we could have had a much stronger ACA with a public option, we could have passed card check and the DREAM act, Obama could have had the appointments he wanted--including but not limited to Merrick Garland and a great number of other things (rescinding tax credits for fossil fuels would have been a major bonus in my view).

[hlthe2b]

22. Still waiting... Guess you don't actually have an answer to that, do you?

[mobeau69]

2. I'm not convinced. That cuts both ways.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

10. Read this. The filibuster helps only Republicans at this time.

From the article

Democrats have no answer to this history. Or rather, what the Democratic frontrunners who have placed the filibuster above all other concerns are telling us is, Too bad. There will be no remedy for any of it.

Some progressives believe that the key to quieting, or at least overpowering, the revanchist tempers of the far right is by building cross-cutting economic institutions to create class solidarity among working people. Give everyone medical security, mobilize the population with the allure of good jobs and a clean environment, and authoritarian appeals to race hatred will lose their popular force. If that assumption is correct, then perhaps it follows that Democratic presidential candidates are reluctant to put the cart of process before the horse of policy. They could feasibly exploit existing Senate rules—just as Republicans did to cut corporate taxes—to increase taxes on the wealthy, expand public health insurance, and spend money on jobs programs, while leaving the filibuster it in place to foil the next Republican administration.

This is foolhardy thinking for many reasons, but most importantly for what it places off limits as means of making people who have suffered for the past two decades whole. Trying to revive the social contract with a budget bill will prove inadequate to the economic policies they’re running on but it will also leave every other agenda item, including basic democratic fairness, on the cutting room floor.

Setting aside the theft of the Supreme Court, there will be no restoration or enhancement of voting rights—McConnell calls any idea that makes it easier for people to vote a Democratic power grab. There will be no anti-corruption act, no immigration act, no criminal-justice reform act and there will be no truth and reconciliation commission aimed at preventing another authoritarian from coming to power in the U.S. There will be no direct accountability for Trump’s enablers in Congress, no penalty for conservative foes of democracy, and no reprieve for the young voters who will have to live for decades under the illegitimate laws and judges Trump will leave behind.

In so many words, these Democrats are saying that come 2021, should voters sweep Trump out of power, it will be time, once again, to turn the page. Obama succumbed to the same temptation in 2009, creating an accountability void for an administration that had illegally spied on Americans and established a global network of secret torture prisons.

[Big Blue Marble]

3. I do not want the filibuster ended.

It has saved our bacon more often than not. We need to have a national discussion as to have
better balanced representation in the Senate. Small states do currently have too much power.

End the filibuster and watch the end of most of what remains of the safety net for starters.
We cannot expect to always hold the balance of power in this erratic political climate.
The filibuster acts as a break sometimes the only one. We saw it just in the last two
years over and over as Trump railed against the filibuster. It was the only institution
that stopped the rollover by the right.

I say keep it!

[EndGOPPropaganda]

9. Noooooooo!! Read the article!

Every point you made is rebutted.

Here are the facts:
The GOP has ALREADY ended the filibuster for Republicans. Tax cuts went through on reconciliation, and they rolled back the filibuster for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. And remember: the GOP doesn’t want to govern, they want to damage and obstruct.

If Democrats want to get ANYTHING done, we must end the filibuster.

Otherwise, Republicans will block everything when they’re in the minority and be content to jam through tax cuts when they’re in power. They already have cemented power for decades by packing the courts.

This is a national crisis. Democrats have ONE option: dramatic action. Doing nothing leaves the country in Republican hands. And leaving the filibuster means doing nothing.

This is all explained in the article.

[wasupaloopa]

5. When one party holds the House and Senate it is

useful to the minority.

[shanny]

7. I'm with her.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

11. Keep the filibuster.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

15. If you want Republicans to have control of America indefinitely, sure

[CrossingTheRubicon]

29. Nah, I want to be able to stop them.

Please do not make false and insulting assumptions. Uncalled for.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

34. Really, read the article. Keeping the filibuster means submitting to minority GOP rule

Happy to talk more about it.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

35. I have a degree in political science. I think I know what a filibuster means.

I disagree (and emphatically so), with your judgment here.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

37. Must end the filibuster if we want to avoid GOP control for decades.

I’ve worked with real political strategists for decades.

Indeed, among current candidates from the Senate, only Elizabeth Warren has expressed some openness to the radical (e.g., abolitionist) filibuster reform cause that most progressive policy wonks appear to support.

So would these candidates flip-flop if they became president and had a narrow Senate majority, and realized the filibuster might enable Republicans to block their entire agenda? And how do we know they would, even if we suspect they might? The fear of what Republicans might do if the shoe is again on the other foot might actually outweigh their interest in enacting all those policies they advocated on the campaign trail. And to be clear about it, that means they didn’t really care that much about these goals at all.

Indeed, as Brian Beutler points out, the unwillingness to come out flatly against the filibuster suggests a more systemic refusal to embrace a full commitment to popular democracy at a time when Republicans are using the anti-democratic aspects of our system to the absolute maximum to gain and hold onto power:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/democrats-should-trust-democracy-and-kill-the-filibuster.html

[CrossingTheRubicon]

40. You certainly seem sure of yourself, but I'm not buying what you are selling.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

43. Republicans want the filibuster: they know. Please read these articles.

Beutler linked above
Eric Levitz http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/dems-irrational-love-of-filibusters-could-doom-their-agenda.html
Paul Waldman
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/2019/02/22/why-democrats-need-be-ready-kill-filibuster/

We keep giving you details, arguments, articles. And you keep saying you don’t believe. Well, fine. How about this. Let’s both take the night off, you read the articles I sent, I’ll read any argument you send, and we can post again tomorrow.

Good? Have a great night!!

[Recursion]

14. Nope. The filibuster is why we still have the ACA

Getting rid of it would be a terrible idea.

[shanny]

31. Nope. The filibuster is why the ACA has been unpopular and therefore vulnerable.

Without the filibuster the ACA would have had a public option, would have been much stronger and would have been a path to universal care.

[Volaris]

17. I agree with this.

At some point in our past, and again our future, it might (have been) be a useful check against the mentality of 'the mob'.

But as it exists right now, it IS a weapon of the fascists that INFECT this Democracy, and it should be taken from them.

[shanny]

32. Well said.

[LonePirate]

33. If we don't remove the filibuster, 90%-95% of the Democratic agenda is DOA.

We might tinker with the tax code a little but that's it. No New Green Deal. No new voting rights and protections. No immigration changes. No health care changes such M4A or single payer. No DC or PR statehood. In short, as long as the filibuster is in place, nothing gets passed when we regain the Senate and Presidency.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

36. Right. And the GOP judges are going nowhere then.

And no reform of voter suppression.
No reform of gerrymandering.
No reform of conservative money in politics.
No reform of conservative propaganda.

So keeping the filibuster means the GOP will control America for several decades.

Warren understands this and I am glad.

[WordsMatter]

38. If this happens, we better have the House, Senate, and the Presidency.

But this won't work unless we ensure that the Dem legislators have a plan and
legislation ready to go to make sure our ELECTIONS are not stolen.

We may have to do this to fix all the atrocities that the repubs have done to America and Americans. But,
it is risky either way.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

39. Well yes- that's the only way to fix the country.

Yes! We have to hold all three, nuke the filibuster and have real reforms ready to go. Either we do all those things or we submit to GOP rule.

[WordsMatter]

41. Ya I know...

Repubs are democracy destroyers. In truth, they have America by the short hairs now.
No doubt that we have to remove these treasonous parasites and restore America's democracy. I think and I hope that there are enough patriots of both parties in key positions that will prevent the total destruction of our Constitution.

I don't think America has been this close to fascism...

[Tiggeroshii]

42. not a fan of that idea by any means

[DSV]

44. I agree completely. And nice article! Very well-reasoned.

The filibuster is a mistake of history. Its creation wasn't even the original intent of the ones who wrote it into the Senate rules. I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't go back to what the founders intended on this question, which is clearly a simple majority rather than three-fifths.

[kcr]

45. Cannot rec this enough

All the pretty talk in the world won't matter without ending it.

[Garrett78]

46. End the Senate, where before long 2/3 of the population will be represented by 1/3 of the Senate.