good followup (4.00 / 1)

Surely #1 is irrelevent, some Republican will object.

#2 isn't really surprising, but is a key clarification.

I must say in my heart I feel a little uncomfortable demanding Burris fillibuster if he doesn't like the bill but saying it's wrong for a conservative Democrat did the same.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 14:50:58 PM UTC

Not really (0.00 / 0)

This is similar to the logic behind the Progressive Block in the House. Fight fire with fire. If you agree not to filibuster the bill, we'll agree not to filibuster it either. Without that dynamic, you have to fight fire with water, and water the bill down to meet the demands of the only people who are actually threatening to filibuster it.

Of course, in both the House and the Senate this assumes that the other side is also bluffing, and threatening to kill the bill purely as a power-play tactic, and that they (even if only because of pressure from third parties such as leadership and the White House) would rather prefer to see it passed. If they really wouldn't, things get awkward.

---

by: illissius @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 17:53:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is threatening to vote against cloture dangerous? (0.00 / 0)

Given that we want to convince the conservatives that it's an unacceptable strategy? Much better if we could get 12 or so senators to commit to voting against final passage, but still voting for cloture.

---

by: pualo @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 16:04:24 PM UTC

I thought of that as well (0.00 / 0)

We are pushing to end the filibuster and, at a minimum, say supporting Republicans in a filibuster is paramount to party treason.  You can't really have it both ways.  I think it is better to have a baseline assumption against the filibuster and work from there.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 16:26:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well technically no (0.00 / 0)

"Such a motion is required for a bill to be sent to the floor for debate and amendment. If a unanimous consent motion fails--and it only takes one Senator to object for it to fail--then a cloture vote is required for a bill to be sent to the floor for debate and amendment.)"

That is the way Senate practice has shaken out but it is not a requirement. In amy other body the motion to bring the measure to the floor could be debated until no one had anymore to say and then brought to a majority vote. The Senate has bound itself with a rule of unlimited debate and then with the fiction that the opposition is actually prepared to exercise that right ad infinitum on every given measure and so de facto backed into a requirement for cloture but there is no absolute Rule I know of that says it's unanimous consent or a cloture vote with no intermediate course of agreed debate.

Your formulation confuses the difference between what is at basis a parliamentary courtesy backed by a specific rule with a mandated parliamentary procedure. In the modern Senate it may be a distinction without a difference but lets not accept that the principle of majority rule on procedural motions has just been thrown out the window.

In less deliberative meetings an active chairman with a loud gavel and a big voice and selective hearing can move proceedings right along. "Hearing no objections! Bang!"  Certainly there are parliamentary moves to be made in those cases but when push comes to shove a majority backed by the chair can enforce its will

---

by: Bruce Webb @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 16:08:43 PM UTC

Shakespeare (4.00 / 2)

Frequently the "Make me do it" line from FDR was quoted at this site.  Getting five votes (a margin for error from three) would do something else: it would force Obama to either kick in with the favored public option plan or look and be almost deliberately ineffective.

This would be closer to the Shakespeare line from Twelth Night: "Be not afraid of greatness.  Some are born great, some become great, and some have greatness thrust upon em."

Carpe diem, Barrack.  Seize the day.  If greatness is thrust upon you, don't push it away.  

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 16:29:40 PM UTC

Bring me the fainting salts: Revolution no. 3200 (0.00 / 0)

"Overall, this means that there is not even one Democratic Senator who has committed to blocking a health care reform bill without a public option"

Christ! Stop the Presses!!! Not a single Democrat has come out against the principle of democratic majority rule!!!!!!!!!!

If Democrats can't find 50 votes against a bill without a public option, considering that most Republicans are going to vote No on any kind of reform, then that is just the breaks of a little game we call democracy. Trying to maintain the principle "The ends justify the means" is the reason the Far Left (and I don't mean that the way Faux News means it) and the Far Right have ended up settling their political struggles with deadly street battles between Black Shirts and Red Shirts. Come on, listen to your Uncle John

"You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right"

Voting against cloture simply to save the PO is not a solution, it is instead destruction of democratic principles. Don't throw out the democratic baby with your seemingly progressive bathwater. Even if the end result of the immediate process is not exactly "all right".

---

by: Bruce Webb @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 16:35:14 PM UTC

Good job. (0.00 / 0)

But this is not surprising at all.  

---

by: Ramsgate @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 21:52:33 PM UTC

Burris sent me a response to a NOW mailing I sent to him (0.00 / 0)

Senator Burris has an almost instant generic e-mail that he shoots right back when I send him something on his website form or something from a progressive mailing like True Majority. If there is an option to remove his name, I do that sometimes.

For the first time ever, the 10/16/09 e-mail to him about taking out funding for abstinence-only programs resulted in a detailed, 5 paragraph response four days later!

Here's the strongly worded first paragraph:

Thank you for contacting me about family planning and sex education. I strongly believe that we must work to keep America's families strong and that abstinence-only education is neither effective nor responsible in achieving that goal. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Just wanted OpenLeft readers to know that there is one issue that he feels strongly enough about to have a quite detailed reply ready to sent out.

---

by: Books Alive @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 01:24:35 AM UTC