Reply #17: traditional filibusters almost always were successful [View All]

[onenote]

Blame Reid all you want, but even LBJ failed to break filibusters when he was majority leader. A filibuster puts all of the burden on the party opposing the filibuster, not the party leading the filibuster. All the party leading the filibuster has to do is put one member on the floor to talk as long as they want. WHen they get tired, a second member can show up and take over. Meanwhile, the party trying to break the filibuster has to put 50 members on the floor. Otherwise, there is no quorum and everything stops cold. So what you have is a situation in which virtually all of the Democrats in teh Senate would have to be on the floor, but unable to speak. Virtually all of the repubs would be hanging out at CNN, Faux, the networks, etc etc, gathering up all the airtime spewing about how they are ready and willing to talk compromise but the Democrats are the one's stopping progress on the legislation. As for the repubs on the floor (assuming there is a quorum), they'll just read through the bill -- its very long -- picking out and distorting specific provisions that they claim are pork or unnecessary in a stimulus package and there will be no one to answer them.

There is a reason that the majority rarely if ever forces a traditional filibuster -- and it has nothing to do with whether Harry Reid is a good, bad or indifferent leader.