I no longer remember who said this and wish I did so I could credit him for the observation and its particular saliency today. I believe it was someone I met at the GOP convention in 2008. What he said was simple, that as long as Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had the votes to sustain a filibuster, he’d all but run the Senate, given the Kentuckian’s mastery of Senate rules and procedure.
It’s no wonder Democrats tried so hard to defeat McConnell in 2008 and moved heaven and earth to get up to sixty in the Senate, playing hardball in the Minnesota recount, courting Arlen Specter until he gave in. All those efforts which offered big-time payoffs for the Democrats in 2009 led to the atmosphere which made it possible for a Republican to win in Massachusetts.
Dubbing McConnell “the new king of Capitol Hill”, Fred Barnes observes:
His skill in keeping 40 Republicans united against Democratic health care reform was masterful, and it wasn’t easy. A number of Republican senators are drawn to co-sponsoring or at least voting for Democratic bills. Not this time.
By keeping his minority together, McConnell put enormous pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had to keep every Democrat in line to gain the 60 votes need to halt a Republican filibuster. On health care, it meant he had to make unseemly deals with a host of senators, most egregiously in the Medicaid payoff to Nebraska to appease Senator Ben Nelson. Reid got the votes, but the deals were political poison.
And now he has 41 votes, indeed 41 very secure votes, given that the two Republicans most likely to vote with the Democrats come from Maine, a New England state with a higher percentage of Republicans than Scott Brown’s Massachusetts.
So, with the Kentucky Republican saying, “The president ought to take this as a message to recalibrate how he wants to govern and if he wants to govern from the middle we’ll meet him there,” the Democrat should listen. Because nothing is moving through the Senate any more without his say-so.
I think it is time to revisit the filibuster issue. The point of the filibuster was always to prevent debate from being cutoff while issues still needed to be discussed. It was never seen as a way to permanently thwart the majority, or to somehow institute a supermajority rule to get anything done.
The Republican minority has seriously abused the powers available to them under the filibuster provisions, such that even procedural votes are now subject to a 60 vote threshold. They are trying to secure for themselves a position equivalent to a majorty postion, even though they are a relatively small minority. Of course, given such behavior, you can expect the Dems to do the same, with a vengence, if there ever comes a day when the GOP has a Senate majority again.
I think it is time to look at Tom Harkin’s long-standing proposal. Make a cloture vote need 60 votes, but a week later, a subsequent vote should only require 57. A week later you would only need 54, and then a week after that, a simple majority. That way the legitimate goal of the filibuster, to slow things down such that a full debate can be had, will be respected, but things can actually get accomplished, as they should be, by majority vote.
“Of course, given such behavior, you can expect the Dems to do the same, with a vengence, if there ever comes a day when the GOP has a Senate majority again.”
When Massachusetts Democrats can’t hold on to Ted Kennedy’s seat, I think that day is coming a lot sooner than you may think.
Tano, I’ll accept your sincerity on revisiting the filibuster when you insist on the confirmation of all Bush’s nominees for the federal bench who had majority support in the Senate.
And Tano prefers to ignore the last 8 years. The senate is designed for gridlock for a reason.
Wow, Health Care, politics, government… is there anything Tano doesn’t not know?
This is a joke, right? RIGHT????
My God, this cheeky bastard actually BELIEVES this???
Tano has balls so big, Bobby Blake would be proud…
Oh please do try to get rid of the filibuster, Tano.
Another election cycle of reminding voters of the Obama Party’s complete and utter hypocrisy on the matter, and the filibuster will be irrelevant — there will be less than forty Obama Party members in the Senate.
As usual, NDT states the obvious, minus my usual level of snark and utter contempt.
Exactly. Get rid of the filibuster and it will mean that Republicans only need 51 votes to completely repeal Obamacare in 2013. Or whenever!
The use of the Senate filibuster as a delaying and vote-blocking tactic goes back to the 1830s and 1840s. Famous Democrat filibusters of the 20th century include the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act and the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Ah, but you see, that was when we were at war with Europa. NOW we’re at war with Eusrasia, and we’ve NEVER been at war with Europa.
The ridiculously infantile left seems to be harboring the notion that we remain blissfully ignorant, and continue to be basking in the afterglow of Dear Leader’s royal buggering.
Trouble is, the self-involved prick didn’t even have the common decency to pick up our cab fare once he was done.
The filibuster does serve a purpose, but there is no doubt its becoming increasing abused by both sides. But thats not the fault of the filibuster, just the the way the parties have decided to use it. I would be nice if it was only used in special cases and now it seems like you have to have 60 votes to get anything done.I’m not sure how you can expect the government to work if you are in constant need of 60 votes. Democrats might be better off without it’s 60 vote majority, their track record with was pretty terrible.
“The use of the Senate filibuster as a delaying and vote-blocking tactic goes back to the 1830s and 1840s.”
That was when the first ones happened. Which does speak to my point. There was not one single filibuster in the first 50 years of life under the Constitution. Which should say something to you originalists, or others who seek to claim that the filibuster was “designed” to create gridlock. I suggest y’all go research the history of the use of the filibuster.
“Famous Democrat filibusters of the 20th century include the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act and the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”
Excellent points. First off, whew….am I glad that we purged all of those southern Democrats from our party – y’know, the people who now make up the base of your party.
But even more to the point, you should note that both of the laws you mention were eventually passed. The minority could not thwart the will of the majority in a permanent sense.
Um, maybe by governing from the center? And telling your own party’s extreme wing to cool it? That’s how Bush got laws passed. (Jon Stewart had a segment recently on how much more Bush got done with 50-odd votes, than Obama has with 60.)
Also, note that government would “work” as well as it ever does if no new laws were were passed for the next 10 years. (Other than budgets. Which aren’t really laws.)
It’s called NOT shutting your opposition out, telling C-SPAN to go fuck themselves, and attempting to marginalize a network because you think they’re giving your guy bad press.
It also helps if you keep your promises to the press and public, and cease acting like you’ve got carte blanche to run roughshod over a nation that formed itself by revolting against every form of behavior your instincts tell you to act upon.
In short, it’s called bi-partisanship, and is precisely how we get shit done here without trying to re-write the rules every four years or so.
Great Merciful Zeus, you remind me of the guy at the bar who keeps buying me drinks and just can’t get the hint that I’m just not that into him!
Your party’s history and ideology is becoming the same thing; you had your shot, became entirely too certain that everyone just loved you all to pieces, and are now waking up the next morning to find yourselves alone.
DEAL with it, man.
Tano – You overestimated the “appeal” of your Party even after US citizens kept telling you they didnt like your ideology. Then you underestimated their “collective anger” about shutting them out because your leaders “knew better.” Kind of like Colonel George Armstrong Custer at the Little Bighorn. Well, the natives are restless now and you better start listening to the drums that are beating in anticipation of the coming elections. Oh, by the way, the point of the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act was that “your side” didnt want African Americans to be equal.
Said it before, here it is again: In American history, the Democratic Party has traditionally been the party of people who think in racial terms, like racial distinctions and racial inequality… and it still is.
(They just made the switch in the 60s and 70s from a doctrine of white supremacy to a doctrine of punishing whites. But the thought process is the same: dividing people into racial categories, keeping racial wounds alive.)
Or they simply figured out that the best way to make minority members slaves was to so infantilize them that they were completely dependent on the government for their survival.
#1: “I think it is time to revisit the filibuster issue.”
Talking Points Tano, if you hate your well-earned nickname so much, then why do you keep confirming over and over again that it fits you like a glove?
I’m not going to address the substantive issue of the filibuster because you’ve already been sufficiently eviscerated on it by other commenters. I just wanted to call you on the carpet for pretending that you’ve ever had an original thought in your life and that you just woke up this morning (hours after the Democrats had their asses handed to them in Massachusetts) and suddenly realized that its time to take a long, hard look at procedural rules governing the US Senate. On January 16th, Bawney Fwank went on Air America (who knew it still existed?) and discussed (ranted and bitched, actually) about this very issue. I believe the money quote was, “God did not create the filibuster!”
http://www.thefoxnation.com/barney-frank/2010/01/19/barney-frank-god-did-not-create-filibuster
TPT, you’re not fooling anyone. You’re the Obama party’s lapdog. They tell you what to think and say and you do exactly that. Bawney Fwank says it’s time to revisit the filibuster issue and then you tell everyone at GayPatriot that it’s time to revisit the filibuster issue. And that’s fine, just spare us the petulant act when we call you exactly what you are: Talking Points Tano. Learn it. Live it.
Republicans were ready to do some kind of heath care. All it had to do was include some conservative ideas. Tort reform….even some limits. Lower the state border restraints to lower health care costs. Don’t cut medicare, but reform it. But no, the fascists on the far left would have none of the more reasonable ideas from the minority party. Until 3 upset elections, liberals were so arrogant. Til the Scott heard round the world.
Tano This is from the Senate site:
First, the Democrats introduced “Cloture” to end a filibuster if 70 Senators agreed. Then they dropped it to 60 members and now they want to kill the filibuster all together. Wow! So much for debate.
And, Tano, it was the Democrats who decided that the advise and consent on court nominees should be moved from a majority vote to the cloture threshold. Now the Republican minority has treated them to their own medicine on all important bills and they are squealing like stuck pigs.
There was a time when Democrats tried to work with Republicans and when they did their work in the open. I remember it. But once the young Turks decided to rebuild the Senate after Watergate, it all went down hill.
You guys want to kill the filibuster and I would favor going back to having the state legislatures appoint the Senators. Could we be farther apart?
Oh, yeah, I also favor computer drawn compact Congressional districts with no concern for anything other than natural boundaries, compactness and an equal division in terms of population per district. No racial or party Gerrymandering. How about them apples?
“Oh, by the way, the point of the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act was that “your side” didnt want African Americans to be equal.”
Not hardly buddy. I am not a southern conservative former Democrat turned Republican. Maybe you arent either but that is who your political alliance rests on.
Helio,
“First, the Democrats introduced “Cloture” to end a filibuster if 70 Senators agreed. Then they dropped it to 60 members and now they want to kill the filibuster all together. Wow! So much for debate.”
First off, 2/3 of 96 (the number of Senators at that time) is 64, not 70. With the 100 seat Senate, the number was 67.
And the proposal that I discussed is not to do away with it all together, but to allow it to serve its intended purpose – to prevent the majority from cutting off all debate.
The filibuster is not in the Constitution. It was not in the rules of the Senate for the first years. It came about in a backdoor manner when a mechanism to force a vote was defeated. Nonetheless, no one used this implicit power for 50 years. Over the next hundred or so years, it was used very sparingly – a special needs tool used when some special issue came up. And even then, it was usually a real filibuster – someone, or some group actually holding the floor by speaking for hours on end, until they either got their way, or got too tired.
The point was to allow more debate – not to thwart the majority.
“I would favor going back to having the state legislatures appoint the Senators. Could we be farther apart? ”
No, I don’t think we could be further apart. Somehow I am not surprised though – there is something so downright democratic about having the actual people choose their Senators. Tell me, who do you think the Mass Legislature would have chosen to replace Teddy?
“Oh, yeah, I also favor computer drawn compact Congressional districts ”
I am going to scare the sh*t outta you here.
I agree with you.
Straight from the Official Site of the United States Senate:
Filibuster and Cloture
Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster — from a Dutch word meaning “pirate” — became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.
In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.
In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate’s right to unlimited debate.
Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as “cloture.” The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 57 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.
Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra’s film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for “pot-likkers.” Long once held the Senate floor for 15 hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina’s J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
—————————-
All bold emphasis above is mine.
It is plain to see that originally there was no limit to debate at all. In fact, there was no limit to debate and no way to stop it until all had been heard on any subject as much as they wanted to be heard until 1917.
After 1917, it took a two-thirds majority to invoke cloture. In 1975, the number of votes needed was reducted to three-fifths.
The original intent of our founding fathers was that debate be unlimited. That intent was honored for the first 120 years that our country existed, even through the trials of the Civil War and Reconstruction era. Since then, the full force of their intent has been whittled away by politicians who cared more about their party than about being Statesmen.
Any further dimunition of the filibuster will make it meaningless and continue the trend to change our Republic into a European Democracy (although methinks we are heading toward a Constitutional Monarchy the way things are going).
dimunition should be diminution — sorry!
Neither were the vast majority of the Dixiecrats. Like KKK Grand Dragon Robert Byrd, like Al Gore’s father, Like Bill “two years ago he would have been getting us coffee” Clinton’s mentor William Fullbright, they returned to the Democrat’s racist arms where they keep black people down by keeping them forever dependent on their Democrat plantation owners.
Greyledge,
Not sure I see your point. As I said, the purpose of the filibuster is to allow the debate to proceed without being artificially stifled by the majority – as you quote “the right to speak as long as necessary”. Its purpose was never to give the minority a veto power akin to having a majority. The purpose was never to permanently thwart the will of the majority.
That requires good faith on the part of the minority. If there is unlimited debate, then obviously a minority acting in bad faith could thwart the will of the people and the power of the majority by preventing anything from getting accomplished.
Given human nature, there seems to always be some bad-faith operators who will seize on certain powers and push them to limits where they were not intended to be used. That is presumably why the House had to abandon unlimited debate, and why the Senate had to curtail it. Now the Republicans are pushing this implied power further, trying to use it to establish a new rule – that for the Senate to do anything, one would need 60 votes instead of 50. That cannot be allowed to stand, because it would cripple the government. Now maybe some rightwing nihilists would be thrilled at that, but I dont think any serious person could cheer that on.
Bad faith operators…
Well in that theme I’m glad to see you’ve come out against the bypassing on the conference committee, the filibusters against Bush nominees, and other Democratic hijinks in the past 10 years.
BTW Tano, speaking of bad faith operators, why haven’t you banned yourself yet? Since you feel liars should be banned after all.
Tano,
I take your 48 state correction to my comment. I was projecting the two-thirds rule to the present.
The Constitution, pesky as it may be, directs that both houses make their own rules. It also lists their powers and how revenue bills must proceed and how the veto works. The filibuster can be eliminated by a change in the Senate of its rules or by amending the Constitution. I would be interested in hearing out the argument for either one.
The Connecticut Compromise was a bit of pure genius to protect the interest of the states against the whims of the mass elected, short term members of the populous. It had the Senators appointed by their state legislatures as representatives over the long term of the state. In six years, the state legislature may change its direction and so the Senator’s appointment rested on how well he took care of representing the interests of the state.
When you read the great Senate speeches of yore, they were about state’s rights. There was fierce debate and hard won battles or careful compromises. It is the modern party system which more resembles a labor union than a debating club that urged the election of the senator through the popular vote. Ben Nelson, under the old system would never have been so stupid as to sell his state down the river.
And, yes, the Kennedy seat would have gone to a democrat. But our government is supposed to be dedicated to forming a more perfect union. If the senator strays too far from the people of the state, they will elect a legislature that will send him packing.
I do not agree with your supposition, Tano, that it would cripple government. In fact, the founders set up a system where nothing could ever come to a vote until 100% of the Senate was agreed that they were all done debating an issue.
That means that some things might never come to a vote because I am sure debate could be prolonged for months (i.e.: Sen. Smith wants to talk some more about SB 1 tomorrow so we will table that until then and move onto other business OR Sen. Jones sent word that he wants to be heard on that issue but he is currently back home with his sick mother — we’ll table that until he returns because all must have their say).
Remember that a bill is only good for the term/session and the terms/sessions were not as long in the early days of this country as most people came in by stage/horse/later train from their homes all across the country, stayed for the duration (a few months), and then went back home.
The founders intent was to make sure no law was passed unless it was absolutely necessary. They wanted as much agreement as possible when the Federal Government decided to render any new law which would affect the entire country. Originally, very little Federal government was desired and States were in charge of all of their own governance with the exception of a few necessary laws to make the country work smoothly (laws mainly to homogenize how states could work with each other – interstate commerce, money, etc.).
Since I believe we have entirely too much centralized government, I guess I am one of those folks you would hang the moniker of “nihilist” upon; however, I am not a nihilist. I am a believer in the Republic where we have a sovereign nation of many sovereign States.
Thank God for the current crop of Republicans who are, to my mind, saving the United States from one of the biggest disasters the Congress could ever be party to — Government run, invasive, healthcare.
That’s a rich little comment. “Nihilist” has started coming up in lefty talking points and screeching as an accusation against lovers of liberty who want to block Obama’s neo-fascist, all-government-all-the-time agenda. But who are the real nihilists? Lefties. It would be yet another example of lefty deflection / projection. Like their constant accusations of racism (see comment #17).
I know who the nihilists are in America, and they’re on the Left. I know who the nihilists are outside America, and they’re Islamist terrorists (and their enablers).
P.S. I wonder how Tano manages to keep it up. We all know he’s regurgitating talking points from Kos or the DNC or some such, and that takes no effort. Still, to be wrong so much… to have one’s every comment be an occasion for one’s opponents to gather their thoughts successfully and rise in strength… wouldn’t most people find that discouraging? Wouldn’t most people see that their “efforts” have become counterproductive to their own viewpoints?
#27: “Now the Republicans are pushing this implied power further, trying to use it to establish a new rule – that for the Senate to do anything, one would need 60 votes instead of 50. That cannot be allowed to stand, because it would cripple the government.”
Of course, by “cripple the government” Talking Points Tano means that the Democrats should be able to continue operating as though they still had the super-majority that they squandered due to their own blazing incompetence.
Helio,
“I take your 48 state correction to my comment. I was projecting the two-thirds rule to the present.”
2/3 of 100 is 67, not 70.
“The filibuster can be eliminated by a change in the Senate of its rules or by amending the Constitution.”
The filibuster is not a Constitutional issue. It is simply a rule of the Senate, and yes, can be changed by majority vote, like any other rule. Thats what I was talking about.
“When you read the great Senate speeches of yore, they were about state’s rights.”
Yes, especially the right of states to enforce slavery. That was a major theme in the early part of our history.
“Since I believe we have entirely too much centralized government, I guess I am one of those folks you would hang the moniker of “nihilist” upon; however, I am not a nihilist.”
Fine. I would not call you a nihilist simply because you are interested in decentralization. If you think all government is bad, then you might be.
“Ben Nelson, under the old system would never have been so stupid as to sell his state down the river.”
Not quite sure what you mean with that. Nelson won for his state a permanent exemption from paying additional Medicaid fees. He potentially saved them a hell of a lot of money.
Helio,
Sorry but I seem to have attributed to you a quote from the next commenter about “nihilism’. Sorry….
“the founders set up a system where nothing could ever come to a vote until 100% of the Senate was agreed that they were all done debating an issue.”
And as I said, that then depends on the good faith of all involved – for some “obstructionists for the sake of being obstructionists” (e.g. the modern Republican party) could simply claim that they were not done debating the issue – ever. And thus prevent anything from happening. And once they do that, then the other side would do the same if the obstructionists ever proposed anything. And nobody would ever be able to do anything – hence crippling the government.
The only way such an open ended debate could work is with the good faith of all involved. And that no longer exists.
And again, Tano tries to ignore the actions of the Democrats for the last 8 years.
Sorry Tano, that dog doesn’t hunt. Why haven’t you banned yourself? Since you think that liars should be banned?