Calling the Republican filibuster bluff: Boston Globe Op-Ed

[Better Believe It]

Calling the filibuster bluff
Op-ed
By Renee Loth

Because of a 1975 rules change that allows 41 or more senators to hold up legislation merely by expressing their intention to filibuster, the tactic has become almost routine, cheapened beyond recognition by the Beltway’s new math. A filibuster that doesn’t actually disrupt the Senate’s business doesn’t cost anything, so it’s easy to pull the trigger.

This so-called gentleman’s filibuster - all of the obstruction with none of the inconvenience - gives inordinate power to a few fence-sitters. Right now, it’s Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Both are considering joining Republicans in a filibuster if they don’t get their way on health reform.

Because Democrats have only the most tentative hold on 60 seats (including Lieberman, who ran as an independent but caucuses with the Democrats), party leaders and the Obama administration are scrambling to accommodate their apostates. But what Lieberman and Nelson are threatening is not a filibuster - it’s a filibluster. Why not call their bluff? Force a real filibuster, make Lieberman bring the business of the Senate to a screeching halt in order to defend insurance industry interests, and see how the American people respond. Show Nelson holding up his party’s most important legislation in a generation. And put the 40 Republicans on display as the party of No.

There’s some precedent for this approach. In 1995, House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s move to shut down the government in a high-stakes budget dispute with President Clinton backfired badly. When veterans couldn’t get their benefits and American families on vacation found the national parks shuttered, Gingrich discovered people liked their government after all. He withdrew.

Of course it’s a risk. But the alternative is no bill at all, or one so watered down as to be a hollow victory.

Read the full article at:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/11/13/calling_the_filibuster_bluff/

[QC]

1. The last thing the Democratic leadership wants to do is end the filibuster.

It gives them valuable cover when they carry water for their corporate overlords against the wishes of their voters.

"Well, I would really, really like to ___, but those awful Republicans just won't let me."

[loudsue]

4. Bingo. If the dems wanted to pass this legislation to benefit the VOTERS, as opposed to their

corporate benefactors, they'd throw down and get this done.

[ProSense]

2. Until this changes,

Not anymore. Because of a 1975 rules change that allows 41 or more senators to hold up legislation merely by expressing their intention to filibuster, the tactic has become almost routine, cheapened beyond recognition by the Beltway’s new math. A filibuster that doesn’t actually disrupt the Senate’s business doesn’t cost anything, so it’s easy to pull the trigger.

Any notion about calling a bluff is silly.

The filibuster is an important democratic tool, a hedge against the tyranny of the majority. It shouldn’t be dumped, just restored to its former glory. It would be a boon for democracy, with more of the people’s business dragged out of clubby caucus rooms and onto C-Span. And more senators being called on to stand and deliver.

Quit the stupid games and get health care passed.

[pscot]

3. Harry! Listen up!

K&R