Why obstructionism is slowing down the Senate

June 20, 2007

When Democrats reclaimed their congressional majorities, there were high expectations about legislative progress. A Republican Congress and Republican White House had effectively stopped governing, and Dems started the 110th Congress with a lengthy wish list, nearly all of which enjoyed strong pubic support. The question wasn’t whether things would get done, but rather, how fast things would get done.

Six months later, even most Dems on the Hill would agree there’s been less progress than expected. In some cases, Dems have passed bills Bush has vetoed; in other instances GOP senators have blocked bills that enjoy majority support. TNR’s John Judis is sympathetic to the stumbling blocks and encourages Harry Reid and the Dem leadership to draw on the example of the early ’90s.

If Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi want guidance, they should look back at what the Democrats did during the presidential term of George H.W. Bush. The Democrats had a brilliant Senate majority leader, George Mitchell, and a competent House speaker, Tom Foley, who generally deferred to Mitchell. Mitchell and Foley forced Bush to veto popular bills that also enjoyed some Republican support in Congress. They showed up Bush as a heartless extremist and split his own party. And they handed Democrat Bill Clinton a platform on which to run in the fall of 1992.

During his term, Mitchell and Foley sent Bush 36 pieces of legislation that he vetoed. These included the Family and Medical Leave Act, tax relief and urban aid (in the wake of the Los Angeles riots), extended jobless benefits (during a recession), a crime bill, the removal of a Bush administration ban on federal funding of fetal tissue research (which had been instrumental to discovering a polio vaccine), a bill removing the gag rule that forbade federally funded family planning counselors from discussing abortion, a bill regulating cable rates, and a campaign finance measure.

Sounds great, right? Sure, Mitchell had more Democratic votes than Reid does now, but Mitchell peeled off GOP moderates, set an agenda with the Democratic House, and kept forcing vetoes, which at a minimum, showed Dems legislating. Why can’t we do that again?

Because Republican moderates are all but gone.

Consider what we’ve seen the last few months when it comes to GOP obstructionism. Senate Republicans have filibustered a non-binding resolution criticizing Gonzales, a minimum-wage increase, a debate over a non-binding resolution on the war (twice), and a bill that would have led to lower prices on prescription medication. And that doesn’t even include procedural hurdles in committees. (All from the party that whined about non-existent obstructionism for six years.)

Why has Reid failed to garner moderate GOP support the way Mitchell did? Because the numbers just aren’t there. Reid has 51 members in his caucus. One of them is Joe Lieberman. Another is Tim Johnson, who has been physically unable to work. So, to break a filibuster, Reid starts with 49 votes and looks around for Republican moderates.

As Kevin Drum added, he’s not finding many.

Unfortunately, all of these votes, as Judis acknowledges, required support from Republican moderates in order to pass. But that strategy pretty clearly won’t work in today’s Senate, which contains no more than half a dozen Republicans who could truly be called moderate. And even those half dozen are rarely willing to join Democrats in passing moderate legislation. The ties of party loyalty are just too strong.

The result is that Senate Republicans can filibuster anything they want to keep off Bush’s desk, allowing through only those bills that he’s willing to sign — or those in which a veto is actually helpful to the cause. Democrats simply don’t have the ability to force moderate legislation to the White House as veto bait.

If we want more progress, we’ll need to give Reid more Democrats.

If Reed wants more Democrats he’ll need to be more democratic. He can start by backing the people who have moved to impeach Bush for violating the US constitution.

If he doesn’t think there’s evidence of impeachable offenses, he is clueless and needs to step down. If he thinks he must “have the votes” to push for something that is RIGHT, then he needs to step down and let someone take over who actually believes that fighting for the constitution needs to be done, even if you might fail.

The reason congress has such shitty approval numbers is because we have such timid old people running it.

  • “If we want more progress, we’ll need to give Reid more Democrats.”

    Yes. But the Dems still need to do all they can to pass all legislation they can and allow Bush to veto them. In addition, They need to continue investigations into the many criminals within the administration, even if they do not lead to final resolution, to force the administration to publicly back incompetents. An impeachment of Abu G and possibly Satan (Cheney) would not hurt either–true the Dems may not have the votes to convict, but they will have placed the administration, and the GOP Congressfolk, in additional terrible positions of having to defend these incompetent slugs. All of this may have the same effect, and make the case that more Dems are needed in Congress while winning back the White House.

  • Agreed. The Dems think their approval rating is low just because of the war funding vote but it’s also because in the face of such overwhelming evidence they still refuse to impeach. It would unite the country behind them. They could be seen as strong and willing to face failure while still fighting for what they know is right. Showing they will stand up and defend the constitution in spite of the “odds”. The lies and corruption that would come out would show the republicans that to support the republican agenda will cause them to lose elections. Can the Dems be that dim, that they don’t see the strength of impeachment? This is what the country is waiting for Reid…fight, defend the constitution and the people. Impeach Cheney/Bush/Gonzales/Rice…this whole administration which was illegally installed to begin with.

  • This is from Wikipedia:

    In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can be just as powerful as an actual filibuster.

    A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else to the agenda. Strom Thurmond’s attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.

    So Reid can force the Rethuglicans to actually get up there and read the phone book, thereby showing just how extreme they are and out of touch with the vast majority of Americans….and he’s not doing this why??

  • Republicans have to be held accountable for their votes in Congress; rather than beating on the Dems for not getting Republicans to vote with them, we should be beating up on Republicans for not voting with their constituents.

    If this is representative government, and 70% of one’s constituents want to bring the troops home, and GOP Senator X is voting the other way, he is failing to represent the electorate.

  • Reid needs to keep forcing Republicans to vote, on party lines over procedural issues, so that Democrats in Maine and Oregon and Minnesota (and so on) can use those votes against the GOP incumbents in ads like this (note: votes described and numbers given are *examples*):

    “If Susan Collins is so independent, why did she side with Bush and vote with 46 other Republicans against a minimum wage increase?”

    “If Gordon Smith is so disappointed by the Bush Administration’s handling of the Iraq War, why did he vote with the Bush Administration and 47 other Republicans against any kind of benchmarks or timetable to hold *anyone* accountable?”

    “If Norm Coleman…” (well, you get the idea)

  • If we want more progress, we’ll need to give Reid more Democrats.

    I intend to do my part and kick out Smith (R-OR) for someone more representative of my state, but until then the GOP’s obstructions are making Reid look bad, potentially hurting Democrats and our ability to elect more of them in 2008. So what can we do until then?

    So far the only idea I’ve heard is from Homer, which seems to suck, but hey, if the GOP wants to hold up a vote by making themselves look ridiculous for extended periods of time, why not let them? How long would it take until they embarass themselves?

  • Homer’s got the right idea. LBJ was the last poltiically savvy Democrat. Time to turn over the rock, & bring filibusters from the muddy realm of the politically wonkish into the light of day.

  • Rian @9 – I think, if I read your post right, that you’re saying that it sucks that actual filibusters are what it might take. If that’s the case, then I agree. My point is that, while we might have slim margins, they are margins nonetheless. Bills do not require 60 votes to pass them. Dems seem to have forgotten that. Lott, etc., must be slapping each other on the back in sheer wonderment that the Dems have forgotten this. If all any GOP’er has to do is threaten a filibuster because they know it will scare the Dems away, then why wouldn’t they do it every single friggin’ time?

    Oh wait, they ARE doing it every single friggin’ time….

  • I also agree with Homer; if they had to actually talk and explain their point of view, and have to defend the boy moron, the county could see (thanks to C-SPAN 2) how petty and simplistic their so called vision for the future actually is, they might just run out strength. Why are they so anxious to lose credibility and vacation time anyway? A lot of them have to get re-elected next year.

  • Homer is right. Remember when that brilliant tactician Bill Frist had the overnight judge-a-thon? He and his party looked absolutely ridiculous. Reid needs to pick his battle, but on soemthing popular, with 52 or so votes, he should make the R’s go the mattresses, that is, set up the cots and talk all night, for a couple of nights, about how we shouldn’t do somethng the American people support. The R’s will get covered because it is novel, they will look stupid, they willhave to cave so the spending bills can get done and the veto will be set up.

  • I really like the above ideas to make the thugs actually fillibuster a bill all day every day, but this needs to be tied to some targeted advertising especially in the senate up for re-election states (Wear them down where they are most vulnerable).The bring a new bill to the floor after each fillibuster, one that has large popular support. Say the Murtha bills for the military. Make it one small item every damned day and either make themfillibuster and defend why they aren’t supporting the troops, or make them vote. Buy ad time in each state just one 30 or 60 sec slot, and then it’ll go viral. Make these folks defend themselves back home. Call it death by a thousand cuts strategy. There are at least 6 Senate seats ripe for Dem pick up in 08, plus 2, if you count both Alaska’s allegedly criminal Senators. House and Senate Dems need to co-ordinate with Howard Dean and MoveOn and IAVA, bloggers and Air America to make this a full on assault. They need to show the MOR Americans that the left is not out of the mainstream it is the neocon far right that has always been out of the mainstream.

  • Sorry, but I wasn’t finished Howard Dean, call me, give ma an hour, and I’ll have your entire 08 strategy to take back America laid out for you. We also, thanks to a certain powerpoint presentation made by Dear Karl, exactly which house seats he thinks are most vulnerable and which need to most assistance to keep in Rep hands. So good Dem progressive candidates must be found and funded for those districts.

    All it will take is some money, some time and some efforts at organizing and co-ordinating the party with the one goal of increasing the Dems majority in both houses and to take back the WhiteHouse. A full-frontal unified assault on those entrenched rethugs by every aspect of the liberal progressive left is all that is required. Someone must show the leadership and the will to carry it out. This is the time to take from the Reps play-book.

    The Dems in congress need to play to win, not play to not lose. It’s an entirely different philosophy and spirit required in that strategy.

    But first, kick them in the shins every damned day with bills that 60+% of the country are for, kill them with a thousand cuts, and make ads so the general public will know what their elected representative is or is not doing on the issues the people care about.

  • I also wonder about the filibuster being gelded. Start calling their bluff on this crap. It seems that the filibuster is intended to indicate a stalwartness of intention. If there’s a strong enough feeling on an issue to stand up there and read recipes while peeing in a cup to stop the thing in it’s tracks, that deserves some respect. But this crap of waking up long enough to mutter the word “filibuster” and then nodding off again insults the concept.

    Congress is just a show with all sorts of symbolic junk standing in for substance.

  • “Give Reid more Democrats?” Well, that ain’t happening the rest of the time Bush is President, so that’s not really a plan. And besides, it’s a cop-out. The whole fucking thing is a cop-out. Drum says the Republicans “filibuster anything they want to keep off Bush’s desk”? Really? I don’t remember reading about any “filibusters” do you? We heard plenty about it—and how bad it was for the country—when the Democrats were in the minority, but I don’t really hear much about it now. Why is that?

    Because Reid isn’t making the Republicans “filibuster” anything. He counts heads and has a cloture vote, which brings debate to an end artificially, and they move on to the next item. Bullshit. MAKE. THEM. ACTUALLY. FILIBUSTER. Make these assholes actually go to the podium and speak. I don’t care if they argue their positions or read the phone book, make them earn it. Reid is letting them off easy with an “implied” filibuster. Fuck that.

    The Republicans invested heavily in painting the filibuster as the last resort of desperate obstructionists. Make them fucking wear it. It highlights their hypocrisy, it won’t win them any fans (or at least will confound and confuse) their moronic base, and puts them—and here’s the important part—visibly on the wrong side of issues popular with everybody else.

    The Democrats swept back into power by promising a bold new direction. Reid (and Pelosi) are ceding too much to the Republicans in Congress and Bush if they continue to let them stall and run out the clock until 2008. They may not actually be able pass any bold new initiatives with their slim majorities, but they sure as hell should look like they’re trying.

    “More Democrats?” Great. But first lets outfit the ones we have with some testicles.

  • The solution here is to simply “reverse engines” and have Reid defer to Pelosi and the House. Everything the ReThugs want hinges on money—whether the war, or faith-based graft, or lining the pockets of political friends and lobbying concerns. The Senate cannot introduce any legislation regarding these issues; it must come from the House.

    Try shutting off the cash-spigot for once. Deny these “uppity, nonsensical” GOP Senators the ballyhoo they need—and THEN bring the issues to the floor. One at a time; again—and again—and yet again, until the issues are brought to an up-or-down vote in chambers. Once vetoed, keep bring them back, ad nauseum—and all the while, let “Bu$h’s Agenda” starve for cash.

  • You might want to correct the typo in this sentence:

    “A Republican Congress and Republican White House had effectively stopped governing, and Dems started the 110th Congress with a lengthy wish list, nearly all of which enjoyed strong pubic support.”

    • Comments are closed.