Is Obama Growing Weary Of The GOP's 'Filibuster Everything' MO?

[babylonsister]

Is Obama Growing Weary Of The GOP's 'Filibuster Everything' MO?
Brian Beutler | December 23, 2009, 6:31PM


There's growing sentiment on the left--most recently evinced by SEIU President Andy Stern and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman--that the Senate's quiet acceptance of the filibuster--and therefore a 60 vote threshold for most legislation--is dangerous to the country's ability to govern itself, no matter who's in power. Well, they may have a powerful new ally.

"{A}s 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.

Obama even suggested that the filibuster, as it's currently being employed, harms democracy.

Look, the fact of the matter is, is that if used prudently, then I don't think it's harmful for our democracy," Obama said. "It's not being used prudently right now. And my hope would be that whether a Sen. is in the majority or is in the minority, that they're starting to get a sense, after looking at this year, that this can't be the way that government runs."

more...

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

[Ken Burch]

1. We need the president to lead the fight to abolish the filibuster.

It's time to stop letting the upper house be a chamber ruled by a tiny clique pinstriped prima donnas.

[vi5]

2. THEY HAVEN"T FILLIBUSTERED ANYTHING!!!!

I'm so sick of hearing about the abuse of the fillibuster.

A fillibuster is when they actually use it and actually have to talk in order to keep a vote from happening.

To my recollection nobody has done that in years. Instead we just buckle under the threat of a proposed fillibuster.

Make the R's back their big talk up with action and endless words. Then let the country see them for what they are and what they are doing.

[babylonsister]

3. ?? rethugs have filibustered just about everything this year, over 100 times...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

“We have crossed the mark of over 100 filibusters and acts of procedural obstruction in less than one year,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said on the floor Sunday. “Never since the founding of the Republic, not even in the bitter sentiments preceding Civil War, was such a thing ever seen in this body.” (Senate Debate on Health Care Exacerbates Partisanship December 20, 2009)

[vi5]

5. But they don't actually debate or speak at length...

..that is the actual fillibuster. If they were actually fillibustering 100 bills by talking and extending the debate then nothing would be getting done and they'd have to be there on the floor the whole time.

What everyone is referring to as a fillibuster is nothing more than the threat of extending that debate and talking. They don't actually make them back up their obstructionist words with having to actually follow through with it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. You can't make them.

That's not how it works.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. For fuck's sake, how many times does this need to be posted?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is NOT how filibusters work.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. What it would do is stop all other Senate business.

People would notice that and they would notice who was to blame.

Budgets wouldn't pass.
Debt ceilings wouldn't be raised.
Appointments wouldn't be made.
Etc.

The effective ability to maintain a filibuster would be measured in days, not weeks.

Make them filibuster.

[unblock]

16. unless senate rule xxii is changed, senators can filibuster by merely requiring a cloture vote

therefore as it stands, the now-obsolete tactic of refusing to yield the floor would serve ONLY to be obnoxious. it has nothing to do with stopping any one bill because that can be done without holding the floor hostage.

the only way to "make them filibuster" using the pre-1975 method of marathon speeches would be to change senate rule xxii back to the way it was before 1975, or at least so that senators could no longer simply insist on a cloture vote as easily as they now can.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Then keep calling for cloture.

Over and over and over.

It becomes a kind of reverse filibuster.

[unblock]

20. huh? that makes no sense.

republicans are calling for cloture on every single piece of legislation, slowing down the process and forcing us to get 60 votes do acoomplish ANYTHING.

what are you suggesting that isn't exactly what the republicans are already doing?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. This: NO new business until cloture is reached.

"Up or down vote!" yelled by every Dem legislator at every microphone.


Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[unblock]

22. like i said, that only makes us look obnoxious.

republicans and the media would have a field day with a military spending bill held or some other piece of "must pass" legislation held up because democrats were holding "our troops" hostage to their "liberal agenda".

we need THEM to be seen as obstructionist, not us!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. ...except WE need to get things done.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but we've got a ton of things that need to be fixed and millions of people that need help.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Exactly!

Up first, effective health care legislation!

Let's do it!

[unblock]

15. your understanding of the filibuster vanished when senate rule xxii was changed in 1975

a filibuster is any stall tactic, most notably using this rule to require a cloture vote to end debate. it was impossible to do ANY other senate business (other than at the committee level) because the floor was being held hostage.

prior to the 1975 rule change, this was achieved by refusing to yield the floor through marathon speeches. this was obviously chellenging to do but worse, it brought bad p.r. to the senate. so they changed the rules.

NOW, all opposing senators need to do is require that a cloture vote be taken. they no longer are required to take the floor and other senate business can proceed, but the filibustered legislation is stalled until those supporting it can muster the 60 votes for cloture.


that IS a filibuster. do not be confused by hollywood's obsolete portrayal of the pre-1975, more dramatic way senators had to go about achieving a filibuster.

[LovinLife]

4. Anyone with a pulse would be. Dems are gutless. When Palin wins in 2012, I hope Dems have a

backbone and filibuster everything she tries to pass. I almost want the filibuster to stay just to see the Dems get revenge when the GOP is in charge again.

[babylonsister]

6. In your dreams will Palin win in 2012. But now I know what you're dreaming. nt

[Ikonoklast]

8. Crack is Wack, yo.

Put down the pipe.

And the GOP won't be 'in charge' of anything for quite some time. They have just been dealt a stinging defeat on Health Care, and are scrambling to put a good face on the massive beating they just took.

[RedCloud]

11. What did that love boy say? She couldn't handle the pressure of being governor.

So how can she win when love boy has such damaging inside info on her?

[iceman66]

7. He should speak out more on this.

The Republicans should be held accountable for their obstructionism.

[T Wolf]

9. NOt at all. It gives him and the rest of the ConservaDems an excuse to placate the GOP

at every opportunity.

They can start all negotiations with the argument that they cannot be too "liberal" because they have to get 60 votes on every issue.

[ShadowLiberal]

10. That's why we ought to at the very least reduce the # needed to get around a filibuster

60 votes is just too many, right now isn't a typical time, with us having 60 seats in the senate. With how much more polarizing politicians and the electorate is becoming over the years, it's going to get harder and harder to get 60 votes for anything when neither party is anywhere close to that number. I think the latest Supreme Court vote even showed just how dangerously close we are to Supreme Court appointments becoming 10 times more difficult to get through if a president needs to depend mostly on their own party to get the votes.

At the very least we ought to reduce the number to 55 votes needed to end a filibuster.

[Odin2005]

23. Time to get rid of the filibuster.