Signs of movement to reform filibuster starting to appear

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 13:45


In the wake of the Massachusetts special election, the first signs of Democrats looking to reform of the filibuster, and bring democracy to the Senate, are starting to appear.  Mike Stark reports:

The Democratic Caucus is discussing ways of altering or getting around the 60 votes requirement to overcome a filibuster.

I spoke with Senator Bob Casey (D, PA) earlier today. He told me that the Democratic caucus was "working through" how to get around the 60-vote threshold for moving legislation. He said that it was the "subject of a lot of discussion at the end of the year" and "will be in the future". He went on to say that there may be alternatives to rounding up the required 67 votes to change the rules and the caucus is exploring that. One possible justification for getting creative? According to the Senator, "Sometimes the other party approaches it a different way."

It's pretty cryptic, but it is still encouraging.

The talk isn't just in the Democratic Senate caucus.  In addition to the frequent discussion within the blogosphere, there is currently a lot of back channel discussion among progressive activists and groups, too.  Having been a part of some of these discussions myself, in the extended entry I can tell you a little bit about the other stirrings to reform the filibuster.

Chris Bowers :: Signs of movement to reform filibuster starting to appear
First, such talks are very much in the exploratory stage.  Some progressives are honestly worried about destroying it, both because it would look like a power grab and because they are concerned about the implications for future legislation when Republicans are in charge.  Some progressives are not even convinced it would change much, and that the filibuster is largely a procedural excuse Democrats hide behind to avoid doing something they wouldn't do under a 51-vote Senate, anyway.  Others just don't think it can be done.  

Of course, because we are progressives, everyone has different ideas on how the filibuster should be reformed.  Some want to return it to the old "make them read the phone book" filibuster.  Some want to reduce it to 55 rather than 51. Some want to adopt Harkin's proposal:

Under Harkin's bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), 60 votes would still be necessary to cut off debate on an initial procedural motion. If senators failed to reach 60 votes, a second vote would be possible two days later that would require only 57 votes to cut off debate. If that also failed, a third vote two days after that would require 54 votes to end debate. A fourth vote after two more days would require just 51 votes.

Wow--I can't believe Joe Lieberman is taking the lead on something that I like.

Even though there are disagreements on whether it should happen, and exactly how it should happen, there are an increasing number of groups and activists who want to get rid of the filibuster altogether.  These groups are willing to live with the trade off of Republicans not having to deal with the filibuster when they are in the majority.   For them, the filibuster is more of an impediment to progressive governance than to conservative governance, and certainly more of an impediment to change than to the status quo.  Further, the 60-vote culture is simply an anathema to democracy.

To make filibuster reform happen, the best route is likely through a rule change in the Senate the first day it is in session for 2011.  On the first day of every Senate, rule changes only require 51 votes--and the Constitution allows for rules to be changed to whatever a majority of the Senate wants.  While I am a proponent of the nuclear option, which would just do away with the filibuster forever, taking the path to change the Senate rules allows for a more precise rule change.  For example, changing the rules at the start of the 112th Congress could allow the Senate to just adopt Harkin's legislation (which allows the opposition to delay, nut not ultimately block) as the new

Pushing for something more precise, like Harkin's proposal, will probably be necessary in order to secure partners within the Senate Democratic caucus.  Such partners will be absolutely necessary in any campaign to reform the filibuster and bring democracy to the Senate.  At the same time, outside pressure should focus like a laser on just ending the filibuster in all circumstance, forever.  Further, we should promise to work with Republicans should they try to end the filibuster when they are in the majority.  If we take the hardest line possible--end the filibuster in all circumstances in partnership with any party or group of Senators--and then possibly end up with Harkin's proposal, which is effectively the same thing with a six-day delay.

As Senator Casey implied in his talk with Mike Stark, it is going to be a year-long campaign. A useful early step would be getting a whip count on Senator Harkin's proposal by bringing it to the floor.  Hopefully that will happen between now and February 13th.  Even if it doesn't, it is time to start organizing for democracy in the Senate anyway.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Signs of movement to reform filibuster starting to appear | 38 comments
All you progressives calling for an end to the filibuster apparently lack memories (4.00 / 1)
You forget that without it we'd be looking at a Supreme Court and federal judiciary packed with Robert Borks.

Does the filibuster suck, absolutely.  

But people need to stop ignoring that: a) we're not going to be in the majority forever, and b) that the Senate only votes on legislation.  

The most disappointing moment for me of many in my membership in the Democratic Party was the roll over on both Roberts and more unjustifiably Alito.  If the Dems weren't bought and sold for they would have derailed Alito.  And they could have with the filibuster.  Without it, the nominees both would have been much worse than both.

It's scary to think that there are people even worse than Alito out there that are actually considered for federal lifetime appointments to the bench.

So yes, reform the filibuster, (maybe require Senators to actually filibuster - stand up there and read the phone book - and the requirement to be 41 votes to continue debate as opposed to 60 to end thereby making the filibustering party remain in the chamber), but don't eliminate it.

And come 5 years from now ... (4.00 / 2)
if the Republicans are back in control of the Senate .. they'll get the Bayh's .. Landrieu's .. and Kent Conrad's to join them .. just like they did for the Iraq War
[ Parent ]
Actually... (4.00 / 3)
The most disappointing moment for me of many in my membership in the Democratic Party was the roll over on both Roberts and more unjustifiably Alito.  If the Dems weren't bought and sold for they would have derailed Alito.  And they could have with the filibuster.  Without it, the nominees both would have been much worse than both.

Actually, in the cases of Roberts and Janice Roberts Brown, there were 10 democrats who voted with the republicans for cloture. The rest voted against.

The problem with the democrats is that there are usually 10 conservative/sell-outs/crooks among democrats in the senate and that ruins it for the rest of them, who aren't so bad. On Judicial nominees, even Obama wasn't so bad as a senator. He may have voted for cloture on Roberts, but eventually voted against confirming him (this was the only time when I thought Feingold was flat-out wrong when he voted to confirm him).

But I digress...
  It's actually the ten conservative sell-outs, like Landrieu, Lieberman, Conrad, Baucus, the Nelsons that ruin it for the rest of the dems.

[ Parent ]
As Opposed To Alito and Roberts? (4.00 / 5)
Name ONE THING Bush really wanted to do that was blocked by the Democratic Senators in his entire 8 years!

There are NO persons "worse than Alito" who would be nominated. Bush got EXACTLY the nominees he wanted -- they were hand selected years in advance and there was NO compromise.

It's true that both were "stealth" candidates during their confirmation hearings, but so what? What difference would that make if they came out and said: "I just can't wait to eliminate abortion rights and give corporations power over every aspect of our everyday lives" instead of just waiting until they were on the bench to do it?

And from the right-wing view they worked out great. They are both young enough they will be on the court for the next 40 years if they want to be.

The ONLY thing Bush DIDN'T get passed was Social Security privatization -- and that wasn't because of Democrats but because he couldn't get enough REPUBLICANS lined up to destroy it!

Well, suppose he had? What would have happened? Social Security would have tanked with the stock market collapse -- and the Republican party would have probably been destroyed in the process. They'd be worried about holding Oklahoma and Wyoming right now, instead of talking about taking Barbara Boxer's seat in California.

The horrible dynamic we've had for the last 30 years is that right-wing Republicans try something crazy -- and Democrats block it or whittle it down. Then when a disaster DOESN'T happen the right wing just screams louder the next time!

Perfect example: Bush tax-cuts. They originally offered NO tax cuts for middle class people. Democrats insisted ADDING middle class tax cuts -- forced Republicans to change the bill -- and now that's all anybody cares about!

Instead of passing a 10-cent tax cut for middle class people Democrats should have totally opposed everything -- just the way Republicans are doing now on HCR.

Then they could have spent the next 10 years saying: "all Republicans want to do is give tax cuts to the rich" every time a Conservative opened his mouth with their idiot "tax-cut" mantra.

Dems could say with withering effect: "Did YOU ever see 1 penny of benefit from all the tax cuts? Republicans are just the party of the rich! They flat don't care about folks like you and their tax bill proves it!"

We would have repealed the Bush tax cuts by now and would be pressing for a TAX INCREASE on the rich -- to put the top marginal tax rate back where it was under Nixon -- over 50%. And increase the capital gains tax too.

In short --- the filibuster keeps the public from realizing the true disasters that result from conservative policies -- because Democrats are forever trying to water them down or introduce little "good things" to the bill.

It's like adding a lump of sugar into a large dose of poison! And Democrats are ALWAYS doing that sort of thing!


[ Parent ]
Privatizing social security (0.00 / 0)
And that was a big, big deal.
[ Parent ]
That wasn't prevented (4.00 / 2)
by a filibuster.
[ Parent ]
They aren't progressives, and they do have short memories. (0.00 / 0)
Just ask Joe Biden, who had this to say when the GOP ruled the Senate and wanted to eliminate the filibuster:

For Joseph Biden, the Delaware Democrat and a senator since 1973, the Senate remains a place where "you can always slow things down and make sure that a minority gets a voice," he said recently. And, he added, "the chance to filibuster"-using extended debate in order to block legislation-"is what makes the difference between this body and the other one."

The people calling for an end to the filibuster aren't progressives, not with the way they keep resorting to Republican talking points to argue their positions.  They keep harping on the filibuster as though it's this anti-democratic tactic, but the Republicans managed to pass almost everything they wanted and get most if not all of their appointees approved without having a filibuster-proof majority.  So obviously it wasn't an issue back when they were in charge.

And if they weren't so consumed by the attitude Sirota was writing about yesterday (check out his entry on this subject here), they'd realize that they're engaging in the very same anti-Democratic behavior the Republicans do each and every moment of their wretched existences.  I mean, how stupid do fake progressives people think people are, that we can't see through their harping?  They need to come down off the GOP mantra of democracy=bad-when-it's-inconvenient-to-us and stop using it as an excuse to avoid doing the real work of replacing bad politicians with good ones.

Because that's what this is really all about, when you strip away all the bull.  It's a lot tougher in the minds of fake progressives to pressure or remove corporate politicians like Reid and Obama and yes, even Pelosi (who as Speaker of the House has enabled Republican policies and stymied progressive ones), so they want to take what they think is the easier route of eliminating the filibuster.  But what guarantee do they have for the rest of us that it will change anything?  All it will do is make it even easier for bad bills to be passed into law, and there will be no stopping it.  It won't make Democrats stop governing like they're Republicans.  Reid won't do a 180º turn and suddenly begin leading his caucus, enforcing party discipline, holding right-wing Democrats to the proverbial fire.  It's not going to happen.

Is the short-term gain fake progressives think they're getting, but won't, really worth the irreparable harm done to this country should they get their way?  No.  Will eliminating the filibuster magically force Democrats in the Senate to stop letting corporations and Republicans dictate which laws they pass?  No.  Will it force Harry Reid to maintain any semblance of party discipline so members don't bolt and vote with the GOP?  No.  Will Democrats pass good laws instead of bad ones?  Absolutely not.  But removing the filibuster will allow a fifty-one vote majority to pass whatever batsh-- insane legislation it wants, and appoint any batsh-- insane right-winger to federal courts that it wants, and we won't have any way to keep that from happening.

This is because the problems in the Senate have nothing to do with structure and everything to do with the nature of the people who occupy it.  These problems can't be solved by eliminating a procedural tactic that wasn't even necessary for the Republicans to pass almost everything they wanted and appoint almost everyone they wanted appointed to federal offices.  So to those clamoring for elimination of the filibuster, I ask you this: stop and think about what you're demanding.  The consequences to the rest of us simply are not worth it.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman

[ Parent ]
"democracy"? democracy is majority rule! Period. (4.00 / 1)
In the case of the Senate, this means 51 votes (or 50  + VP). Not 60. And no amount of "the end justifies the means" spinning will change that.

Plus: The others here who argue that the filibuster never really keept the rethuglicans fom finding their votes, only the Dems, are totally right!

[ Parent ]
Which is why our was designed to be a representative democracy. (0.00 / 0)
As opposed to a direct democracy, which is rule by mob.  Face facts: the filibuster isn't going anywhere and it shouldn't.  It's the last remaining weapon we'll have, even though "our" side never uses it anymore, against Republican tyranny once they return to officially controlling the Senate (they control it unofficially now).  And if it is gotten rid of, you'll be one of the loudest whining about how the GOP rams its bills down our throats with a mere fifty-one votes.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
I can't speak for him (4.00 / 1)
But I sure won't.  I believe in democracy.  And how dare you call me not a progressive when you yourself are resorting to Federalist/John Bircher ("this is a republic, not a democracy") talking points.
[ Parent ]
A representative democracy is still a democracy. (0.00 / 0)
Whenever someone brings up the word 'republic' I get images in my head of the Roman Empire before it dropped all pretenses of being a republic and became an empire ruled by dictate.  And let's be clear about fake progressives: it's not enough to talk the talk.  They have to walk the walk, and do it consistently.  Now, why would you think what I wrote applies to you?

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
The filibuster isn't part of a "representative democracy"! (4.00 / 1)
You're totally off the track here. Your argument doesn't hold any water. The filibuster is a distortion, an artificial costruct to increase the Senator's power beyond reasonable limits. There's nothing "representative" or "democratic" about that.

Really, the reasonable part of your agument simply boils down to "the end always justifies the means". That's not part of any democratic  system. And at the same time, the alleged "end" isn't even realistic for the Dems, as overwhelming evidence shows. No, the filibuster can't be justified, not even by that undemocratic strategy.

[ Parent ]
Sure it is. (0.00 / 0)
In a direct democracy, the mob rules and the minority is shafted.  In a representative democracy, such as ours is, the rights of the minority are (at least on paper, though seldom in practice) balanced against the rights of the majority.  That's how our system of government has always worked.  If you don't like that a slim majority can't shove every insane piece of legislation it wants through, if you can't handle that a mere fifty-one senators can't appoint any corporate flunky to positions of power, then tough.  Just because you find one aspect of the political process inconvenient for the moment doesn't mean we should ditch it -- especially when it's looking as though the Dems won't be able to hold the Senate.

Do you even care that by eliminating the filibuster, we end democracy?

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman

[ Parent ]
What you're descibing is representative whatsits name, but... (0.00 / 0)
...not really democratic! Democracy is the rule of the majority, period. Not an abitary 60% hurdle!

See, the point isn't at all if the US are a representative or a direct system, or anything in between. This has no impact on the filibuste being undemocratic!

And what shall I make of this: "If you don't like that a slim majority can't shove every insane piece of legislation it wants through, if you can't handle that a mere fifty-one senators can't appoint any corporate flunky to positions of power, then tough." HUH? Hey, Dude, I'm all for majority rule! That's why I'm against the filibuster. Hell, this argument coming from you doesn't makeany sense, since you've been defending the filbuster here as "the last remaining weapon we'll have"! If you believe in your statement abvove, how csan you still stomp for the supemajority requirement???

[ Parent ]
No, it's democratic. (0.00 / 0)
Have you ever tried taking a civics class?  I suspect not.  The filibuster is part of the democratic process whether you like it or not.  And why would you even ask what you should make of what I wrote?  Make nothing of it that isn't written.  I am glad that you don't control the Senate.  If you did, not only would you lose it to the GOP they would be lining up to thank you for handing them the best gift they could have gotten.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
Blah, humbug. (0.00 / 0)
"I am glad that you don't control the Senate." I don't have any such ambitions, but I'm still quite sure I would fare better than you. There already are enough Senators who make no sense.
[ Parent ]
Dude, if you were in the Senate you'd "lead" like Harry Reid. (0.00 / 0)
And we all know what a disater he is as Democratic Party leader in the Senate.  Your insistence on tyranny of the majority is exactly what the founders designed the current system of government to prevent.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
"tyranny of the majority"? This is idiotic! (0.00 / 0)
You're defending the filibuster here! Isn't this the tyranny of the supermajority? Really, this line of arguing by you is nuts.
[ Parent ]
Yes, it is idiotic, which is why the founders took steps to prevent it. (0.00 / 0)
Like it or not, the filibuster exists to keep people like Scalia, Roberts, and Alito from sailing through with a mere fifty-one votes in the Senate -- that's as it should be.  Without it, the rights of the minority can be, will be, and have been ignored.  What's at issue here is not that Republicans are able to block legislation they disagree with, for that's their job, but that Reid won't hold party discipline so as to use his caucus's super-majority to pass legislation.  Remember: the GOP got most of its legislative agenda passed through the Senate without a filibuster-proof majority.

Let me reiterate that, because you keep ignoring this fact: The GOP got most of its legislative agenda passed through the Senate without a filibuster-proof majority.  And when Republicans did want to eliminate a legislative block the Democrats seldom used, that party was all in a tizzy for what it would mean -- Republicans implementing an anti-democratic Senate that would crush the minority representation every single time.  It's only now that your party is in power that you now adopt yet another GOP position so your party can do exactly the same thing the GOP wanted to do.  I'm just seeing a lot of hypocrisy and anti-democratic tendencies in your argument, with no substance to back it up.  Is democracy only to be practiced when it's convenient to you, to be discarded when it is inconvenient?  You need to step back and think about your position on this issue, because if you were to have your way, democracy would be further injured.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman

[ Parent ]
The filibuster isn't in the constitution. (4.00 / 1)
That's not part of the system, its distortion attached to it by the Senators, in order to increease their power. And, as you said, it's a useless "weapon" for Dems because of all the sellouts. Wake up and face reality, it only helps the rethuglicans!  
[ Parent ]
The Can Pass Anything They Want Right Now! (4.00 / 1)
That's the point! The Corporations have their hooks so deep in the Congress that literally EVERYTHING they want gets passed and nothing they don't want.

Changing the filibuster rules can't hurt. There wasn't ONE bill during Bush's 8 year Presidency that he didn't get passed anyway, with the sole exception of Social Security Repeal.

And it certainly wasn't Democrats who blocked that, it was REPUBLICANS who refused to support it because it was wildly unpopular and they would all have been crushed by the Senior lobby if they voted that one through.

There wouldn't have been 60 Democrats if they passed that bill, more like around 70!

The point is that Republicans always have Democrats to bail them out when they prose something totally INSANE that will be wildly unpopular. The Bush tax cuts were a perfect example. Social Security was another.

Why shouldn't we have DEMOCRACY in America instead of a plutocracy where 41 Senators can block anything at all?  

[ Parent ]
See my original comment in this thread. (0.00 / 0)
The reason we need the filibuster is because once the GOP retakes the Senate, we will need that as our last chance to prevent bad legislation and appointees from going through.  Obviously, the Democrats aren't going to use it, but why take away the one tool they'll have if any of them decides to grow a pair and challenge the Rethugs, just because bloggers want them to take the lazy way out when it comes to governing?

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
A more extremist court might be good (0.00 / 0)
If the court is made up of conservative extremists, it could have the effect of energizing voters to favor laws that more clearly spell out the will of the People; laws that a simple majority Senate would be better able to enact.

Further, ending the filibuster could be a first step toward making the Supreme Court more responsive to the people, especially if it helps to make it more likely that Congress would impeach Supreme Court justices that are traitors to Democracy (like Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy).

As it stands now, the entire government is beholden to a block of 41 votes in one half of one branch of a government that, in a democracy, is supposed to represent all of its citizens.

The filibuster is an abomination.

[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
So yes, reform the filibuster, (maybe require Senators to actually filibuster - stand up there and read the phone book - and the requirement to be 41 votes to continue debate as opposed to 60 to end thereby making the filibustering party remain in the chamber), but don't eliminate it.

Both reforms should be enacted.  The idea that someone can bring the Senate to a halt without having to do anything - hell, they could be sitting on their couch at home watching TV - is almost as ridiculous as the idea that in a 59-0 vote, the 0 has it.

Of course, since changing these rules would mean actually making Senators do some work, you can expect there to be bipartisan opposition to this kind of reform.  If so - constitutional amendment by way of national convention?

[ Parent ]
That's Reid's fault for accommodating the GOP to the unreasonable extremes he does. (0.00 / 0)
He lets them phone in their threats to filibuster, for crying out out!  MAKE the bastards go on record trying to kill a good bill, and MAKE them endure the public backlash!  But no, Reid doesn't even require them to show up.  That's no excuse, though, for handing the GOP unfettered power to ram through legislation and fascist appointees.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
Is that really up to Reid? (0.00 / 0)
And if so, why is he not doing anything?  "He's weak" can't be the entire answer, as much as we'd like it to be.
[ Parent ]
It's not just that Reid is weak. (0.00 / 0)
At heart, he enjoys letting the GOP dictate what goes through the Senate and what doesn't.  I suspect he thinks it gives him cover with Nevada voters.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
If Democrats are afraid of appearing power-hungry (0.00 / 0)
Then reach an agreement with Republicans to end the filibuster effective the first day of 2013, when no one is 100% sure who will be in charge, while working to bring it to an end even sooner.  It sounds like it's almost going to take that long anyways in a best-case scenario.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
How Can The Senate EVER Get 67 Votes To End Filibuster? (0.00 / 0)
They are simply NEVER going to do it.

They couldn't get 50 votes for it right now.  

50 would be enough (4.00 / 1)
for the nuclear option if Biden were on board. Don't pay any attention to the kabuki; the Dems love the filibuster because it gives them an excuse not to do anything.
[ Parent ]
It Still Takes 67! (0.00 / 0)
A change to Senate rules would require 67 votes for passage and few expect Republicans to unilaterally give up their power to obstruct.

If you wait until 2010, well by then there will be a LOT fewer Dems in the Senate and they will be cowed and terrified of angering their Republican masters. (Even more than they are now). Meanwhile Obama will be trying to "reach out to Republicans to get things done" -- like focusing on "entitlement reform" by appointing a commission to force through cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Because "we can't afford them."

[ Parent ]
It does not take 67 for the nuclear option. (0.00 / 0)
You could look it up, as Casey Stengel would say. Wikipedia has a very clear explanation.

It's based on a point of order and a ruling from the chair, which is not debatable and must immediately be either sustained or overturned by simple majority vote if any member objects to the ruling.

[ Parent ]
At the beginning of the session (0.00 / 0)
rules must be adopted, which means the Senate operates under normal parliamentary procedure.

I love seeing all these progressives defend the filibuster as democratic though. It must be news to you know, every other country in the world, that they are not democracies.

[ Parent ]
Concern about what will happen when Republicans regain control (4.00 / 5)
seems misplaced. In the improbable event that a Republican majority can't find enough compliant Democrats for cloture, does anyone seriously doubt that the filibuster would be gone within a week?  
What do you mean, "improbable?" (0.00 / 0)
Those dimwits just lost the Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy for over four and a half decades!  Do you really think they won't lose that house of Congress in 2012, after suffering more losses this year?  And yes, if they can't get enough wimpy Dimocrats to jump on board some crazy-a$$ piece of corporate-friendly legislation, they will definitely try to remove the filibuster.  If there's one thing that can be said of politicians, especially conservatives, it's that they never, never learn.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
"improbable" (4.00 / 1)
= the Republicans failing to find enough compliant Democrats to break filibusters, not the possibility of their regaining the majority.
[ Parent ]
D'oh! (4.00 / 1)
I misread what you wrote.  My bad, sorry!

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
woy (4.00 / 2)
"it would look like a power grab"

oh noes. not that.

the people who will say bad things about you are going to say bad things about you no matter what. this is the kind of overt trimming for appearances's sake that kills Democrats - "we don't want to LOOK greedy" implies the opposite.

just stand up for it. i will grab power for majority rule, hell yes.

PS what is the particular significance of Harkin getting his bill in before Feb 13? so that it will fail a cloture vote this year before the elections? we cab push Senate candidates to take a stance on the proposal whether there's an active bill or not, yes?

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

Signs of movement to reform filibuster starting to appear | 38 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox