Obama -- speaking on the use of Filibuster...

[dave29]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/is-obama-growing-weary-of-the-gops-filibuster-everything-mo.php?ref=fpb

"As somebody who served in the Senate, who values the traditions of the Senate, who thinks that institution has been the world's greatest deliberative body, to see the filibuster rule, which imposes a 60-vote supermajority on legislation - to see that invoked on every single piece of legislation, during the course of this year, is unheard of," says President Obama in a yet-to-air interview with PBS.

I mean, if you look historically back in the '50s, the '60s, the '70s, the '80s - even when there was sharp political disagreements, when the Democrats were in control for example and Ronald Reagan was president - you didn't see even routine items subject to the 60-vote rule.
So I think that if this pattern continues, you're going to see an inability on the part of America to deal with big problems in a very competitive world, and other countries are going to start running circles around us. We're going to have to return to some sense that governance is more important than politics inside the Senate. We're not there right now

[NavyMom]

1. In other words the Repubs are whining little idiots..nt

[burning rain]

2. If Democrats aren't going to change the rules regarding cloture,...

it serves no good purpose to complain about Republican obstructionism. Fighting tooth and nail to stop legislation is goodness so far as the GOP's potential 2010 voters are concerned, and it's in congressional Republicans' interest, politically speaking. At the same time, they're making the Democrats look rather weak relative to holding big majorities, which demoralizes Democratic voters going into the mid-term elections. It is wishful thinking to hope that voters will punish Republican obstructionism at the polls--quite the opposite. When Bill Clinton entered office in 1993, congressional Republicans fought like dogs to stop his program (except NAFTA, of course), and so positioned themselves to reap the full benefit of backlash against Bubba in 1994 and not see it dissipate with third parties, or into mere rage. Fast forward to 2009 and we don't have a comparable Republican party with fairly clever guys like Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich to formulate a Contract with America and an ambitious and plausible-sounding counter-agenda. But they can at least ride a wave of anti-Obama and anti-Democratic backlash as far as that will take them.

You really can't expect people not to do what well-serves their political cause.

[quaker bill]

3. Actually, you can expect this

and perhaps even should expect this. These folks should be acting in the best interest of the country first. The fact that the results are disappointing is no reason to lower standards.

[burning rain]

5. Republicans care more about doing well at the next election than civility.

Or about the national interest. Obstructionism is helping, not hurting them with potential voters. Democrats are free to complain about Republicans' bad behavior, but more than anything that makes Democrats appear ineffectual and snivelling. The solution is to change the Senate rules to more resemble the US House, where you don't have indulgence of 41% of the members, or even an individual member, but majority rule and the effectiveness that comes with it.

I doubt many Americans have much regard for the Senate's "world's greatest deliberative body" preening, pomposity, and self-indulgence. We want people who get the job done, and those clowns don't.

[quaker bill]

7. Obstructionism

for its own sake should be reason enough for defeat at the polls.

The filibuster, while well intended at creation as a means to cause careful deliberation and prevent premature passage of bills while members traveled to Washington by train to game the system, has become a tool to simply monkey wrench the process (or throw a wooden shoe (a Sabo) into the works.) (Sabo-tage).

The best answer to my mind is at the polls. If we had 67 or 68 Senators, no one of them would hold so much sway, and the blue dogs could wander wherever they wanted harmlessly. Recall that at his peak of power FDR only had to deal with 16 republicans in the senate. This sounds good to me.

However, failing that, kicking the margin down to 55 for cloture or dumping the filibuster completely may be the best available choice.

[burning rain]

8. It should be but it isn't.

Obstructionism is making Republicans look to their potential voters like fighters, worthy of support at the polls; while Senate Democrats, by allowing themselves to be stymied while complaining about a minority of 40 which only has power to obstruct because they allow them to, are looking weak and contemptible in the eyes of their potential voters. Democratic and Republican core voters are not the same and they have very different values. To the latter obstructionism is admirable and they are not open to Democratic good government arguments. Meanwhile, voters in the middle, who have a less ideological but strong desire for robust, positive change, are alienated by Democrats' fecklessness. In 1994, for example, Republicans prospered political despite hurting the national interest in significant part by fiercely fighting the Clinton health care proposal with no positive alternative of their own, once they abandoned moderate Republican John Chafee's "Clinton Lite" proposal. They hurt the American people but won the election. They sharpened the differences between the parties rather than fuzz them, and pumped up their own voters, who did not want the positive change offered by Democrats, while demoralizing Democratic voters. I was the best of both worlds for the GOP politically, the worst of both worlds for Democrats going into the 1994 midterms. And it's looking rather similar now.

I think the 60-vote rule should simply be abolished in favor of simple majority. People ought to get the government and change they vote for, and the rule of 41 rather than 51 in the Senate prevents that from being the case.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Obama could have used reconciliation to get real universal health care

without having to check first with the GOP.

[Kablooie]

6. And it only takes ONE Republican to express intent to filibuster. It will never go away now.

Unless they change the rules of the Senate.

Every single piece of legislation will ALWAYS be filibustered by somebody from now on.