I like Jeff Merkley’s leadership on reforming the filibuster, but I feel like Charlie Brown lining up to kick the football. Nothing I’ve seen indicates that the Democrats in the Senate have the kind of intestinal fortitude to stay united on anything important. What do you think?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
You treat them far too kindly. I think it more likely that several Democratic Senators have no interest in allowing popular reforms to pass, and are happy to have Republicans filibuster them.
<cough> Ben Nelson </cough>
The supermajority requirement gives each Senator an extraordinary amount of power now that it is acceptable to use the filibuster on regular basis. Are a majority of Democratic Senators selfless enough to give up some of their power? Unlikely.
Also, what Chimneyswift said.
Not gonna happen.
I’m not sure it really matters. When the new Congress convenes, it won’t matter what the Senate rules are as far as passing legislation goes. And now it’s starting to look like a public-perception trap–that is, for the public who are aware enough of Senate procedures to have any perception at all.
But bear with me. The time to change the Senate rules was in ’08 after the GOP had demonstrated numerous times their willingness to abuse the rules like secret holds and filibusters for that matter even though they controlled the chamber. It was supremely dumb of the Dems not to recognize that strategy for what it was and nip it. We might have had a public option elsewise.
But anyway, now that the GOP controls the new House (that is, after the rules committee can change stuff), nothing worth passing is going to come out of that chamber, including budgetary matters, which is yet another area, along with the upcoming Gerrymandering session, that just makes one want to pokes one’s eyes out and take the rabbits out for a run in the yard.
So with that in mind, aside from getting Obama his much-delayed appointments voted on (and that’s not a small thing), what good does it do for a Dem senate to change the filibuster rules now? Seems to me the GOPigs will just say that, hey, you guys went “nuclear,” not us, so don’t be crying if, as is likely, they succeed in taking the Senate either in ‘012 or ‘014.
And you better believe, if that day comes when the GOPigs control both houses again, this time they won’t even hesitate to change the rules to ensure that a Dem opposition can’t attempt to pull the same crap that got the Pigs where they are today. They’ll do it reflexively, and they’ll say whatever they need to say to paper over any sort of public outrage which will be minimal, but whatever. At least it’ll be on them, not us.
So my point is, we might’ve made use of a rules change 2 years ago, but now it doesn’t do us any good and in fact will just be another log in the PR bonfire if we change the filibuster rules. I would go so far as to say they actually want us to do it.
And that’s just the thing, if the Pukes are going to do it next time(which I doubt .. unless we purge the DLC/Blue Dogs), they’ll do it eventually though so we might as well do it now and do good with it.
Does it matter? Do you think the Republicans are going to stand around and allow the filibuster to stand when they take control of the Senate in 2012?
Might be doom and gloom, but 2010 was the year to minimize losses, not 2012. I didn’t expect Toomey, Kirk or Johnson to win, so I expected we’d be able to hang on to the Senate by 2012. Not so anymore.
Senate Dem ‘intestinal fortitude’ runs faster than diarrhea….. Only one thing to count on from them:
Motion to recess until swearing-in day—Seconded…voted…passed….
Get something done other than take Taxpayer paychecks while sitting and chewing the fat? Fat chance…
It’s not gonna happen because the Dems can’t seem to actually govern any better than the Gopers can. I don’t know if it’s this never ending campaign we’re afflicted with these days or what, but no matter the party it doesn’t seem as if either one have a clue what to do when they actually get elected. Obama’s a good, and continuing, example of that. It seems more and more like he hasn’t a clue about actually governing.
More to the point, the Dems don’t seem to have any bedrock principles for which they’re willing to actually fight. Everything is ALWAYS on the table for them, including Social Security, unemployment benefits, ignoring violations of international law and the Constitution, and tax cuts for billionaires.
For me the real tell was the Obama Administration’s decision right off the bat not to investigate violations of international law, treaties, and U.S. law concerning torture, kidnapping, and murder. Now we find in the Wikileaks dump that the President made a concerted effort to deep six ANY investigations of those crimes, including by foreign governments. Will Bunch had a great piece up over at Attytood (“The day that Barack Obama lied to me”) recounting how Obama himself lied outright to to Bunch about it in April 2008.
This is all very depressing.
Obama is unelectable in 2012. He has no honor. He believes in nothing.
i will not vote for him again.
“i will not vote for him again.”
l’ll posit that you won’t get the opportunity to. he’s already made it quite clear that he’d happily be a one and done. he’s assured his place in the history books, a lifetime sinecure and secret service protection the rest of his life; not to mention the lucrative post-office opportunities.
he’s obviously not up to the task of providing the leadership that the times demanded. ergo, he made history, couldn’t live up to the hype, and he’ll pull and lbj… if nominated l will not run, if elected l will not serve…kinda thing.
methinks we been had, eh?
we shall see soon enough.
The only way I imagine it happening is if a group of 41 progressive senators start using the filibuster as effectively as the Republicans have until now. I’d certainly support it even if it didn’t help in the short run, even if Republicans gained a majority in 2012; the institution is broken as it is.
What’s a filibuster?
The biggest problem among the Democratic Senate caucus is that there are a bunch of members who have forgotten the unwritten rule that you never buck the leadership on a procedural vote. It is that maneuver that gives rise to the theory of “villain rotation”. Sure it keeps everything “bipartisan”, but it does not permit accurate accountability because the Senator can brush off the procedural vote.
HAHA, knew this was going to happen.
I wasn’t blogging at the time, but I predicted this when the tax cuts were originally passed. They’ll never be allowed to expire.