Reid to GOP: Do you really want to filibuster?

July 16, 2007

When the Republicans filibuster Democratic legislation, as they do with practically every bill, they’re not literally filibustering. A GOP senator will use procedures to announce a pseudo-filibuster, prompting the majority to pull the bill after an unsuccessful cloture vote. No one has to stand on the Senate floor talking the bill to death; the minority can create 60-vote thresholds for everything without going to the trouble. The whole process has operated on the basis of a gentleman’s agreement for years.

In recent weeks, however, a growing number of progressive activists have suggested that’s not good enough. The Campaign for America’s Future initiated a petition campaign, calling on Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership to embrace the traditional chamber rules — if the GOP is going to filibuster a bill, let them really filibuster a bill.

With that in mind, you’ll love this news.

Moments ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that in response to conservative obstructionism, he plans to force war supporters to physically remain in the Senate and filibuster Iraq withdrawal legislation.

Reid accused conservatives of “protecting the President rather than protecting our troops” by “denying us an up or down vote on the most important issue our country faces.” He said that if a vote on the Reed/Levin Iraq legislation is not allowed today or tomorrow, he will keep the Senate in session “straight through the night on Tuesday” and force a filibuster.

“I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down,” Reid said. “If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday. The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.”

Good for Reid.

There have been hints that Democratic frustration with shameless GOP obstructionist tactics have been approaching the breaking point. Consider this exchange from Friday, between Cenk Uygar and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.):

Uygur: Is it possible that you guys can get together and say, “Hey you know what, if you’re going to filibuster an incredibly popular bill, whether it’s stem cell, minimum wage, or perhaps something having to do with the Iraq war”….We’re actually going to make you physically filibuster it. Go ahead and give speeches for 24 hours a day….

Conrad: Yeah, I think there’s a growing consensus that we ought to do that….I think that we could do a better job making our points, and one part of that is to let the American people see just how obstructionist this Republican minority is being. The leader has had to file cloture now over 40 times already this year. And cloture, as you know, is a special procedure to stop debate, to stop filibusters, in order to reach conclusion on legislation. I had a Republican colleague tell me it is the Republican strategy to try to prevent any accomplishment of the Democratic Congress. That is set in their caucus openly and directly that they don’t intend to allow Democrats to have any legislative successes, and they intend to do it by repeated filibuster.

Reid’s step may seem drastic, but the GOP hasn’t left him much choice. They’ve created a de facto rule — to pass bills, a majority is no longer good enough; now you need 60 votes, not 51.

Enough. If Republicans want to take marching orders from Bush and Cheney, they can vote against Democratic measures on the floor. But if they want to filibuster a bill, they’ll need to rest their voices, bring a telephone book, and avoid drinking a lot of fluids before going onto the floor, because Reid is finished waiting for them to behave like responsible lawmakers.

As Chris Bowers, who had a good piece on this, explained before today’s announcement:

If Republicans are going to block this legislation, make them pay a big price in the eyes of the American people for doing so. Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid, need to step up, because right now they are letting Republicans get away with blocking popular legislation basically for free. That is not acceptable. That is not leadership. It certainly is not a way to reinforce to the public what Republicans actually stand for. Can you image the political price Senate Republicans would have paid for spending four days and three nights filibustering Webb’s amendment on troop deployments? That is the sort of thing that holds potentially catastrophic consequences on their image of years-talk about not supporting the troops! And that is exactly what Senate Democrats need to do.

And apparently, that’s exactly what they will do.

it’s about time!

i know that people posting here have raised the worry that the democrats will end up being blamed for this, but i think the opposite will happen.

  • If you bring a knife to a gunfight, have a guy with a machine gun waiting in the Bushes.

  • Why on Earth would we honor a “gentleman’s agreement” anyway? This Party has thrown every convention out the window for the sole purpose of destroying us. We don’t owe them any favors.

  • If the Democrats suceed then it forces Bush to veto the bill. The bill is still no closer to becoming law.

  • And after we’re done with this one, bring back the Webb Amendment and let the scum argue against it in public.

    And make them do it for every item they want to do this with. The Party of Family Values complained about having to actually work a 40-hour week and be “away from our families” back in January – let them stay away from their families (and their D.C. prostitutes) for a loooooooooooong time.

  • Reid’s step may seem drastic, but the GOP hasn’t left him much choice. – Mr. CB

    That’s a reasonable statement Mr. CB, but I don’t think what Reid is doing is even close to drastic. It’s a significant tool in the toolbox and why it’s had to get to the point where “the GOP hasn’t left him much choice” is beyond me.

    F’n RepubCo would have pulled out whatever tool needed as soon as it would have been effective in order to kneecap any Dem procedures they deemed negative for their goals.

    Dems don’t have to lower themselves to the RepubCo level of toenail fungus in order to achieve some results. And even if real results are slow coming, at least make it as obvious as possible who the true assholes are in this theater of the absurd.

  • Maybe if he threatens them with the cancellation of the August recess, we’ll find out what’s really more important – the occupation of Iraq and American troops in harm’s way, or a vacation. [“But, but, Dad, I mean, Harry – everybody else will be on vacation, why can’t we???” Well, son, I mean Joe, if everybody decided to filibuster in order to support the president at the expense of the troops, would you…oh, right, of course you would, what was I thinking?”]

  • I’ll believe it when I see it. So far the Dems have been unwilling to actually put up a fight for their legislation. I have to wonder if the inability to pass bills remains that way intentionally. After all, Reid has been able to tell the public that “Gee, he just didn’t have the votes” while at the same time managing to avoid passing legislation that is opposed by potential corporate donors. And no one has had to pay a price for obstruction. Is the Democratic leadership incredibly incompetent, or are they trying to have it both ways?? I wonder.

  • any one else reminded of the star trek episode about the two planets that had been at war for centuries but didn’t actually kill people: they just said where the attacks occured and each side sent their own people into disintegration chambers?

  • Agree with #9. With Republicans, there is no such thing is drastic. There’s literally nothing they could do that would shock the punditry. We tried taking the high road and got roundly punished for it. This is the way the media wants the game to be played. We didn’t write the rules.

    Of course, the rules are that we play by a different rulebook than Republicans, but I’m through playing that game. Extreme partisanship works because the GOP doesn’t pay a price, and never has to expect to be subject to the same. How differently would they act if they thought we’d behave the way they do?

  • About friggin’ time!!

    CB – seriously, how long have I been railing on about this?

    If this actually happens, I will be very curious to see how the SCLM handles this.

  • I don’t think what Reid is doing is even close to drastic. It’s a significant tool in the toolbox
    Burro

    Gotta go with Burro here. Actually forcing a filibuster should be standard procedure – no matter who is in the majority.

    Our political classes have gotten a bit too soft – it reminds me of that Star Trek episode where two planets got tired of their cotly, messy war, built a computer to decide who died, and had folks report for a quiet, efficient little execution.

    Mr. Reid, you didn’t get elected to go up to Washington and live a cozy life. You were elected to stand up for your constituents, even if that meant a brawl.

    You should be looking for opportunities to brawl, not shirking them, as long as you’re brawling for the right reasons.

    Bring it on.

  • Reid’s step may seem drastic…

    Since when is having political balls drastic? I’ll tell you what’s drastic: telling the Reid and Pelosi crowd that we’re getting disgusted with how long it’s taken them to wake up to what the entire country (except for war profiteers and their hillbilly followers) have known all along: all politicians are overpaid do-nothing cowards. The best of them aren’t good enough and deserve to be turned out. Their ratings are lower than the Shrubs, deservedly. Only Cheney is lower, and no one is doing anything at all about removing him.

  • Yes, it’s time to go to the mattresses. Literally.

    Reid has the perfect talking point as well, per TPM: “They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.”

    The Democrats need to inflict the highest political price for this obstructionism, and to relentlessly tie the tactic to the failed Bush/Cheney presidency. They’re all drowning; let’s throw some anchors.

    That said, I sincerely hope the “nuclear option” remains in its rhetorical silo. Yeah, payback and schadenfreude are real–but the 60-vote rule saved us from some horrible legislation in the last session (Social Security privatization, quite possibly) and could do so again. If it worked well enough for the last 200-odd years, it’s probably good enough to keep it around awhile yet.

  • “I’d like to….” “Just stop there or we’ll filibuster”
    “Well how about…”
    “No, no, no….filibuster”
    “But you can’t…”
    “Filibuster…”

    Meanwhile the press blames Dems for failing to pass legislature.

    This is great!! Make ’em literally filibuster so everyone can see that they are obstructing passage of popular legislation. Let them filibuster till the ’08 elections and watch them lose elections.
    Bush must be forced to stop. He has never, not once, been cooperative or compromising on any issue. Enough is enough.
    Expecting Bush to come to his senses is useless.

    Legislation by ambush and blackmail has got to end. Show the republicans for what they are …the party of hypocrisy.

  • You forgot to mention the blatant contradiction between the GOP’s pro-filibustering stance and their complaints about Bush’s nominees!

    Reid should say, “you won’t get a vote on any nominee until you stop filibustering our bills.”

  • Republicants, like their evolutionary superiors the common house roach, both head for the cracks when the lights come on.

    Force the chickenshits to stand up and be counted. I bet a lot of them suddenly go weak in the knees.

  • The answer is orange –

    Republicans REALLY like to hear themselves talk. Think of Graham in the “debate” with Webb. If enough words come out of their mouths, they think they’ve actually said something. This is a great opportunity for the Republicans to show off their intelligence and wit (snark)

  • “i know that people posting here have raised the worry that the democrats will end up being blamed for this, but i think the opposite will happen.”

    They will be blamed for anything and everything, so there’s no reason not to tell the Republicans to put up or shut up.

    Maybe I wasn’t paying attention, but why didn’t the Democrats try to filibuster, or threaten to do so, most if not all of the awful parts of the Bush administration’s legislation when they didn’t control congress? Do they have that much more respect for tradition and gentlemanly conduct than the Republicans?

  • Brian, as long as the GOP had the 60 votes to bring cloture and bring debate to an end, there was no point in using the filibuster. With enough Dems votong with the GOP, we didn’t have enough votes to keep them from getting those 60 votes, after which, the vote on the legislation itself only required a simple majority to pass.

  • About damn time! Given how the babies cried about a 5 day workweek, I expect full-on tantrums about having to actually defend their filibuster.

  • It’s about damned time Harry! Give ’em hell! Seriously, I’ve been screaming for months that you have to make the Republicans OWN their stances on all the issues that are important to the American people. Bring back every one of those bills that passed in the house but not in the Senate and dare them to filibuster, dare them to explain to their constituencies why raising minimum wage etc aren’t good. Keep the Senate in session through most of August to get this stuff done, Who cares if Bush vetos. This can ONLY make the republicans look bad. And it will only make the population more angry with them. Harry, play to win, don’t play not to lose. And if you don’t recess for summer holiday, there will be no recess appointments! YAY Harry!

  • Switching parties would not do Lieberman or Republicans any good. It would not return control of the chamber to Republicans. It would not stop Reid from forcing Repub’s to put up or shut up. It would lose Lieberman his choicest committee assignments, including the two that he committees chairs.

  • So… all the fuss up until now has been because Democrats didn’t want to force a 30-hour marathon session? I thought we paid these guys to work! All along we’ve had cloture votes where a “no” to continue debate was really a “yes” to kill the issue — but now we’re told it could’ve been parried by an all-nighter??

    Mark me down as another “what drastic?”

  • Switching parties would not do Lieberman or Republicans any good. It would not return control of the chamber to Republicans. It would not stop Reid from forcing Repub’s to put up or shut up. It would lose Lieberman his choicest committee assignments, including the two that he committees chairs.

    Comment by CalD

    I beg to differ. A lot of the issues in a switchover depend on those “gentlemens agreements” we hear so much about in the Senate. We know how much tradition means to the power-hungry Repubs. They’ll take power or force a constitutional crisis which the Repubs will be the first to bring force into based on President of the Senate Dick Cheney. If Lieberman switches all hell will break loose and he’ll have a plan to keep his committees.

  • The whole process has operated on the basis of a gentleman’s agreement for years. — CB

    And therein lies the dog, burried. Two *gentlemen* can have an agreement, shake hands on a deal and everything is fine. But when you have a crooked thug on one side and a gentleman on the other, no deal is possible and no agreement will hold.

    Holding them to the *real* filibuster is a long overdue tactic. I’m glad to hear that Harry Reid has finally reached the end of his tether on this issue because it should prove to be a potent laxative for the “obstruction” that the Repubs are suffering from.

    I agree with Tom Cleaver, @8; bring back the older legislation they’ve scuttled (like Webb’ss amendment), and make them go through the whole charade for those bills too. And for every new piece of legislation as well. The one on childrens health is a good cndidate, also. We’ll see how much stamina those stalwarts have. Especially with the C-Span cameras trained on them.

    “If the Democrats suceed then it forces Bush to veto the bill. The bill is still no closer to becoming law.” — neil wilson, @7

    Nothing *forces* the Presidunce to veto a bill, except his own childishness. So OK, let him veto.

    If the bill never reaches the floor vote (because the Rethugs are having yet another bout of legislating constipation), the Dems come through as weaklings — they’re in majority but couldn’t even shepherd the bill to the floor for an up and down vote. If the bill comes to the floor, is pased with a miniscule majority (all we have) and amBush vetoes it, it goes back to the floor for the vote which tries to override the veto. So the GOPidiots expose themselves twice: once when filibustering and then again when being reluctant to override the Tweedledumb.

    The bill may never become a law, but those arseholes, if exposed time and again, will never be lawmakers again, either. There’s no downside to holding them to a real filibuster.

  • With grumpy #36 I’m wondering “Is that all there is?” I thought we were talking about days and weeks if needed.

  • Crawdad, @40

    If he can scare ’em into folding just by threatening to hold them to the filibuster (same as they’ve always made us cave in by threatening to filibuster), then the proceedings will be that much smoother. Wars — even political ons — *are* to be avoided, if possible; if he can pull it off just by shaking a fist, all the better. I just hope he’ll have the goolies to actually apply the fist to the nose, if the threat doesn’t work.

    I guess I should lay in a night’s supply of snacks and beverages for tomorrow (it’s nice to be able to go to the bathroom whenever one needs to).

    • Comments are closed.