But though we've long had the filibuster, we have not long had a Senate that used it to impose a 60-vote requirement on all controversial legislation. Dramatizing the difference between the filibuster that was used to express opposition and filibuster that is used to impose a supermajority voting requirement is a bit difficult. But David Broockman, a senior at Yale, sent along a letter he came across in the LBJ presidential library that does it better than any document I've seen.
The letter was written by Mike Manatos, who served as Senate liaison for Johnson, and addressed to Larry O'Brien, who directed Johnson's campaign. It was written Dec. 8, 1964, just days after the election. Manatos is giving O'Brian an overview of how the Senate elections improved the chances of passing Medicare. He writes:
. . . .
"We would win by a vote of 55 to 45." Phil Schiliro would not write that letter to David Plouffe today. There would be no vote of 55 to 45, because the filibuster would forestall the vote. The fact that 55 Democrats support a controversial bill would be immaterial unless there was some strategy for attracting five more senators to the side of the administration.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/how_a_letter_from_1964_shows_w.htmlI remember the filibusters in the 1950s. They actually forced the Southern Democrats (I remember their filibusters best) to stand in the Senate all night long (or so we were told). Harry Reid should just call the Republicans' bluff. Let Lieberman stand there all night reading the phone book. Let them hold up the Senate's work all night for weeks on end. Don't pass any other bills, not even emergency bills, until health care is passed.
That's how it has to be done. A few real filibusters and the Republicans will use them sparingly. In general, the senators are not youthful or fit. They will soon tire of the long nights.