Just a reminder, the GOP didn't actually Filibuster anything to kill the jobs bill

[ThomWV]

Every report I've heard on the radio (local and NPR) has said that the President's Jobs Bill has been killed in the Senate where it was filibustered. No it wasn't. Republicans only threatened to filibuster. No one stood up and spoke, and no one made them. It wouldn't be so bad to be beaten by the Republicans all the time if they actually had to come out and do it once and a while. Why in hell doesn't Harry make them get up there and talk if that's what they threaten to do. Fer christsakes, how hard is it to follow the fuggin' rules? If they don't want to end debate make them get up there and tell the world, hour after hour, just what it is about the jobs bill that they think is so heinous. God dam I hate a spineless Democrat and we've got plenty of them to chose from.

[lib2DaBone]

1. K/R

What's wrong with these DEMS? Why won't they fight?

[rbnyc]

21. Both sides are invested in failure...

...so they can each blame the other.

On the side of the republicans, its an overt tactic. On the side of the democrats, they see the advantage in highlighting republican obstructionism to the point of diversion.

[Amonester]

41. Both "actual" sides do...

Maybe it's about time "many" 99ers manage to change the "lineup" of one of the two...

[tomp]

42. dems and repubs are one side, we are the other. nt

[elleng]

2. As to the old-style filibuster, senate rules changed some time ago,

to not require what we all remember as the filibuster, one of many problems w senate, a REALLY broken institution.

Some history:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/filibuster.htm

Durbin calls for change in filibuster rule:

http://wilmette.patch.com/articles/durbin-change-filibuster-rule-to-require-speaking

[ClassWarrior]

3. No they didn't. Unless the Rape-Publicans declaring it so makes it so.

NGU.

[elleng]

10. 'No they didn't,' that's why we see repugs 'actually' filibustering these days.

:shrug:

[rhett o rick]

12. They dont have to filibuster. The very mention of it makes the Democrats run and hide.

Eliminate the fucking filibuster rule so the Democrats can stop using it as an excuse.

And dont you dare give me the bullshit that if we eliminate the rule, some day it might come back to bite us. DAMNIT WE ARE GETTING BITTEN NOW.

[JHB]

18. It had its uses when it was something which was used only occasionally.

Now, it has become standard Republican procedure, and needs to either be changed back to "talk 'till you drop" or eliminated entirely.

[TheWraith]

51. FILIBUSTERS DO NOT WORK THE WAY YOU THINK THEY DO.

Sorry to yell, but I keep hearing this shit over and over and over again, and it's just NOT TRUE.

Under current filibuster rules, NO ONE has to get up and talk. There are no all-night sessions. There is no need to hold the floor. Filibusters haven't worked that way in almost a half a century, but far too many people still get their "civics lessons" on the subject from watching Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

[DeSwiss]

4. K&R for the TRUTH - n/t

[connecticut yankee]

5. The Democrats

had the opportunity to change the rule on the first day of Congress.

They chose not to.

[rhett o rick]

13. Yes because they can use it as an excuse not to pass legislation. nm

[mitchtv]

22. what do you think are chances the that the Pukes will do away w/it?

the first day they control the senate?

[hobbit709]

6. when my congresscritter Lloyd Doggett was in the TX Senate

the opposition knew they were in for it when he came in with his running shoes.

[tritsofme]

7. Leadership was not able to invoke cloture and end debate.

The bill was filibustered. Not much else to that story.

[Dragonfli]

25. They were not able to end debate, true, but then why didn't they make them "debate" 'til they could?

If they did that, then that is all that would be being talked about, the days long debate of the Republican filibuster against a job plan.

You can only carry water for them for so long before the bottom rusts out of your bucket and the shameless water gets all over you.
Just something to think about.

The U.S. Senate adopted a cloture rule in 1917 that requires a two-thirds vote of that body to end a filibuster. It is the only method to force the end of debate, it assumes the participants will continue debating otherwise.

You do not appear to know the definition of the word filibuster, I can help you with this.

Filibuster
The term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote. It works to prevent a vote because the Senate's rules contain no motion to force a vote. A vote occurs only when debate ends naturally. The word comes from the early 19th century Spanish and Portuguese pirates, "filibusteros", who held ships hostage for ransom. When a Senator filibusters, he/she holds the chamber hostage until it meets his/her conditions.
http://www.house.gov/waxman/glossary.htm

Harry Reid has made a habit of folding to the threat only of a filibuster and then moving directly to a cloture vote without bothering to test the will of the minority in an environment where debate may end naturally via lack of will on the part of the obstructionists to debate for days or weeks the "virtues" of positions that would be unpalatable to the voting public if the bluff were called. (a habit as yet unbroken, so I consider it a rule of his leadership)

[joshcryer]

32. That's why they call it the virtual filibuster, it's not a real filibuster, it's a rigged system.

It's disgusting to be sure, and I do blame the Democrats for not changing the rules when they could. It's a joke.

[tritsofme]

33. Cute games with semantics aside, the "filibuster" you dream of is a myth.

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

But then again you are probably more knowledgeable about Senate procedures than the guy who was parliamentarian for 35 years.

[Dragonfli]

34. You are the one playing Semantics, if they made then filibuster, no other work could get done

because of the Republicans. It even says so in your link.
They would have to admit to obstruction by a minority and at least one of them would have to keep insisting on the debate being kept open.

I will repeat the truth yet again, no filibuster has as yet been required by Reid, only the threat of one followed by the inevitable premature cave in.

[tritsofme]

35. The majority has the burden of govening.

There is other essential business to move on to. The government needs to be funded, ect. There is no downside for Senate Republicans in grinding Senate business to a halt, they would probably find the situation ideal. Forcing permanent debate on a piece of legislation that lacks 60 votes for cloture does nothing but frustrate the majority's other priorities that actually have a chance of passage.

I don't really see any upside in chipping away at the filibuster at this time, there is a Republican House which could reject any bill passed by the Senate, and Democrats are more likely than not to become the minority in the Senate in 2013.

[Dragonfli]

38. They have the burden of governing and yet through timidness abdicate the governing to

the minority.

I am afraid I disagree, this tact has done nothing but allow the minority to write the legislation and pass what they desire alone. They have effectively become the governing portion of this body even when in the minority, that is why I feel the tactics need to change.

An interesting point however, I and others notice that the same (or nearly so) body of Democrats in the Senate allow the majority to write and pass what they desire when they themselves are in the minority, while allowing the same when in the majority, how is this a winning tactic?

What you propose to continue fails inevitably and predictably to the conservatives no matter the circumstance and it is has been noticed, one might even conclude that the goal is to pass Republican legislation in all circumstances but perhaps in a way one might sell as opposition to those policies.

One might even see this as an axiom when it persists in such an inevitable fashion.

[AtomicKitten]

8. I completely agree and that may be the next political theater if the Dems are smart.

[Hoopla Phil]

9. How many Democrats are there in the Senate currently?

I believe WE have the majority in the Senate right now. DO SOMETHING with it!!!

[hobbit709]

11. Democrats or DINO's?

[Hoopla Phil]

15. That's why there is a position call The Whip.

[hobbit709]

16. Evidently the person in that position isn't very effective.

Judging from past votes.

[izquierdista]

17. Perhaps it should be changed

To Majority Cattle Prod and Taser Applier.

[hobbit709]

20. I'd settle for chaining them to their seats

without food, booze and access to lobbyists until something gets passed.

[Tx4obama]

14. It takes 60 'yes' votes to bring cloture on a bill before a bill can have a final vote.

On just about every bill The GOP is forcing a cloture vote.

There are NOT 60 dems in the Senate.

Democratic Party 51
Republican Party 47
Independent 2

[Dragonfli]

26. They could force them to debate, rather than just folding without them actually filibustering

anything, see my post above for a bit more information.

[spanone]

19. k&r...

anyone heard the word 'obstructionists' lately? from the media???

from anybody????

[pnwmom]

23. By the current rules, it was a filibuster. Those rules changed decades ago.

This isn't the 60's anymore.

[Dragonfli]

27. That is simply not true /nt

[bvar22]

24. Aside from that,

did you enjoy the Kabuki Theater?

I'm finding it has become a little boring,
the same old excuses, over & over again.
It has turned out the same way every time for the last 3 years,
...a disaster for the Working Class & the Poor.

But passing this pitiful bill primarily composed of tax Cuts and another camouflaged
attack on Social Security wouldn't have made things much better.
Direct Jobs related spending was a paltry $10Billion/year.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Poll_Blind]

28. You're absolutely correct: There was no filibuster, only the threat of one. nt

PB

[Rex]

29. I think we are in that part of the relationship where both parties

are just going through the motions now. Might as well just rubber stamp what we can, not that the jobs bill was going to do anything revolutionary. MY GRIPE is that the scumbag Repukes would not even pass a bill that was mediocre at best. They seem to think destroying what is left of the country is called 'politiking'.

What arrogant shitstains. They will get us all killed one day.

[moose65]

30. Well, technically they didn't filibuster the jobs bill, did they?

It was the motion to proceed to the jobs bill. In other words, the bill they were voting on was whether or not to BEGIN the friggin debate on the jobs bill. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of... how can they "debate" on whether to begin debating? Either you say yes, let's debate, or no, let's not debate - end of story. And your average Joe out there doesn't give a shit about the Senate rules. All he hears is that "the Senate killed the jobs bill," when in fact they've never voted on the jobs bill. It's enough to make one scream into the night!

[joshcryer]

31. *sigh* The virtual filibuster doesn't require them to stand up and speak.

[robinlynne]

36. I am so WITH you. This has always amde me furious. backroom deals instead of

real democracy. What the hell is wrong with debating in public? You simply threaten a long debate and you get what you want?
Debate is a GOOD thing. And it is recorded on video. for history.

[treestar]

37. How many times has this been debunked?

they don't have to actually do it. It's the way the rules are. Neither side has to actually do it.

This is not a valid criticism.

[Codeine]

43. I cannot comprehend why we need to have this conversation once a week or so.

How many times do the same facts need to be repeated before people get the "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" images out of their heads?

[Romulox]

44. "Reid triggers ‘nuclear option’ to change Senate rules"

"How many times do the same facts need to be repeated"

Apparently a few more times! 51 votes = rule change. Just like below. :hi:

Reid triggers ‘nuclear option’ to change Senate rules, end repeat filibusters

By Alexander Bolton - 10/06/11 09:10 PM ET

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters

[unblock]

39. ANY tactic that delays or foils the will of the senate majority is BY DEFINITION a filibuster

the filibuster takes on many forms, and the particular hollywood form of the marathon speech on the senate floor hasn't existed in reality since rule xxii was changed in 1975.

reid WAS following the rules. the rules permit a call for a cloture vote, and the majority couldn't muster the required 60 votes. the rules say you can't vote on the bill itself if someone calls for a cloture vote and the cloture vote fails.


sure, the rules could be changed back, but that's a rather different question, and brings up a whole host of other concerns. note that the senate changed TO the present system for what it then thought were very good reasons. perhaps it is time to revisit those assumptions, and perhaps there's a better way than either then OR now, but the marathon speech on the senate floor didn't make the senate look any better than its current dysfunction does.

[Romulox]

40. Senate rules may be changed on a majority vote. Harry Reid did it THIS YEAR>

All of these "But these are the RULES!" responses are ridiculous. :hi:

[Better Believe It]

45. Senator Reid just used the Constitutional Option "nuclear option" to stop a Republican filibuster.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/harry-reid-senate-precedent_n_999291.html

He can do this whenever he pleases.

[Romulox]

47. Impossible!

:sarcasm:

[Swede]

46. Dick Durbin: Time to change the filibuster

“If the Republicans are willing to interrupt the business of the Senate and bring it to a halt, they should be willing to interrupt their dinner plans,” said Mr. Durbin, the Senate majority whip.

Mr. Durbin said the latest vote on President Obama’s American Jobs Act proposal, which failed to muster the necessary 60 votes, was the latest sign that the U.S. Senate must change its current process.

“The filibuster kept us from passing the entire bill,” the Illinois Democrat said. “There is opposition to certain parts. We will have to create a bill that can pass so we can have some parts .”



Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/dick-durbin-time-to-change-the-filibuster/#ixzz1bcJWjbex

[SwampG8r]

48. the loyalists squeal on about filibusters but

i dont think there has been an actual filibuster in years and years
just another way to toss dust in the air and look like you "tried" from our "representatives"

[stillwaiting]

49. The elected Democrats #1 priority is to ensure the viability of the Republican Party.

Democrats could so very easily demolish the current crop of Republicans.

They have TONS of ammunition. As they have had over the past few decades.

Elected Dems are not stupid. They are serving the same masters as the Repubs. They just have to be more clever.

Elected Dems don't ever seem to be able to shine the bright light of disinfectant on the Republican Party for their misdeeds against the American People.

Their fecklessness and haplessness is no accident.

The little man behind the curtain has been exposed for all who can see.

I wonder why the Dems didn't SLAUGHTER the Repubs for their refusal to reverse tax cuts for offshoring our jobs to China, India, and other countries. There still exists, to this day, financial incentives for multinational companies to get RID of our jobs. The Dems, under Pelosi, successfully passed a bill that would have prevented this atrocity. The Repubs in the Senate, along with more than a few Dems I'm sure, continued to serve the 1% and prevented its passage, and the DEMS did (and continue to do) fuck all about it.

We have a problem, it's massive, and it's going to be addressed in the streets and not in D.C. (for now)...

[libinnyandia]

50. Dysfunctional Senate

One of the basic problems in the Senate is its inherently undemocratic. The 20 states with the lowest populations have 40 Senators. California has the same population and has 2. Small ststes have a disproportionate amount of influence. Some of the Democratic Senators represent small states which vote Republican for Presidential candidates. They are under constant fear of appearing too Democrat. The best you can say about them is they don't vote for Mitch McConnell for majority leader. Reid is better than McConnell.