"Wouldn't you know it, the president was correct."

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022243.php

DECADES' WORTH OF OBSTRUCTIONISM.... In talking to Senate Democrats yesterday, President Obama reminded the caucus that its successes have come against "enormous" and "unprecedented" obstructionism: "You may have looked at these statistics. You had to cast more votes to break filibusters last year than in the entire 1950s and '60s combined. That's 20 years of obstruction packed into just one.""

That may seem like a bit of an exaggeration, so CNN fact-checked the claim. Wouldn't you know it, the president was correct.

* A vote to end filibuster debate is called a cloture vote. From the 81st Congress (1949-1950) through the 91st Congress (1969-1970), there were a total of 30 votes on cloture. There were no more than seven cloture votes in any single session during those years.

* Starting with the 92nd Congress (1971-72), cloture votes became more frequent. Part of that can be explained by the fact that the Senate changed the required majority in 1975, making it easier to induce cloture.

* The 110th Congress (2007-2008) is the record-holder so far: There were 112 votes on cloture during that two-year period.

* So far, the 11th Congress (2009-2010) has held 41 cloture votes, 39 of them last year, two more this year.

It's not especially close. From 1949 to 1970, there were 30 cloture votes. In 2009, there were 39.

This reminds me to post this chart, recently put together by TPM, which puts Republican abuse in a helpful, visual context. It doesn't even include the current Congress, which is poised to break its own record from the Congress than ended in 2008.



There are still some in the political world, including far too many media professionals, who think mandatory 60-vote majorities for literally everything is just routine, as if the Senate has always been this way. It hasn't -- the Senate has never been asked to function this way; it wasn't designed to function this way; and it quite obviously can't function this way.

The chamber is broken, and Republicans are standing over the shattered pieces holding a hammer.

—Steve Benen

[Captain Hilts]

1. Terrific post. K&R. nt

[me b zola]

2. A person would have thought that a news organization

~would have called bs on needing 60 votes to pass a bill. Sadly, I have almost entirely stopped watching cnn because they have busy spreading that republican meme.

[Oregone]

20. Why is this a "republican meme"?

Ive heard it more from the other side honestly. Its the ultimate excuse why Americans can't have true health reform, but rather capitulation and compromise. From the beginning of the process, a whole lotta things were stripped off the table by the party controlling the debate because of this meme.

[Beavker]

37. Blue Dogs=Republican anyway

Those are the turds that don't want reconciliation. It's a stupid idea. 60% to pass something? Especially when far less populous states can trump half of the countries population if they wanted to. Why not make it %100, then they could literally get paid to do exactly NOTHING guaranteed because they would Never vote %100 for anything.

[me b zola]

57. The poster who responded to you before me got it right

There are far too many elected Democrats who work for republican policy, particularly in the senate. If a person espouses rw talking points, then it doesn't matter what letter they have following their name, they are still pushing a rw meme.

[truedelphi]

34. Then it isn't just me? who sits and wonders why

The BS is not exposed?

Between the cheerleaders for the sixty vote meme and then, the Blue Dogs and then the crowd shouting that the "Pelosi-led Congress" can do no wrong" it is amazing to have to endure it all.

[theFrankFactor]

79. Heartening to See Democrats Who Get "It"... 60 Vote Excuse is B.S.!

I would submit that the next thing savvy Democrats might consider is that (and many already know this) the Health Care debacle is a prima fascia example and exposure of the corruption not only of our system, but of the highest powers in the Democratic assembly.

One need only consider a reversal of the situation--a Republican majority with a 41 vote opposition!

It is astounding to me that anyone accepts this slap in our faces for more than one second. We had everything we needed out of the gate to SERIOUSLY turn things around and the ONLY reason for this dismal and embarrassing performance by the Democratic leadership is from Democrats themselves.

Please feel free to entertain us with excuses about how my assertions are wrong. I welcome them. I need a laugh!

[truedelphi]

83. All I know is: now that I know for sure that all this "political" stuff is

Just so much theatrics, I am not inclined to play along.

Let Obama ask me for money in 2012. I won't have it for him.

Let Feinstein ask me for money for her campaign as governor - I won't have TIME or MONEY for her.

Give me some real progressive, non-game playing Dems and I will be back aboard.

But they have to be willing to use the Bully pulpit the first year of their Presidency or their Governorship. Rather than enabling the opposition.

They have to be Anti-war.

They have to have a real understanding of the health care system, and what needs to happen. And also they have to understand that it needs to be AFFORDABLE to working families. (This is where Grayson would lose me: He has always been rich and really doesn't understand how people in big cities who have no mortgage deduction cannot afford the type of mandated ins. polices the current bill would have them pay.)

They have to have a real understanding of the Bankster/Fraudsters and how messed up it is to have a Federal Reserve that answers to NO ONE, except probably Goldman Sachs.

The only person I can think of as I type this is Sanders of VT.

And he is an independent and not a Dem.

[Enthusiast]

38. I have stopped watching CNN entirely.

Because they never fairly present the Democratic side, never. Wolf Blitzer-the worst.

[me b zola]

56. Its not just about taking sides, its also about intellectual dishonesty

and a "news" station that misinforms it's viewers. I have written to cnn and complained that they misrepresented the facts of a story, or fail to mention the facts behind other stories, but they don't give a crap so I won't watch any longer. I am really fed up. CNN is lending a hand to the dumbing down of the US, yet they act surprised when they see a report that many adults in the US cannot name the first president.

But yeah, the bias of more subjective things wore thin on me too. The last straw on that was last week-end when Obama did q&a with the republicans. When cnn did manage to spend 30 seconds or so on the story, they made it sound as though the repubs gave Obama what-for. But most of their time that week-end was spent on salacious rumors about a former presidential candidate whose political career has been dead and buried for a while now. Ugh.

[Enthusiast]

72. Yes, me b zola,

clearly CNN has an agenda. And I will not support it. We forced them to get rid of Lou Dobbs but that changed very little of their hidden agenda. The ONLY one I could tolerate was Rick Sanchez. I assume they will rein in his "liberal" take on the issues.

[seattle_blue]

60. I'm right there with ya...

They're pretty bad and getting worse.

[gateley]

3. K&R - nt

[supernova]

4. KnR!

Great post, thanks!

[liberal N proud]

5. That fact check will be the last you hear of it on CNN or

any other network for that matter.

[rasputin1952]

6. Others may nlot see this, but I see the GOP going down hard...

once the despicable behavior of these cretins is shown min full light, (not yet, because of a GOP compliant media), even the knuckle dragging minions of the RW will have to accept the fact they are/were wrong on virtually every issue.

My favorite...Just where the hell were the fiscally conservative R's, when they drove this nation off the financial cliff?


GOP...

Greedy

Old

Pissants


I can't wait to cast the dust of the crushed GOP into the cesspool...:D

[tavalon]

8. But what if the Democrats get a super majority and nothing changes

Games are being played on both sides of the aisle and I think we really need to acknowledge that rather than blaming the other side for all of the problems. Universal Health Care could have been passed in reconciliation and we do have enough votes for it but you won't hear Democrats mentioning it because they have far more important people than you and I to appease. They have many names, Blue Cross, Regence, United Healthcare, Aetna. You get the idea. The Republicans aren't the only bought and paid for subsidiaries of health insurance.

[backtomn]

47. We had the votes

For an entire year we had the filibuster-proof majority. If we didn't have human jello leading the Senate or a President that would not get more involved the legislative process, this would have been done months ago. I support reconciliation, but it should not have been necessary.......unless this is just a game and no one wants it to pass. I wonder??

[Lochloosa]

70. Sorry backtomn but your wrong. We had 58 votes.

We never had a "filibuster proof" in the Senate. Push that BS somewhere else.

Prove me wrong. Show me where we had 60 DEMOCRATIC votes.

[theFrankFactor]

81. What Could Republicans Accomplish With The Majorities We Have and Had?

The Senate

111th Congress (2009-2011)
Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (41 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Independent Democrat
Total Seats: 100
Note: Senator Arlen Specter was reelected in 2004 as a Republican, and became a Democrat on April 30, 2009. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected in 2006 as an Independent.

The House
111th (2009-2011)

Total: 435

Dems: 257

Reps: 178

Independent (0)

[Lochloosa]

82. That was not my argument Frank. I just wanted to point out that we have never had 60 votes.

It's a repug talking point. And I'm tired of hearing it.

[theFrankFactor]

80. Are Democrats "Jell-O" or are they doing exactly as intended?

[Skinner]

7. The Senate is clearly broken, and this abuse of the filibuster is the reason.

I think, in principle, the idea of having some sort of mechanism that can be used (rarely) in the most extreme circumstances to block the will of the majority is not a bad thing. This is what the filibuster used to be.

But now it has gotten completely out-of-control, and has effectively created a situation where 60 votes are necessary to do anything. That is anti-Democratic.

I believe the problem is that there is absolutely no cost associated with using the filibuster. (Perhaps some might argue that there is a political cost, but my impression is that there is none.) Instead of getting rid of the filibuster, or decreasing the number of votes necessary for cloture, I propose changing it so there is a cost associated with using it. (Our DU economists might have some insight here.)

What I have in mind is something like this:

If any group of senators wishes to filibuster, *every member of that group* must physically occupy the Senate chamber for the duration of the filibuster. (Limited breaks for food, going to the bathroom, and sleeping would be permitted.) But, as long as the Senate is in session, the filibustering Senators must actually be in attendance in the Senate chamber.

I believe a solution like this would preserve the ability of Senators to use the filibuster as many times as it is necessary to stop legislation that they deem a threat to the republic. But it would put an end to "frivolous" filibusters used to block every piece of legislation that Senators simply disagree with. Think about it: As long as a filibuster continues, Senators would not be able to do work in their offices, they would not be able to go on TV, they would not be able to attend fundraisers, they would not be able to do any of the stuff that Senators do. I think most Senators would be willing to give up that stuff if they believed they really were stopping a Threat to the Republic. But they're not going to waste their time filibustering the president's nominee for assistant dog-catcher for the 3rd district.

[Jennicut]

9. No one does a real filibuster anymore.

it is time to use it the real way it was intended or fix it, along the lines of what Harkin has proposed:

The plan he announced with Lieberman 14 years ago would have slowly scaled down the cloture threshold for legislation that had been filibustered. The first vote would require 60. If it failed to reach 60, debate would continue until a new vote, which would require 57, and so on until a simple majority could determine whether the measure lived or died.

"You could hold something up for maybe a month, but then, finally you'd come down to 51 votes and a majority would be able to pass," Harkin said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/dec/14/senate-filibuster-healthcare-lieberman

[Skinner]

11. Their propsal would be an improvement over the current system...

...because Senators could not stall forever. But it would not preserve the ability of the minority to completely stop legislation they deem a Threat to the Republic. Their approach would turn the filibuster into a simple stalling tactic. Eventually, the simple majority would always succeed.

I think what I am proposing keeps the spirit of the filibuster, as it was intended. It is not a stalling tactic -- it's intent (as I understand it) is to completely stop that rare piece of legislation that is believed to be truly dangerous.

[Jennicut]

14. True, Republicans use it as merely a way to obstruct.

[eilen]

46. I have always wished that those that threaten filibuster be called on it

Walk the talk or STFU. I would be surprised if some of these blowhards have the actual sand to do it. Let the American people see them talk out of their ass for 48 hours. And original rules stand. No bathroom breaks.

[dmr]

13. Agree. As it stands now, the minority doesn't 'own' their filibusters,

and they should!

If you want it. Prove it! Own it! Stand up for and fight for your convictions!

Right now all it's showing is the majority is ineffective. They can't get anything done, and look like they cannot lead.

[Oregone]

21. "abuse of the filibuster"?!? Can you cite when its been used lately?

It hasn't. At all.

Rather, the threat of the filibuster has been abusively used as an excuse to skirt true reform by BOTH parties. Thats the sad reality.

No one has the use the filibuster because Americans are easily fooled into thinking comprehensive and benevolent legislation is impossible due to the Senate procedures; they are being fooled by their own representatives.

[bluescribbler]

26. All we really need to do is to call their bluff

"You want to filibuster? Go ahead. I'll even provide you with a copy of the Encyclopedia so you don't run out of things to say. And we'll keep C-Span cameras rollign the whole time. We'll even invite in the major media outlets from your state."

That's what Harry Reid should say.

[Skinner]

33. Unfortunately, we can't.

My understanding is that senators don't actually have to filibuster in order to filibuster. There is no reading from the encyclopedia -- just a cloture vote.

[burning rain]

27. Senators are simply too self-indulgent for that to be even a remotely likely solution.

Other advanced democracies have found that having an independent judiciary and supreme court (or "constitutional court" as it's often called) affords sufficient protection against tyranny of the majority, without having anti-democratic supermajority requirements in their parliamentary bodies.

[Skinner]

36. I agree that it is highly unlikely that anything like my proposal is put in place.

But I think the basic idea of keeping the filibuster, while giving it some sort of built-in "cost" to deter the minority from abusing it could be workable. It's all about creating the right incentives.

[leftstreet]

41. +1

[juajen]

65. That's a great idea, Skinner; but, I think they should have to use urinals or

the equivalent. They should have to eat through straws only, and, if anyone goes to sleep, they should be instantly waterboarded. I believe this might solve the problem.

[krispos42]

69. So the 41 would have to stay. Would the 59 have to stay as well?

Seems there would be more incentive if the non-filibustering senators could come and go at will.

[Skinner]

77. The 59 wouldn't have to stay.

It's not their filibuster.

They would just have to show up for the occasional cloture vote.

[gateley]

10. You know, thinking about this, Obama always seems to have his facts straight

and doesn't spew dumb stuff that can be later proven to be wrong. Pretty smart.

And, I wonder if CNN would have 'fact checked' if a Republican had made a similar statement, or were they just trying to play Gotcha?

[dmr]

12. CNN is playing 'Gotcha'. Republicans lie all the time w/o CNN fact checking them. n/t

[gateley]

15. Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought -- well at least they published what they'd found. nt

[iceman66]

16. Probably the latter.

CNN has been no friend to Obama since before he ran for president.

[WCGreen]

17. always finding the good stuff....

[Blue Owl]

18. and the GOP is WRONG

Let's see -- when was the last time the GOP was right about anything? ANYTHING?

[8 track mind]

19. Obama does his homework

i wouldn't want to get into a debate with him.

[AspenRose]

22. The media (still) erroneously think Obama does hyperbole?!

No, guys....that would be the OTHER side of the aisle. :eyes:

[bulloney]

35. Why weren't the media gerbils this aggressive in fact-checking Bush and Cheney?

Maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq, wasting billions of dollars, killing innocent people and destroying a country.

Maybe we would have health care reform by now.

Maybe a lot of things would be different.

But, when Obama makes a benign statement that sounds like it could be hyperbole, they check it out and, what do you know? The statement is accurate.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

55. Apparently, they're not used to leaders of Obama's caliber

Maybe after awhile, they'll realize that they're not dealing with a hack leader anymore.

[moondust]

23. Dems need a strongman to run the Senate and stop this nonsense.

Harry Reid is too soft/weak/timid/frightened/whatever.

The filibuster should have been nipped in the bud a year ago when it became apparent that the Pukes were going to abuse it as their political strategy to make the Democrats look ineffective.

For one thing, it is important for the public to actually see the filibustering scoundrels on the Senate floor at all hours so that there are no illusions about who is responsible for government inaction. The M$M won't spend much time reporting on "implied" filibusters which makes it easy for obstructionists to blame the other guys and get away with it.

A potentially smaller majority after November makes it even more important to put an end to this. Sometimes it takes a strongman to keep the peace and make things happen.

[quiet.american]

29. Have to admit, tend to agree. Reid may be quietly strong, but I'd really like to see some fire. nt

[FailureToCommunicate]

48. Reid is "quietly strong" like that smell from your shoe after you've stepped in it!

[lefty2000]

24. Die Hard

I am encouraged by these numbers.

These are the tactics of desperate men. As the tide of history turns more and more against them, their actions become more extreme, more desperate, and more destructive.

[BrklynLiberal]

25. K & R & Thanks

[quiet.american]

28. Keep it coming Steve Benen - excellent. nt

[Hekate]

30. Yes, CNN, the President is correct. Thank you, and KnR.

[JDPriestly]

31. I remember the filibusters of the Southern Democrats.

Those filibustering actually had to stay up all night and talk on and on and on. Eventually, they lost steam. I haven't seen the Democrats really force a single all-night, day in day out filibuster yet. If they would push the Republicans to hold real filibusters, the American people would see the Republicans for what they are.

The problem is that the Democrats are not politically astute enough to choose and issue on which the public is solidly behind them and force a filibuster. It is lack of toughness, purpose and dedication on the part of Democrats that is the problem.

The chamber is not broken. The Republicans are throwing tantrums. Put them in the corner with their faces to the wall and tell them to just think about things a while, and they will calm down and come back wanting to solve problems.

The Democrats want too much to be liked.

[Uncle Joe]

32. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, babylonsister.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

39. Wow!

[Lord Helmet]

40. Doesn't surprise me.

btw a belated happy birthday to you!

[rhett o rick]

42. WE NEED TO END THE FILIBUSTER RULE. It is being abused.

It is stupid to continue with it. Those that say we might need it are saying we might need our diner jacket after the Titanic goes down. The republicans used the threat of eliminating the filibuster under bush* to keep the Dems from filibustering. The Dems are losing on both sides. We let the repukes threaten to filibuster to affect our legislation and when they are in control and we let them threaten to take away the filibuster to affect legislation.

It is past time to dump the stupid filibuster rule.

[babylonsister]

43. Yes, and the WH knows it. This from the WH today...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x170350

I don't know what they can do, but something's gotta give.

[Better Believe It]

44. The rule was changed when Democrats & Republicans agreed to not require traditional filibusters ....

on the Senate floor.

How many filibusters have you seen on C-Span since Obama became President?

[rhett o rick]

45. I havent seen a filibuster since the last time i watch Mr Smith Goes to Washington (the DC) nt

[Better Believe It]

58. That's because the Democrats and Republicans have agreed to not engage in traditional filibusters

Senator Reid can force Republicans to engage in real "on the Senate floor" filibusters under Senate Rule 22.

[CTLawGuy]

74. not without a quorum he can't

under the current rules, he'd need however many democratic senators are needed to at all times keep a quorum (51 senators) on the floor.

Otherwise, if they don't want to filibuster but don't want to vote, the Rs say "I suggest an absence of quorum" and the senate has to stop in its tracks until 51 senators are on the floor. Good way to "filibuster" without actually doing anything.

This is why there aren't "real" filibusters, it's logistically difficult to put 50 (the other 1 being the R speaker) dems on the floor all day and night.

One solution would be to waive the quorum requirement after a failed cloture vote so that one Dem can force the Rs to talk all day and night without the nightmare of keeping 5/6ths of the Dem caucus on the floor at all times.

[varelse]

49. As has been mentioned in another thread here

it is almost enough to bring one to tears. It's good to know that fact-checking still happens occasionally in the mass media.

[LeftyAndProud60]

50. And the state of Massachusetts and others will reward this? I don't get this country. nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

54. Yeah

because once we have more obstructionists.....er......Republicans in office.....ummm.......MORE will get done in Washington, right?:think: :crazy: :eyes:

[Avalux]

51. Thanks for posting this - K&R!

Of course Obama was correct, I never had any doubt. :toast:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

52. Interesting article

Except "media professionals"=corporate media whores.

[Grassy Knoll]

53. Excellent , B-Sis, Thanks, n/t

[donheld]

59. k & R

[Lindsey]

61. AWESOME post. Thanks for your work on this.

[Pat Riot]

62. wow. very important facts. nt

[Prana69]

63. Ah, I don't get it....

'Scuse my ignorance, but it seems to me that the Republicans aren't the problem here. The problem is that you've got Democrats who won't vote Democrat or support the Democrat agenda.

Are you really trying to lay blame for legislative failure on the Republicans because they are not supporting Democrat legislation? (What else would you expect them to do?)

I think we need to focus on the true cause of this obstructionism.

Cos you know, if Democrats would support the Democrat legislation, then the problem would just go away.

P69

[babylonsister]

71. The problem would 'go away'? You have a lot to learn...

Read this and tell me who's the problem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x170350

[CTLawGuy]

75. that's exactly wrong

the Rs are filibustering in bad faith in order to cause the president and the Democrats to fail. They are ordering their caucus to oppose pretty much all Democratic legislation in the hopes that they can gain from anger at Democrats. What they should be doing is coming up with their own solution and compromising to get something enacted that would help this country.

[MisterK]

64. I think they should just do the majority vote

Great post btw.

[Oldtimeralso]

66. It should just take 51!

But we have the Greedy Obstructionist Party to deal with.

[Major Hogwash]

67. This article is great, it goes right to the heart of the problem - the GOP has no hearts!

Fuck the Republican party!!
They have held up progress, liberty, and justice for all for too damned long.

Obama should go out and buy a 12 pack of Bic pens and start issuing executive orders day and night.
Over 40 million Americans are unemployed today and being starved out of their homes because of the GOP policies that were forced into place by the GOP during the 2 terms of George "AWOL" Bush.

Where is Phil Gramm now?
How about his wife, the comptroller of Enron, where is she?
How come we still don't know who VP Cheney met with in the WH to form his energy policies?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

68. KnR

Great thread. As always!

Thanks!

[SpiralHawk]

73. "no no no no no no no" - Republicon Homelanders Against America

"We want America to fail." - Republicon Homelanders

[deacon]

76. k + r n/t

[grahamhgreen]

78. They're obstructing themselves with that crap senate bill, bailouts for banksters, and war funding!

[leftrightwingnut]

84. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

Still worth reading. Thanks!