Boats

Normally I would agree with you about the hypocrisy on both sides, but GOP use of the filibuster this session has been historic. They are filibustering EVERY nomination and EVERY piece of legislation.

Not even the Democrats at their worst behaved anything like this.

The Senate is broken. They need to look hard at changing these procedures so that holds are public, not private, and filibusters require Senators to stand up publicly and do the work, not just file a piece of paper.

For reality-based readers (not you, "Boats"), this is from an AP piece today, Republicans Setting Filibuster Record:

In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, with Republicans in the minority, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the current session of Congress -- the 111th -- for all of 2009 and the first two months of 2010 the number already exceeds 40. The most the filibuster has been used when Democrats were in the minority was 58 times in the 106th Congress of 1999-2000.

So the argument is: "you started it"? Seriously?

If that's really the argument for not slamming this passed Bunning--then there's no reason not to do it.

Jim Bunning (KY) is an example of extreme politics, almost mindless. Bunning's cynicism apparently trumps understanding the sacrifices and struggles people have had since Bush laid the recession on to our new president 14 months ago.

Meanwhile the Oregon Business Alliance blames Oregon's 11% unemployment on Democrats. Republicans caused the economic tsunami, including Bunning. The disconnect is astounding.

Most of us are darned tired of the close-minedness of the US Senate Republicans as demonstrated by the health care meeting last week.

The precinct data revealed today by Mapes relating to M66/67 showed that Independents in Oregon swung the YES vote to the winning side. Meanwhile the Republican party shrinks in Oregon, the tea partiers marginalize the party and Bunnings is their poster boy all over the mainstream media.

Honestly, I wish the Republicans had used the "nuclear option" back in 2005 to ram through a few wingers on to the federal bench. Then, we would simply be at a point where those in the majority today could approve what they wanted with 51 votes. I would take the tradeoff.

Paul,

How do you expect the Senate to now move forward on reforming the rules of the Senate, such as the rule for the vote threshold required for closing debate? It takes 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate. I'm not sure how we as a country are going to be able to change those rules until one side gains 67 seats or one side unilaterally disarms.

I believe holds are a different matter, though - I think those are a matter of custom and practice, and not the actual rules - but I could be wrong about that.

Paul, I agree with you that the GOP is currently using the filibuster in an unprecedented manner. To cite another TPM piece, this history is most useful.

When Republicans were a Senate minority in 1991-1992, there were 59 cloture filings. When President Clinton took office, with Republicans remaining the minority in the Senate, that number shot up to 80 in 1993-1994. When Democrats reclaimed the Senate majority in the 2006 midterm elections, cloture filings shot up from 68 in 2005-2006 to a record 139 in 2007-2008.

That said, Boats is not completely out to sea. The problem also lies squarely with the Democrats. Neither party has the cojones to change the rules because they don't want to relinquish their right to filibuster when they inevitably find themselves in the minority. Chris Dodd calls Senator Tom Harkin's (eminently reasonable) plan to change the filibuster rule "foolish."

I would love to see our two Democratic Senators take the lead on this and join Harkin's plan--or suggest an alternative. Much as the filibuster has been abused by the GOP, the real problem lies with the Dems.

Jeff, thanks for the correction on "boats." I don't think this is a partisan issue, but the historical facts of the matter is that the use of the delaying tactics as a routinized part of the minority party operations began with the GOP in the 1980s.

NRJE I am not sure you are right. The filibuster is described in rule XXII of the Senate. These rules are passed by a majority rule at the beginning of the session. I would have to do a bit more homework to answer this, but I am not sure that changes to these rules fall under the normal rules of Senate procedures. These ARE the rules of Senate procedure.

But more to the point, the current interpretation of the rules--that a Senator need not physically occupy the well of the Senate during extended debate and only need signal a desire / willingness to do so, is a change that was made about a decade and a half ago (if memory serves). That is a norm and could easily be changed.

The "hold" is a purely informal norm and is not codified.

Senator Merkley's comment is interesting. Why did Democratic leadership blink at forcing every Republican "standing at the ready" to go and explain to the American people and their constituents why they are for cutting off unemployment benefits for 400,000 Americans and why they are for making it more difficult for senior citizens to obtain needed medical care?

I find Bunning's position both hypocritical and offensive. He has been a party to running up the deficit for the last 10 years and now when it comes to providing unemployment insurance to citizens who have been put out of work, in part by failed policies that Bunning has supported, he suddenly as decided to become a deficit hawk?

If Bunning wants $10 billion in cuts, then Democratic leadership should oblige him by starting with every earmark that benefits his constituents and the constituents of any Senator who joins Bunning in this hold.

Bob - Earmarks are part of the process. Bunning uses them the same as any other Senator. If, after 10 years of turning a blind eye to the federal deficit (especially when the R's were in power) he wants to be a deficit hawk then he should be forced to lead by example, starting with his pet projects.

I see that as far preferable to punishing 400,000 people who are out of work because of disastrous federal oversight of the banking and insurance industries -- all policies to which Bunning gave his full-throated support.

Ghost of Senates, no bill REQUIRES 60 votes (that is the number required for cloture now, not 67), they require a simple majority. It requires 60 senators willing to take that final, majority vote.

And as I said, Rule XXII is one thing, interpreting it is another.