Time for an actual filibuster?

November 14, 2007

When a senator threatens a filibuster on a bill, the Senate holds a cloture vote to end debate. If the measure gets 60 votes, the full chamber votes on the legislation. If the cloture vote fails, which is far more common in an evenly divided Senate, the bill is pulled from the floor. No one actually has to talk the bill to death.

But when it comes to the latest fight over Iraq funding, Senate Dems are apparently considering a plan to force Republicans to follow through and literally filibuster.

Senate Democrats might force Republicans to wage a filibuster if the GOP wants to block the latest Iraq withdrawal bill, aides and senators said Tuesday.

That could set the stage for a dramatic end-of-the-year partisan showdown, which Democrats hope will help them turn voter frustration with Congress and the stalemate over Iraq into anger with the Republican Party.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), the number two Democrat in the chamber, said a forced filibuster is “possible” and would “generate attention.”

“We want to go to the bill, and [Republicans] have to decide initially whether they want us to go to the bill,” Durbin said. “I wouldn’t call it theatrics.”

Well, I might call it a little theatrical, but that’s not necessarily a criticism.

Depending on which polls you read, about two-thirds of the country wants to see Congress step and fight the Bush White House over ending the war in Iraq. Dems have tried to push various measures, even some with a few Republican allies, but when push comes to shove, they come up far short of the 60-vote requirement the GOP has established for meaningful legislation.

The typical American doesn’t know about filibusters or cloture votes; all they know is that a Democratic Senate keeps failing to force Bush’s hand and change the existing policy. It’s one of the reasons Congress’ approval rating is as low as it is.

Forcing a real, live filibuster, with Republicans front and center, refusing to allow a vote on a withdrawal measure, would as Durbin put it, “generate attention.” Or, more specifically, highlight exactly who’s responsible for the lack of progress.

Now, it’s worth noting that some of this sounds a bit like a trial balloon. Harry Reid’s office wouldn’t comment, and all the filibuster talk seems rather speculative.

If that’s the case, allow me to give the Democratic leadership some positive encouragement: this is a good idea.

On their latest Iraq plan, Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to cut off debate. Instead, they are considering making Republicans carry out a filibuster to highlight that it is the GOP preventing an unpopular president from changing course in Iraq.

Such a plan resembles the all-night debate — when cots were wheeled out — leading up to the July 18 vote to cut off a filibuster on an amendment by Levin and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to require troops to return from Iraq in nine months. Republicans dismissed the move as theatrics.

Since then, the Levin-Reed language has been softened to include a 12-month goal, rather than a mandate, for withdrawing troops in Iraq. The measure, which is part of a $50 billion interim “bridge” fund for Iraq war operations, would also ban tactics such as water-boarding by setting into law the Army Field Manual, which does not allow for brutal interrogation tactics.

House leaders have been pressing Reid to intensify the fight with Republicans by forcing them to filibuster major bills rather than holding failed cloture votes and criticizing the GOP after bills are pulled from the floor.

That fissure broke into the open last week when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) acknowledged asking Reid to stage more filibusters.

“That is the only way you can give Americans a clear view of who is obstructing change,” Hoyer said.

Stay tuned.

This is a sign of two things. The first is that the Democrats know that the Republican Party is in collapse and will not be the majority again. The second is that the polling must show that the Democrats are getting close to getting 60 seats in the next legislature.

The real question is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state.

  • Hear Hear Steny Hoyer!! Connect the dots for voters, Democrats. Make the Republicans go hoarse filibustering.

  • #1, the Democrats will not vote monolithically as the Republicans did, cf the vote for Mukasey. And all one party governments fold on themselves.

  • I say yes. Enough gentlemen’s agreements. A filibuster needs to be a filibuster. If you want to prevent a vote start talking. If you don’t want to talk let’s vote. I wonder how many filibusters would actually happen if this is forced? The Senate can’t pass meaningful legislation now so it certainly wouldn’t be holding up the business of the Senate. Please, start today!

  • It’s about time! The Dems have been letting the threat of a filibuster keep any bills from moving forward, then the Republicans blame Democrats for running a “do-nothing” congress.

    Bring out the cots. And not just for one night this time. Let it go on for weeks, if necessary.

  • It’s. About. Damn. Time.

    I’ve read and heard so much about the “Do Nothing” Congress, and each time point out it’s the GOP that’s obstructing every piece of legislation, no matter if it’s what Americans actually want. They don’t believe me, of course, because the so-called liberal media fails to point out the obstructionist tactics of the GOP.

    They need to do this on EVERY SINGLE BILL the GOP tries to block. Without fail, no matter the topic. Force the media to report what’s really happening, and watch as the right either: a.) decides the political costs are too great and stop it; or b.) go ahead and hang themselves.

    Of course, this is all moot of Reid and Co. decide to yet again wimp out. I’m not confident they won’t.

  • I can see why Senate Dems may have been reluctant to force Republicans to fillibuster. Majorities are temporary and one day the show will be on the other foot. However, since Republicans have long treated politics as war by other means, its long past time to make them speak up for what they believe. It’s not as if there is a party to compromise with across the aisle.

  • The change of the meaning of the filibuster has always annoyed me, no matter which party employs it. It should go back to the way it was created and allow for some real Mr. Smith Goes to Washington moments if people really believe in something.

  • We’ll see. Based on results, Dems will cave under a sustained attack by the Gibberer-in Chief. -bcinaz

    No doubt. Some are acting like they are actually going to go through with this. I haven’t seen one shred of evidence since the Dems took the majority that they will.

    If I’m wrong, I’ll eat this comment.

  • I’m a big fan of this idea in principle. But since this is Harry Reid’s 50/50 senate we’re talking about, I’d also say try and look beyond the obvious and wonder what they’re really up to. For one thing, I’d doubt we’re going to start seeing a filibuster a week. But I guess even talking about it serves to draw some attention to the forgotten story of Republican obstructionism in the Congress. So that’s a plus even if it’s not the primary goal, which is likely to turn out to be a feint to get Republicans all looking one direction while Reid smacks them a little love tap from another.

  • This is an “I’ll believe it when I see it” moment for me. The Democrats keep throwing out all these dramatic ideas to actually get things done, only to cave at the last minute. It’s as if they’re secretly all working on the Great American Political Novel and just want to see what fictional plot points would poll the best.

  • superdestroyer said: The real question is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state.

    I think we know the answer to that question since we’ve lived it for the past 6 years…in case you can’t figure out the answer it’s: an overspending, incompetent, immoral country more focused on enriching the lives of party members than the lives of its citizens.

  • They’re gonna force a filibuster for this?! : “Since then, the Levin-Reed language has been softened to include a 12-month goal, rather than a mandate, for withdrawing troops in Iraq.”

    Look, if the Republicans were smart they’d vote for it, have Bush issue a signing statement saying he didn’t have to pay attention to the “goal” since Congress had not required him to remove troops, and that would be that. It’s pretty disgraceful.

  • We don’t need to force the GOP to filibuster.

    A few Democratic senators could support the filibuster and talk it to death until cloture is agreed upon. They can spend the next few days rattling off the arguments their Republican colleagues have given supporting the costly occupation and they can even bring up the perverse incentives of privatizing war.

    hey need never actually support the war themselves, they simply recite the support the GOP gives for it until cloture is invoked. The GOP might support cloture just to deprive the Dems of their opportunity to relentlessly blame the GOP for the continued hemorrhage of blood and treasure that is the Iraq occupation.

    They can vote against cloture until 12 Republicans vote to shut them off.
    Then they can vote to end the war.

  • The Dems are just blowing hot air again, trying to look good. The tarnish won’t polish away anymore, though. They’ve shown us over and over again how resolute they really are about ending this criminal war, bringing our soldiers home from Iraq, about torture, about habeas corpus, about FISA and wiretapping. Impeachment? Fuggetaboudit. As a lifelong Democrat, I’ve held onto hope for these spineless pols for years now, but that’s over. I no longer believe they represent the people who elected them and I don’t believe a word they say.

  • What was an actual filibuster? Did all other business stop in the Senate? Did the filibusterer bear the responsibility both for his position and for bringing the business of the Senate to a halt? Is that not as it should be?

    Or do I misremember how it worked?

  • It seems like most of Steve’s readers have a higher regard for the American public than I do. I don’t think that this tactic would be effective enough before now. Let me build a case about why this is finally happening, and why the timing is (IMHO) correct.

    First, the Dems don’t have the media on their side. No news there, but it plays into the need to finally do this. If there were a functioning news corps, the obstruction would be in the first two lines of the reporting on any failed bill.
    Next, the memory of the American public (here’s my inner cynic) is less than 6 months long. Hence the “Friedman Unit” (H/T to Atrios). Unfortunately, the use of the 6 month wait has served the War Asshats too well.

    SO – if this plan is started more than 6 months prior to the political season, and the press does not report the Republican obstruction, the tactic gets forgotten, or becomes “old news.” Either way, it’s lost its effectivness.

    And let’s not forget Lieberschmuck. Too much “partisanship” from the Dems, and he jumps ship, giving the senate back to the criminals.

    The timing is finally right, just before the primaries. I have been just as impatient as eveyone else to put the country back on the correct course, but I think the wait was necessary.

  • to ‘superdestroyer’ and ‘gridlock’ In regards to a one party state….

    I much rather live under a one party state run by Democrats and/or so called Independents, than what we have experienced under the one party Republican example.

    Sure some Democrats will be tempted by corruption, but I doubt it could ever amount to the scale of corruption & fraud we’ve experienced under the Republicans.

    Besides.. because of the despicable behavior exhibited by the Republican party, I doubt anybody will get away with it again under the next administration – regardless of having a D or an R behind your name.

    Corruption, fraud, bribes probably has been part of the political system in Washington since the beginning – committed by ALL politicians; some more, some less. What the Republicans didn’t realize (due to their conservative slant and being closed minded) is the fact that the internet (those tubes) has opened up society more than they imagined. It’s hard to hide anything the way it used to be. Any prospective politician better keep that in mind when running for office. Skeletons in the closet can only stay there for a little longer, NOT forever.

  • The real question is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state.

    It’ll look a lot different from the one-party state you worthless white supremacist failed fascist assholes tried to create, “superdestroyer.”

    As a matter of fact, with the eight Republican Senators who are retiring next year and the four Republicans who were already seen as vulnerable, it’s very likely we can see a 60-seat Democratic Senate next year. In the House, there are already 15 Republicans who have decided to retire, and all their seats are competitive, so if you put those together with the ten Democrats narrowly lost in 2006 and expect to pick up in 2008, you end up with a solid working majority in the House. Put these two together with a Democrat in the White House, and this election could be as important as the election of 1932 that put FDR in office. The arithmetic and the “wind” are on our side with this.

    What will that look like?

    Maybe we’ll pass the Safe Climate Act in the first 100 days and put the US firmly on the side of those trying to stop global warming. Since we’re 4% of the world’s population and emit 26% of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, this will be a huge difference.

    With cars, trucks and SUVs getting an average 36mpg by 2024 (mandated in the law), we won’t need to import any oil from the Middle East. Of course, $100/barrel oil will probably make ugly oversized Republicanmobiles obsolete in three years anyway.

    Maybe the Federal Government will follow the heed of the city of Berkeley and set up a program to provide loans to homeowners nationwide to install solar power and solar water heating in their homes (a 20 year loan, which would be picked up by any buyer during the life of the loan if the house was sold). This would do such awful things as end our dependence on foreign oil, seriously reduce our greenhouse emissions, and provide a huge boost to the economy with people going to work to make all those solar panels, install them, etc., etc.

    We’ll stop torturing people to no good purpose and regain our good name in the world.

    Hell, we’ll even save the homes of all you Republican halfwits and solve the problem of your voodoo economics. Of course, after we clean up the wreckage of 30 years of your stupidity, you’ll hate us for the next 70 years like your dinosaur relatives still do when FDR is mentioned. But we’re just nice folks who think even bipeds who lack opposable thumbs and frontal lobes (i.e., Republicans) deserve better than they get from the Bushies.

    Yeah, a one-party Democratic state will be just awwwwwwwwwwwful.

  • 7. On November 14th, 2007 at 10:22 am, Mark D said:
    It’s. About. Damn. Time.

    Amen, but…

    13. On November 14th, 2007 at 10:42 am, gg said:
    This is an “I’ll believe it when I see it” moment for me

    …exactly.

  • People, people! This isn’t going to work. Don’t you remember the “up all night” fiasco a few months back?

    This idea of forcing a filibuster gets the procedural rules backwards. A “real” filibuster comes when the Senate does have 60 votes for cloture, and therefore a nonstop talkfest is the only way to keep the vote from happening. If Reid doesn’t have 60 votes, then he is the one doing the filibuster, essentially talking to delay a doomed cloture vote.

    I was skeptical the first time they tried this, and it became such a disaster that I think trying it again is a big mistake. Take a look back in the archives. Look at the horrible press the Senate Dems got out of that stunt.

    I wish there was some way to force the media to report on this stuff correctly, but this filibuster plan is not it.

  • Tom Cleaver,

    Instead of the rant, Democratic activist should begin to think seriously about what the U.S. will be like as a one a party state. In 2008, over 100 Democratic congressmen will run unopposed. In a one party state, most incumbents will probably not face an opponent. Also, as the Republican party collapses, the former Republicans will start to vote in the Democratic Primary and will act as a moderating force. This will probably cause the Democratic Activist to push for closed primaries. Also, states with initiative and referendum will probably try to get rid of it since will would leave moderates and conservatives a method of getting around the one party state.

    Certain groups are bound to lose power in a one party state. Blacks and Hispanics will definitely lose power when the more liberal white Democratic activist no longer need their support to defeat Republicans. Just look at the problems for Senator Obama and the gospel singer as a harbinger of things to come for minorities.

    And last, will the Democrats keep seniority rules when they are the only political party. My guess is that they will since it give power to certain core groups of the Democratic Party .

  • …”…Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) acknowledged asking Reid to stage more filibusters.”

    This is surprising. Who put what in this guy’s tea? From what I’ve learned about the House Majority Leader, I doubt that his position on forcing filibusters is driven by ideals or passion. Hoyer is a relatively heartless & rude machine style Dem, so it seems to me there must be a technocratic reason for his sudden interest in confrontation with the GOPlunderers.
    Who knows? Did he get a rush from seeing a veto override? .ooooh
    Nonetheless, Hooray! Maybe we shall soon get to see a real street fight in the Senate schoolyard.

    • Comments are closed.