Should we force filibusters?

[plantwomyn]

Why are the Dems so afraid of the filibuster? I watch C-Span and it seems that half the time the Senate is in a quorum call. Why not let the Republicans filibuster? There are holds or “secret holds” on S. 886 - Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007, S.849 -Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act (the “OPEN Government Act”), and S.223 - Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. The hold means that a senator is threatening to filibuster. LET HIM!! (and yes, it is a him in all known cases)
They refuse to vote for cloture on enumerable bills and by doing so are said to be “filibustering” that bill. In reality, all they are doing is TREATENING to do so.

From Wikipedia “In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can therefore be as powerful as an actual filibuster. Previously the filibustering senator(s) could delay voting only by making an endless speech. Currently they need only indicate that they are filibustering, thereby preventing the senate from moving on to other business until the motion is withdrawn or enough votes are gathered for cloture.”

So why doesn’t the Senate Majority Leader require an actual traditional filibuster? Keep them on the floor and make them give the American people a reason for their opposition!
Why don’t we put our candidates up against their candidates on the floor of the Senate and let them have at it? We could even have non-candidates read statements form candidates who are House members. Hell why not even ask we the people to submit statements to be read into the record?

Pres. Bush wants division. The Democratic leadership is allowing obstructionist Senators to control the agenda. Can they wonder that their poll ratings are so low?
Bush says he is a war president. Let’s give him a war. Let’s draw the battle lines and debate every bill and every amendment.

Are the Democratic leaders afraid to debate?

I think it’s time to put our best against theirs and really have it out about the future direction of this Nation.

Debate the Unitary Executive. Monday
Debate Transparency in Government. Tuesday
Debate the War on Terror. Wednesday
Debate Warrantless Wiretapping. Thursday
Debate Habeus Corpus. Friday
Stir and mix on the weekend and start all over again the next week.

My answer is yes. I don’t give a fuck if the Senate never passes another bill.
DEBATE and never stop till they vote for cloture and we pass the laws we know this country deserves!

[Trisket-Bisket]

1. How?

How are "We" going to force fillibusters?

[backscatter712]

3. Reid can do it if he wants.

Just by virtue of being Senate Majority Leader, he can rule that the GOP do a real filibuster instead of a virtual filibuster, and on top of that, he can refuse to bring other business to the floor while the filibuster continues, so the GOP can be forced to keep it going for weeks. On top of that, he can make frequent quorum calls, so the Senators can't leave - they're forced to either continue the filibuster, or give up and let the bill come up for a vote.

The problem is that Reid doesn't want to. He's too much of a wimp.

[backscatter712]

2. Absolutely! Abolish the virtual filibuster.

If the GOP is going to game the system to kill a bill, make them game it the old-fashioned way - by reading from the dictionary or law library, and holding the floor continuously, 24/7. And you can't release the floor - if you stop speaking, the bill comes to a vote. No other business goes before the Senate. If they want to kill a bill, they need to decide if killing this particular bill is worth the trouble of grinding business to a halt and pissing a whole bunch of people off. No stops at all - Senators who filibuster should be equipped with Foley catheters and feeding tubes so they can keep going for days.

I'm not for the "nuclear option" of abolishing filibusters entirely. But filibustering should be a pain in the ass. No more virtual filibusters - no more invoking a Senate rule to simply make the threshold for passing a bill 60 votes instead of 50. Simple majorities should be good enough most of the time - if you want to make it a supermajority, then be prepared to endure some pain.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. There are things that actually need to get done, believe it or not.

Starting with appropriations bills, almost none of which have been voted on by the Senate with the fiscal year ending in 10 days. That hasn't been done yet because they've already spent far too much time playing games on Iraq.

[backscatter712]

5. I'll take a government shutdown if it means we can get out of Iraq

or even get some wedge, even a small wedge that can be pried open to start forcing things down Bush's throat.

I'm sick of eating Bush's agenda. Sick of it. And I will do anything. Absolutely anything to make sure Bush is the one fucked over.

[ljm2002]

7. Ditto...

...if the Republics want to shut it down, let 'em, and let everyone see who is obstructing.

As it is, it's just more of the same. "Well it isn't realistic" "We have more important things to do" on and on and on ad nauseum

Do they not realize how lame they appear?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. I won't.

You don't realize that a government shut down means killing funding for education, health research, transportation (ie Minnesota's bridge), and a lot of social services that we need as a society to function. It's absurd to want to get at Bush so badly that you'd cut off your own arm.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

6. SHOW THE OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICANS AS THEY REALLY ARE

THE PUBS HATE FEDERAL GOV.

MAKE IT OBVIOUS.

[harun]

9. Probably not this year but maybe next (n/t)

[KoKo]

10. ...