Filibuster Reform Is Upon Us

[Direckshun]

dun dun DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Not really.

Harry Reid is seeking two reforms: kill the filibuster of the motion to proceed, and turn the non-speaking filibuster back into the speaking filibuster.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...0ab3_blog.html

Full speed ahead on filibuster reform?
By Greg Sargent
Posted at 05:04 PM ET, 11/26/2012

On the Senate floor today, Harry Reid offered the clearest confirmation yet that he will move forward with filibuster reform at the start of the new Congress. He confirmed he is proposing to “do away with filibusters on the motion to proceed,” which was already known. He added that under proposed reforms, Senators who want to filibuster will have to “stand up and talk about it.” That means Reid supports the “talking filibuster,” the proposal to force filibustering out into the open — on the theory that this will make it politically more difficult.

There’s some debate over whether the latter proposal is likely to be effective. Jonathan Bernstein has argued that it’s absurd to imagine that Republicans would balk at publicly holding the floor.

That aside, now that there will be a massive spin war over the meaning of reform — Mitch McConnell railed today that Dems are planning a “naked power grab” — it’s worth reiterating that there is a set of actual facts about GOP filibustering and the Dem response to it that shouldn’t get lost in all the false equivalence BS we’re certain to hear:

1) The extent of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. This chart shows that cloture motions (a rough measure of filibustering) suddenly spiked during the Obama years. Yes, they also spiked in 2007-2008, but according to Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein, the vast majority of those filibusters were mounted by Republicans, presumably to block legislation designed to embarrass George W. Bush. (Indeed, the motions to end filibusters during that period were filed mostly by Dems.)

2) The nature of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. Ornstein says this is true in two ways: First, in the extensive blockading of what used to be considered routine Senate business. And second, much of the filibustering is part of a concerted party strategy. “You’re not just looking at filibusters done by rogue senators or factions, like southern Democrats in the 1950s,” says Ornstein. “It’s the first time we’ve had a wide range of filibustering by a whole party.”

3) Filibuster reform would not do away with the minority’s ability to filibuster. The “talking filibuster” reform and the nixing of the filibuster on the motion to proceed would only make it harder to use procedural tactics, under cover of darkness, for the explicit purpose of stalling the Upper Chamber’s business. The minority would still be able to block the will of a simple majority on the vote to end debate. These are not very meaningful restrictions on the “rights” of the minority.

At any rate, now that Reid has made such a vocal push, it’s hard to imagine that Dems won’t move forward on day one of the new session to change the rules with a simple majority vote. Looks like it’s on.

***************************************

UPDATE: It’s also possible that unilateral action on the rules by Democrats to change the filibuster may not happen, if Dems and Republicans reach a deal. As Ornstein emails me:

In 1975, we had the threat of one party action to change the rule, and it led to a bipartisan compromise. That could happen this time, despite the rhetoric — a bipartisan move to eliminate filibusters on the motion to proceed, a few more changes, and in return, a guarantee for the minority on at least some amendments on bills.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I asked you a question. I see no answer.

You do what you do every time. You pick a minute part of the response and ignore the rest. You don't deserve an answer because a debate with you is like a debate with a pullstring doll.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

So the conservatives in Congress are not patriots because they opposed the President's policies?

The conseratives are not patriots because they put their party ahead of the country. Small example: the Veterans Jobs Bill. Five Republicans co-wrote the bill and then vote against the move for the bill to go forward after the President said in a speech he was for it. The were for it before he was for it. They oppose progress to make the President look bad instead of doing things that will stabilize the country. Bob Dole came up with the idea for the mandate that was added to Obamacare and now they cite that as the biggest excuse to oppose it. Out of Mitch McConnel's own mouth is his admittance that their most important task was to make Obama a one term President. Fug the American people. We've got to stop Obama.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by whoman69

You've been fed a line of crap. What Republicans want is for Obama to continue to bargain against himself. He is the only one offering compromise and Republicans say its not enough. Then they expect another offer.

Republicans want entitlements in the debate but won't say what they are. That way they can say Obama cut social security and medicare. I have never seen such a bunch of spineless anti-patriots in my life.

Obama is not offering any compromises, he is just offering to raise taxes on the rich. That solves the fiscal cliff problem for a whopping 8 days, so sorry, that is just not goog enough.

And Obama refuses to cut anything as well, because he wants to be viewed as the Savior, and wants the Republicans take the blame for cutting entitlements.

Nobody likes it, but entitlements have to be cut. They are out of control. Both sides need to man up and cut them together, and take the heat for it together.

Obama is just as spineless, and just as much of an anti-patriot in this situation as the Republicans are.

Both sides screwed this up, both need to fix it, and both need to take the blame. And in the end if everything is successful, they both can take credit for it.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by whoman69

The conseratives are not patriots because they put their party ahead of the country. Small example: the Veterans Jobs Bill. Five Republicans co-wrote the bill and then vote against the move for the bill to go forward after the President said in a speech he was for it. The were for it before he was for it. They oppose progress to make the President look bad instead of doing things that will stabilize the country. Bob Dole came up with the idea for the mandate that was added to Obamacare and now they cite that as the biggest excuse to oppose it. Out of Mitch McConnel's own mouth is his admittance that their most important task was to make Obama a one term President. Fug the American people. We've got to stop Obama.

Obama has put himself and his party ahead of country as well, so he is not a patriot either.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Obama is not offering any compromises, he is just offering to raise taxes on the rich. That solves the fiscal cliff problem for a whopping 8 days, so sorry, that is just not goog enough.

And Obama refuses to cut anything as well, because he wants to be viewed as the Savior, and wants the Republicans take the blame for cutting entitlements.

Are you even remotely paying attention to what is actually happening?

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Obama is not offering any compromises, he is just offering to raise taxes on the rich. That solves the fiscal cliff problem for a whopping 8 days, so sorry, that is just not goog enough.

And Obama refuses to cut anything as well, because he wants to be viewed as the Savior, and wants the Republicans take the blame for cutting entitlements.

Nobody likes it, but entitlements have to be cut. They are out of control. Both sides need to man up and cut them together, and take the heat for it together.

Obama is just as spineless, and just as much of an anti-patriot in this situation as the Republicans are.

Both sides screwed this up, both need to fix it, and both need to take the blame. And in the end if everything is successful, they both can take credit for it.

Social Security is paid for. Should be off the table entirely. Everybody paid their money in. They shouldn't have to be 72 to put in for it. Medicare is only on the table because Bush added to the program without paying for it. The defense budget is 40% of world spending. We are essentially in an arms race with ourselves. Spending cuts should start there.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Literature

Are you even remotely paying attention to what is actually happening?

Are you? All I hear from Obama is tax, tax, tax, the rich. That is his solution to all of the problems.

If you cannot admit that both sides are at fault here, and that both sides are playing politics trying to not look bad and make the other side look worse, then you are not paying attention.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Are you? All I hear from Obama is tax, tax, tax, the rich. That is his solution to all of the problems.

If you cannot admit that both sides are at fault here, and that both sides are playing politics trying to not look bad and make the other side look worse, then you are not paying attention.

Your post was almost entirely false.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Literature

Your post was almost entirely false.

No, it wasn't. Obama wants to do cuts "later" or not at all, and the only specifics he has provided is how much he wants to raise taxes.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

No, it wasn't. Obama wants to do cuts "later" or not at all, and the only specifics he has provided is how much he wants to raise taxes.

$400 billion in cuts, according to the Geitner Plan.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by whoman69

You've been fed a line of crap. What Republicans want is for Obama to continue to bargain against himself. He is the only one offering compromise and Republicans say its not enough. Then they expect another offer.

Republicans want entitlements in the debate but won't say what they are. That way they can say Obama cut social security and medicare. I have never seen such a bunch of spineless anti-patriots in my life.

What Obama compromises?

How can you not know what the entitlements are?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by whoman69

You do what you do every time. You pick a minute part of the response and ignore the rest. You don't deserve an answer because a debate with you is like a debate with a pullstring doll.

Still no answer.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by whoman69

Social Security is paid for. Should be off the table entirely. Everybody paid their money in. They shouldn't have to be 72 to put in for it. Medicare is only on the table because Bush added to the program without paying for it. The defense budget is 40% of world spending. We are essentially in an arms race with ourselves. Spending cuts should start there.

You're clueless.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Literature

$400 billion in cuts, according to the Geitner Plan.

Can you describe them?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Can you describe them?

Don't ****ing tell me that cuts weren't on the table from Obama. Romney never detailed what deductions he would look to end. Does that mean he never was going to end some deductions? Don't lie to us and say that Obama hasn't offered cuts. There was $400 billion worth of cuts in the Geitner proposal.