Make The Filibuster An Actual Filibuster

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 13:00

Senate Democrats need to use the "nuclear option" to force a rule change in the Senate that keeps the filibuster in place, but requires all filibusters to be actual, obstructive, reading the phone book, talk-a-thons. This is the only politically feasible option to dealing with the 60-vote rule in the Senate, which currently is the main obstacle to sweeping progressive change in the federal government.

Full explanation in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Make The Filibuster An Actual Filibuster
So far in 2009, because of its 60-vote requirement, the Senate has either blocked, or watered down, much of the Democratic agenda. Here is just a partial list of the policies blocked or watered down by the Senate:
  1. Stimulus. The Senate reduced the size of stimulus / jobs package by about $100 billion.
  2. 100% auction cap and trade: Both the House and the Obama administration are in favor of 100% auction cap and trade legislation. However, the Senate is likely to pass a bill with only about 25% auctions.
  3. Employee Free Choice Act: The Senate has blocked EFCA entirely.
  4. Bankruptcy "cramdown" reform: The Senate has prevented homeowners facing foreclosure from having their mortgages reduced during bankruptcy proceedings, and otherwise watered down the Help Families Save Their Homes Act.
  5. Executive compensation: While the House has passed executive compensation limits for companies receiving bailout money, the Senate has yet to act.
  6. Bailout reform: While the House passed the TARP Reform and Accountability Act, placing strict conditions on bailout funds, the Senate simply released the second round of TARP money with no strings attached.
  7. Health Care reconciliation: The Senate's budget does not allow the Obama administration's increased health care investments go through without a Republican filibuster, even though the House's budget does.
  8. Estate tax: The Senate also voted to keep most of Bush's estate tax repeal in place, which the House did not do.
Time and time again, the Senate has been an obstacle the sweeping progress collectively represented by these policies. Or, more accurately, the 60-vote requirement in the Senate has been an obstacle to sweeping progress, since it is highly likely that all of these bill (save the estate tax) would have broken in favor of the more progressive option if there was no 60-vote requirement in the Senate.

Now, Democrats are in a bind on what to do about the obstruction to progress caused by the 60-vote threshold. Because they fought in favor of keeping the 60-vote threshold four years ago, moving to abolish it now would justifiably appear hypocritical. Further, it would also come off as a highly partisan move, which would cause problems for the Obama administration.

So, if we can't remove the filibuster, then many Senators and progressive activists have long concluded the best move was to force Republicans to actually filibuster all of the above legislation. Maybe we can't get the legislation through, but make Republicans stand up and talk for a week to, for example, deny cheaper and more affordable health care for Americans. This way, Republicans pay a political price for their record-breaking filibustering, and face far more political pressure to cave to Democratic demands. The hope is that this will results in both more Republican votes for Democratic legislation and, come election time, fewer Republicans in the Senate.

Unfortunately, this approach was recently closed off, too. After an extensive look into Senate rules, Majority Leader Harry Reid concluded that Democrats are unable to force Republicans to actually filibuster any of the above listed legislation:

Hoping for a C-SPAN spectacle of GOP obstruction, some impatient Democrats are urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to call Republicans on their filibuster bluff.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) made a plea typical of the genre, recently telling Politico that Reid should force Republicans into a filibustering talk-a-thon, "so that the American people can see who's undermining action."

By threatening a filibuster, the shrunken bloc of 41 GOP senators has just enough members to prevent a vote, requiring Democrats to make concessions to pick off a few moderate Republicans.

Reid has heard the calls. But his answer will surely disappoint: Sorry. It can't happen.

I am not going to doubt Harry Reid's interpretation of Senate rules. These rules are byzantine, to say the least, and are not easily understood by anyone. However, if the 60-vote rule is the real obstacle to progress right now, and if Democrats can neither abolish the 60-vote rule nor, according to current rules, force Republicans to filibuster, there is one thing we can do:

Use the "nuclear option" to change Senate rules in a way that requires all filibusters to be actual, talk-a-thon incidents of obstruction.

While I am not entirely sure how this could be accomplished, I am pretty sure it can be accomplished. If Republicans could have used the "nuclear option" to end the filibuster on judicial nominees, then why can't Democrats use the "nuclear option" to force filibusters to actually become filibusters? Seems like it should be doable.

Assuming for a moment that this is possible, it would be the best and most politically feasible solution to the problems detailed above. It has the following advantages:

  1. It avoids hypocrisy: Since Democrats are not actually removing the filibuster, they can avoid a credible charge of hypocrisy.

  2. It puts a price on partisanship: If, like the Obama administration, you actually want to create more bipartisanship in Washington, D.C., then it is important to put a political price on partisanship. Forcing Republicans to actually filibuster, and thus go public with their obstruction, places just such a price on their continued partisan, record-breaking use of the filibuster. You can't expect people to just become less partisan simply because you ask them to become less partisan--make the cost of partisanship higher than the cost of bipartisanship.

  3. It actually increases public dialogue: Making the filibuster an actual filibuster will put arguments over issues front and center. There is no way to avoid a national debate on, say, health care, if Republicans are spending a few days talking on television to hold up health care. Once the rule is changed, it will put issues, rather than vague process talk, front and center in the public debate.

Voters in 2006 and 2008 overwhelmingly indicated that they support change away from conservative and Republican policies. In response, Republicans have turned the filibuster into a highly partisan act, breaking all previous records for its use and wielding it to block or water down the agenda of change. What we need to do is force those people who oppose this change stand up in public and defend their position, rather than hiding behind a procedural rule.

We can do this if we use the "nuclear option," fifty Democrat Senators plus Vice-President Biden, to change Senate rules requiring filibusters to be actual periods of indefinite, obstructive talking. If Al Franken isn't seated soon, if health care reform doesn't pass, if energy reform doesn't pass, this is the move Senate Democrats need to make. Or, given that Republicans have already severely abused the 60-vote rule over the past 27 months, just do it now.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

40 vote (4.00 / 7)
I think one of the issues is it currently requires 60 votes for closure.  If the rule were reversed and it required 41 votes to prevent closure many of the problems would be solved.  This would actually require all the blockers to be present at all times, whereas the majority would only need one person to occasionally ask for closure.  This puts all the pain on the filibustering party, as it should be.

Interesting Idea (4.00 / 1)
It would make filibustering more difficult if it required 40 votes to defeat a cloture motion or even if it was only 3/5 of the present senators.

I don't think that any rule change is needed, just a different response by the majority leader.  A generation ago Sen Byrd came up with the two track rule that meant that Senate could move on with other business while sometime else is held up by lack of cloture.  My understanding is that it is the majority leader's decision to change tracks in order to get other business done.

That means that currently the threat of filibuster holds up the one bill, but not the entire agenda because we choose to push forward with a different item.  My sense is the the Senate could force the minority to do a traditional filibuster if it chooses but only at the expense of everything else the majority wants to get accomplished.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

[ Parent ]
Yup! Totally agree. (4.00 / 2)
The filibuster used to be a sensational, newsworthy event. The public took notice, and the controversy and the motives of the "rebels" were widely discussed. This public scrutiny certainly prevented its use in frivolous cases. Nowadays, the filibuster has become so uninterestingly procedural that most of the time it doesn't even make it into the evening news. And so, those who stage it don't have to fear a public outcry, or their exposure as pure obstructionists. This has to change! Filibusters have to come with a price tag attached to them again. And then it will be the choice of the GOP lawmakers if they want to become known to their constituency as pure naysaysers. The nuclear option should only be the means of the last resort. I'm sure it would be sufficient if the screens and silencers were demolished, so that the people could witness the filibuster fireworks again.

It takes a 2/3rds majority... (0.00 / 0) change the rules in the Senate AFAIK, so the issue is moot...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

that's why he said "the nuclear option" (4.00 / 1)
which cheats, using the VP to issue a ruling and some more details which I forget.  Now, I don't think there is any reason to think that would work, it seems pretty plainly not within the rules.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Ok, right. (0.00 / 0)
Even though I understood the "nuclear option" not only as the procedural manouever to circumvent a filibuster, but also as including the following motion to get rid of it, once and for all. The Dems wouldn't go so far. And when they were in the minority, the saw the VP trick as a real threat. Now that the Rethuglicans are in this position, what are they going to do against it? Sue the Dems, up to the Supreme Court? The whole filibuster thing isn't even constitutional, more or less a simple but traditional Senate procedure loophole. I guess the Supremes would say, this is a purely legislative problem and has to be solved in Congress. Period.

[ Parent ]
Not with the nuclear option (4.00 / 4)
That was the whole argument over the nuclear option. It is actually possible to change Senate rules with only 51 votes. From wikipedia:

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

This could be applied to forcing a filibuster to become a filibuster, too. Or, at least I think it can.

[ Parent ]
What you are missing in your analysis (4.00 / 1)
is that essentially the Nuclear Option works a reinterpretation of the Senate rules. In the Republican example, the reinterpretation was that application of the filibuster to judicial nominations was unconstitutional.

However, there has to be room for such a reinterpretation. If the filibuster rules are explicit and clear on this point (and I think they probably are, IIRC), then there is no room for reinterpreting the rules. At least not legitimately (otherwise, you are faced with people going on TV and quoting the actual rule to laugh at your "reinterpretation").

Essentially, as I understand the problem, the filibuster rule, as amended in the 1970s, requires 3/5s of all Senators, whereas before it had required 2/3 of all senators "present".  Thus, in exchange for lowering the filibuster threshold, they dumped the requirement of presence in the Senate chamber.  The net effect is that they don't have to go to the floor to consistently sustain a 34% minority on the floor in order to maintain the filibuster. It used to be their (the minority's) burden to bear, while now, it has changed to be the majority's burden to get to 60 votes (rather than 60% of votes present, requiring the minority to maintain a 41% minimum on the floor to prevent cloture).

So, as I read it, the reinterpretation in this case would require reimposing the "presence" requirement through reinterpretation.  That will be particularly hard to do since the rule was specifically changed to remove the presence requirement.  Still, that is Senate arcana so, I doubt if the public will delve to deeply into what the rule used to be vs what it is now. So, if there is a credible reinterpretation of the rules that the nuclear option can be applied to, then I think it deserves our attention.   I think the public is generally in favor of the minority having to bear the filibuster burden and can accept the case that the filibuster has been thrown out of balance, and can accept a reinterpretation that restores some semblance of balance. But, given the history, it has to be a pretty good case to be salable to the public... and to the 51 Senators (the VP is not necessarily required, unless there is a tie) who have to vote for it and explain it to their constituents if it becomes an issue.

[ Parent ]
Look up the numbers! (4.00 / 1)
The inflation of filibusters recently is sufficient for presenting a damn good case. Democracy means the rule of the majority, not the rule of the party which only represents 40% of the Senators, and even less of the voters. People will understand that the filibuster has become a monster, and isn't what the founding fathers wanted for the US.

[ Parent ]
That's not the "case" I was talking about (0.00 / 0)
There's obviously a good case for filibuster reform.  However, here, you have to not only justify the reform (the easy part) but also justify the means you are using (ie, the nuclear option) to get there.    If you don't have a good case on that point, then you could lose the entire battle on the procedural, nonsubstantive point. The Republicans will cry foul and scream about not following the process for amending Senate rules (ie, getting 67 senators to agree to the change).  You have to have a good response to that, to justify use of the so-called nuclear option.  

[ Parent ]
The republicans already presented that case, remember? (0.00 / 0)
They really did a lot of public brouhahau about it, and repeatedloy declared that they think its legal. So, they don't have a strong standing to complain about it now. And afaik even the Dems acknoledged then that there were no strong legal arguments to fight the nuclear option.

And then, what are the republicans going to do? Seek judicial help, up to the Supremes, on the weak grounds of some obscure Senate procedures that don't have any support in the constitution? I don't believe that would be successful, not even with the current Supreme Court. Just look how Scalia recently proved that he is a die hard conservative, but an independent thinking die hard conservative.

[ Parent ]
I am not sure that this requires even reinterpretation of the rules (0.00 / 0)
See Luam at 13:48. Some time in recent history, filibusters were no longer required to involve actual talking and phone-book reading. I don't believe that this change resulted from any change in the Senate rules, but became a procedural "gentleman's agreeement" about how legislation is allowed to proceed.

If my understanding is correct, then not even a majority vote to uphold a ruling of the Chair is necessary (though Rs would object on some cockamamie procedural ground, so I guess 51 votes would be required ultimately).

No need to argue about this online - ask Mark Schmitt:)  

[ Parent ]
Barring this, what is the rule for going 'nuclear' on Reid? (0.00 / 0)
Can 50 Senators and Biden dump Reid as majority leader if he continues down this ineffective road he has been treading for 2 years?

They need to change this rule and I like your suggestion.  But could they also institute caps on the number of cloture votes a party is allowed to force?  Could they institute a rule where there are only say 100 possible filibusters allowed for each party per session?  The 100 could then be further broken down into max allowed filibusters for different types of legislation.  So if the GOP wants to filibuster executive appointees they have to decide which 10 they are going to filibuster and if they want to quickly use them up in the first months of the session they then risk Obama getting a clean up-or-down vote on later appointees like a Supreme Court justice.  

Shouldn't the filibuster be a last resort tool that therefore would warrant some limitations and strategy for their use?  This current ability to obstruct anything and everything is just not reasonable.

I thought that all it would take would be a majority of the caucus to dump Reid (0.00 / 0)
Though the requirement might be that he lose an election for majority leader in the Senate caucus.  I have no idea about the process behind having that happen, though.

[ Parent ]
so concievably, a lot fewer than 50+Biden (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Not much to add to this (4.00 / 8)
other than the fact that this presupposes that the Senate Dems actually want to pass legislation.  Some of them certainly do.  But I have my doubts about the caucus as a whole.

No, I don't believe Harry Reid (4.00 / 1)
I'm far from an expert on Senate rules, but I do doubt the interpretation of Harry Reid, the world's most prominent sufferer of Lupner's Disease. Is it possible that forcing the Republican's into a reasonable facsimile of a traditional Jimmy Stewart filibuster might be parliamentarily difficult, might slow or stop Senate business, might cause physical inconvenience to Democratic Senators, and might cause Graham, Lieberman, and the irony-free High Broderists of the press to wring their hands over the lack of bipartisanship? Likely yes to all. And it is probably the last two reasons that weigh most heavily with Reid. But I find it difficult to beleive that, with advice from expert Senate parliamentarians, that such a filibuster could be forced if Reid was really committed to forcing one. Nor do I doubt that, on the right, select issues, it would, at minimum, be politically advantageous and might even break the filibuster. (BTW, for those too young to remember original SNL, back when it was funny, Lupner's Disease was named after Mr. Lupner (father and husband of Gilda Radner and Jane Curtin's characters, respectively), who was born without a spine.

Then take this guy's word for it... (4.00 / 1)

Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."
Story continues below

The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.

"You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster," says Dove. "Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture."

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
What? (4.00 / 1)
So how is this different than having someone read the phone book?  If a Republican has to continually, minute-by-minute, demand a quorum roll call, this has the same effect as making a Senator read from the phone book for hours.  The only difference is that enough people would have to hang around for the roll calls and subsequent cloture votes.  The media will still have to report on this and the public outcry would probably be even greater since this is obstructionism without merit to the highest degree and you would have hundreds of cloture votes showing just who the obstructors are and just how unrepentant they are at damming up the people's business as they make dozens of daily 'no' votes on cloture.  It would put the 'Party of No' stake so deep into the Republicans' heart they would never live it down.

[ Parent ]
The difference is... (0.00 / 0)
...that the democrats would have to stick around all night, while most of the republicans could sleep... and there wouldn't be much to report at all... I doubt anyone in the country would know the GOP was obstructing, even if the press reported on it..  Instead, the Democrats might be seen as foolish sitting around doing nothing, even though it's not their fault...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
I am not actually sure if everyone would ignore it... (0.00 / 0)
It wouldn't be too hard to get a few cameras in the room to watch some lone Republican calling for a roll call every 10 minutes for a day.  Couldn't Reid then just call a recess and then take up the order again and make another lone Repug stand around all day calling for roll calls? In this case since it isn't a filibuster you shouldn't have to keep it up all day and night until a cloture vote is called.  Since its a procedure it should only eat up the time during the day when the Senate is in session.

I think the end result is the same, but perhaps with even a better PR outcome for the Democrats.  The traditional filibuster has Jimmy Stewart and high ideals of standing up to the majority behind it even if it does just come down to some kook reading from the phone book. Obstructing legislation by repeatedly calling for roll calls, not so much.

[ Parent ]
What If.... (0.00 / 0)

for something critically important, such as health care legislation, the Democrats always had a quorum on the floor? Then to filibuster, the Republicans would actually have to read the phone book.

[ Parent ]
Another procedural dead-end (4.00 / 1)
How easily we let ourselves get derailed into procedural matters.

For Blue Dogs who don't want to pass the progressive agenda, the Senate rules provide a convenient excuse for their inaction on it.  

Why suppose, then, that these same Senators who have found this tool of convenience to justify their inaction will be likely to support the removal of this weapon from their bag of tricks?  

We are chasing our tails here.  The problem is how to mobilize actual pressure on the Senate to move.  This discussion is a diversion from that task.  

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

Unfortunately, this is probably the closet approximation to the truth... (0.00 / 0)
Its fun to think about making the Republicans have to work for their obstructionism, but in the end its the Blue Dogs and conservative Democrats who are using the Republican obstruction to help them keep moderates and progressives at bay.

[ Parent ]
And thus it has ever been (0.00 / 0)
The classic response of the conservative Dems to obstreperous left critics:

Shut up already or we'll just side with the Republicans.  That's our weakness.  We care, they don't give a crap.

It's also our strength.  We just have to beat them.  And it won't be with proceduralism.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Thank God (4.00 / 2)
The nuclear option has been the obvious solution since January.  Just make them do a real fillibuster.  See if that does not peel off a Snowe or a Specter.  Maybe even an occassional McCain or Voinovich.  If not, they are all DeMints and Barassos.  Every single one.  And they will look like the southerners, old boy Plains staters and occassional cowboys that they really are.

The more they do that, the less legitimate it is.  Wyoming and Idaho and Utah and Mississippi are bringing the whole country to a stop.  Grassley goes into the "buy me" routine by demanding goodies for Iowa and only Iowa.  It looks bad and pathetic and maybe hick enough so Broder and friends peel off.  If not, they don't run the country.  We do.  The 306 million and not the 306.

(When General William Tecumseh Sherman headed the Army some time after the Civil War, he moved the Army headquarters from Washington, D.C. to St. Louis.  Move some of the stuff to Detroit and Flint.  That will save jobs in Michigan and starve the cocktail circuit).

Belling the Cat (0.00 / 0)
Go reread Aesop's fable Belling the Cat.

LONG ago, the mice had a general council to consider what measures they could take to outwit their common enemy, the Cat. Some said this, and some said that; but at last a young mouse got up and said he had a proposal to make, which he thought would meet the case. "You will all agree," said he, "that our chief danger consists in the sly and treacherous manner in which the enemy approaches us. Now, if we could receive some signal of her approach, we could easily escape from her. I venture, therefore, to propose that a small bell be procured, and attached by a ribbon round the neck of the Cat. By this means we should always know when she was about, and could easily retire while she was in the neighbourhood." This proposal met with general applause, until an old mouse got up and said: "That is all very well, but who is to bell the Cat?" The mice looked at one another and nobody spoke. Then the old mouse said: "IT IS EASY TO PROPOSE IMPOSSIBLE REMEDIES."

You will not get the Senators to approve a rule change that prevents them from doing that which they so obviously want to do.  It's a waste of time to even talk about it.  Instead, focus on putting actual pressure on them to do what WE want them to do.

Back in the day, when I was a senior in High School, I was afflicted with a strange, but recognizable form of senioritis, I served on a committee of three students that somehow was allowed to meet several times a week to propose revisions the student council constitution.  Our goal was to write something that would give the student council actual control of the school.  Even then, we knew it this was an impossible task, that no revision of any such document would make the slightest difference, that power relations could not be changed this way.  Frankly, I just wanted to hang out with a girl on the committee.  This proposal sounds like the equivalent.  

You will not get the Blue Dogs to voluntarily give up their power.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

This would do nothing to the power of the Blue Dogs! (0.00 / 0)
They gain their power from joining with Republicans to block 60 votes. Since there are only 56 Democrats, plus Al Franken if they can ever get him seated, plus Bernie Sanders and Liber-thug, it will only take at most 7 (eventually 8) Democratic Blue Dogs to block anything.

The only chance Obama has of getting legislation through is if he can round up at least 1 or 2 Republican votes and then muscle the Blue Dogs into line.

That is easier said than done of course.

But, making Republicans mount an actual filibuster would hardly affect the power of the Blue Dogs at all! They could simply not show up to break the filibuster.

The real reason Democrats don't want to do it is because it would ruin their little friendly club. They have more in common with their Republican "Opponents" than they do with the American people.

It's just too unseemly to brawl like this. While we see Republicans as the enemy who must be beaten, they see them as fellow club-members who must not be embarrassed by the demands of the "little people."

You saw this in the reaction to Joe Lieberman's defeat in the 2006 primary. It was like a bunch of aristocrats banding together and submerging all their differences in order to put down a peasant revolt!

You saw it even among Republican senators who united against the violent insistence of their own grass-roots led by people like Rush Limbaugh to reach the "compromise" that headed off the effort to resort to the nuclear option in the first place.

At the time the Republican base was enraged at their pusillanimous sell out!

[ Parent ]
Are you responding to me? (0.00 / 0)
You say "This would do nothing to the power of the Blue Dogs!"

What "this" are you talking about?  I wasn't aware that I was advocating any particular course of action here.

As far as your substantive points go, I agree with you.  I suppose you aren't talking to me after all.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Can't we just get our democratic leaders to just... (0.00 / 0)
do their damn job and vote as one instead of trying to finagle the system? How about that! then we wouldn't have to worry if we were ever to be in the minority again whether it will bite us in the a**.


Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox