Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's a great video of Joe Lieberman contradicting himself over and over on the issue of filibusters. Now Tom Harkin says he may introduce a bill to do away with filibusters or put strict limits on them. If the Democrats vote for that, it will make them just as hypocritical as the Republicans because the Democrats waxed eloquent throughout the Bush years about the importance of the filibuster. As usual, the two sides just exchange scripts depending on which party controls which branch of government.
In the 90s, it was the Democrats who wanted to get rid of the filibuster and the Republicans who railed about how evil that idea was. During the Bush administration they flipped positions. Now they're flipping positions again. And when a Republican takes control of the White House and Congress again, they'll flip yet again. It's not about principle, it's about political expediency.
Politics
Comments
How about a simple compromise whereby anyone who wishes to filibuster is required to stand before media, the public, and their god and actually read from the telephone book? If an issue is truly that important, then our elected officials will have no problem doing so, right?
Posted by: History Punk | December 16, 2009 9:25 AM
This is probably one of the reasons why the filibuster won't be changed because the Democrats know that they will again be in the minority eventually.
Posted by: SLC | December 16, 2009 9:57 AM
I just want to say I voted for Ned Lamont.
Not everyone in Connecticut works for an insurance company, I wish the media knew that the larger cities here are falling apart from lack of industry just as in the rest of the northeast.
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 16, 2009 10:12 AM
I heard on NPR last summer that a filibuster used to stop all business, but the rules were changed to allow them to move to the next item and come back to see if anyone changed their mind. The old way put pressure on the members to resolve the issue, since nothing else could get done during the filibuster.
Is this history accurate?
Posted by: Walt | December 16, 2009 10:20 AM
I wish there were some way to get rid of Joe, or at least get him to shut the f*ck up. He's an Independent Democrat now (Last night, Jon Stewart called him a "hermaphrepublican"!); I don't know if that means anything in terms of the Democratic Party's authority.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 16, 2009 10:45 AM
I'm a big fan of the checks and balances in the American political system (I'm a Brit) but general consensus (*) at the moment seems to be that with the GoP refusing to co-operate with anything the Dems go on principle (regardless of content) it's becoming impossible to get anything done in the Senate.
I would hope that, over time, the voters could be persuaded to vote in people who are less viciously partisan but if this doesn't happen how does the US government get unstuck?
Posted by: David Durant | December 16, 2009 10:54 AM
I hate that man. droopy dog butt licking arse.
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | December 16, 2009 10:54 AM
D'oh - forgot to include my citation :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/13/america-broken-political-system-obama
Posted by: David Durant | December 16, 2009 10:59 AM
The Senate should learn from the most successful institution in the country-the NFL. Teams get to challenge referee's calls, but only 2/game. Each Senator should have only a very limited number of votes (maybe 3) against cloture in each session. Use them up and that's it.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | December 16, 2009 10:59 AM
My hindsight defense of Al Gore having been the far superior candidate in 2000 is weakened considerably given Sen. Lieberman's dishonest, hypocritical, incoherent, and juvenile behavior over the past couple of years.
Mr. Lieberman's stated rationale for opposing the public option actually argues for the public option (actually his rationale is fairly incoherent, but if you parse it carefully, you end up in favor of the public option). I also have yet to encounter a journalist getting him on the record as to why his opposition to an element of an overall bill justifies his filibustering his own caucus. He claims it as his right, but that's not a justification unless you're an eight year old.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 16, 2009 11:13 AM
I actually had a fair idea about how to "end" the filibuster. Right now it takes almost a supermajority to end one, right? Well, about 6 less, but close enough. What about simply requiring the lesser minority - 40 senators - to move business? That way, unless there is valid opposition to a bill on the part of a large portion of the voting body, the bill can move on to requiring a simple majority to pass. I've seen this sort of system work before in a school senate and it allows for the "limitless discussion" that the filibuster is supposed to guarantee without deadlocking the voting body.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 16, 2009 12:07 PM
Ed,
Please stop holding the Senate accountable to themselves. If you just listen to what they say on a given day, it's not nearly as nauseating as when you compare the present to the past. I blame you for the nausea, and I'm sending you the medical bills (feel free to forward them to Lieberman).
b
Posted by: barry21 | December 16, 2009 12:12 PM
if this doesn't happen how does the US government get unstuck?
David,
It doesn't - and that is why we're finished. Would you folks have any interest in coming over here and taking us back over? We obviously cannot govern ourselves.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 16, 2009 12:19 PM
Sorry, that should have been "greater minority" not lesser. In order (if I remember my parliamentary rules), it's supposed to be lesser minority (1/3), greater minority (40%), simple minority (one less than 1/2), simple majority (one more than 1/2), lesser majority (60%), greater majority (2/3), and unanimous (100%). So right now it takes a lesser majority to invoke cloture; if we made that a greater minority, we could end the deadlock without taking away one of the better features of the Senate.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 16, 2009 12:20 PM
Ed, I keep telling you. It's the rules of the game. You could be the most honest, lovely human being, motivated only by principle, clone yourself and get elected 100 times to the Senate, and the filibuster would still exist.
The key is to change the rules.
And there are a lot of things in the very structure of the Senate body that are precisely designed to stop stuff from getting done. The fact that we have a Senate at all is supposed to do that! It's why we have a bicameral legislature (well, one reason) -- to make sure that small populations can block legislation they don't have the numbers for.
It's like complaining that in a poker game (which you know more about than I) somebody bluffs you successfully. It's part of the rules.
Posted by: Jesse | December 16, 2009 12:45 PM
I like Matthew Yglesias's idea of a bi-partisan promise to get rid of the filibuster starting in 2017. By then all senators will have faced re-election and a potential Obama 2nd term would also be over.
For full disclosure, I was pro-filibuster during the Bush years, and I have since changed my opinion. I think it is too burdensome to the responsiveness of congress. It should also be noted that the 40 Republicans actually only represent 1/3 of the population. I would rather conservative bills pass with the knowledge that they can be overturned in 2 years rather than not being able to pass almost any significant legislation despite the will of the majority. It would require more work to hold on progressive legislation (e.g., social security, medicare, etc.) but it would give people more of a reason to be engaged in the political process.
Posted by: penn | December 16, 2009 12:45 PM
penn, the idea is to change the dynamic to allow bad bills to be killed quickly without clogging the legislative table and to allow good bills with broad support to move on to an up-or-down vote. Other rules that exist in the senate already will take care of the discussion and amendment process.
Besides, the Senate was never supposed to represent population; it was supposed to ensure the rights of the states themselves. The reason for the bicameral legislature was to allow the people to drive the legislative process but to temper the progress with a consideration of the consequences. The Senate being slow and deliberative isn't a bad thing at all - we need it! The problem today is that the Senate's rules are being hijacked by people with no regard for the deliberative process who just want to block any progress for political gain. Taking away that ability while still maintaining the essential nature of the Senate, in my mind, should be our focus here.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 16, 2009 1:02 PM
You want us to watch Joe Lieberman wiggle and jiggle? EEEWWWW!!! I'd rather ogle women's breasts and be mistaken for a rapist. Better for the health donchaknow...
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 16, 2009 1:17 PM
The problem isn't filibuster, it's procedural filibuster. It used to be that the members of the senate had to stand up and do a Jimmy Steward (Mr. Smith) and actually talk, today they've established this procedural bullshit that let's them say they would filibuster without requiring them to go through the actual trouble (or fallout) of filibustering. When the idea was presented it likely seemed like a good idea, we table a controversial piece of legislation, get other work done, and try to go back to it later. Unfortunately today it's become a major problem and a roadblock to even popular, correct legislation.
If you threaten to filibuster, then do it dammit, get rid of this 'procedural' BS.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 16, 2009 3:28 PM
At this point, I just don't care any more. They're all hypocrites some, if not most of the time anyway, so let's just abolish the filibuster once and for all, and let the chips fall where they may. Who knows, the voting public might actually like a Congress that can get things done for a change, instead of this endless wheeling and dealing that goes exactly nowhere.
I know people like to say that the less Congress does the better, but the problem is that they still do things, it's just that everything that's even half effective gets watered down into oblivion. Are half-measures really always better than full ones? As I said before, I'm beginning to appreciate systems where the majority really does rule and things get done.
I think if you sat down and compared the scale of the domestic reforms in the USA and the UK over the last 30 years (since Reagan and Thatcher took over, respectively), then the American Congress can't hold a candle to what the British Parliament has achieved in that time. (Admittedly, many of the British reforms, like privatization, and reforming the House of Lords were long overdue, but they could only be done because the strength of the governing party and the fact that--essentially--a simple, single chamber majority is all that was necessary.)
It doesn't always go according to plan, but reversing bad legislation is also easier when you don't have to keep finding compromises with the minority opposition. And the more and more I see of this filibuster-driven paralysis, the more I want the American voters to see the full consequences of their votes -- i.e. give the voted-in majority a chance to legislate and then stand by that record.
Posted by: tacitus | December 16, 2009 3:47 PM
And not to pick on him, but I don't think his solution would work. The minority party in the Senate always has some legislation they'd be eager to move, if there were no restrictions on what could be moved. But as their own legislation is likely stuck in committee, requiring them to move legislation--if it was required to be legislation that had cleared committee--would be setting up an impossible standard.
I stand with dogmeatIB--go back to the real filibuster. If the Senate Dems really want this legislation (and I doubt they do--they're letting Lieberman take the heat for them), they should commit to staying in session non-stop until they wear down the filibusterers. Make Lieberman actually stand there and see if he can break Strom Thurmond's record. (Of course with Lieberman's speaking style, the Dems better have a tanker truck full of coffee and a warehouse full of no-doz so they're all awake when the moment comes).
Posted by: James Hanley | December 16, 2009 4:59 PM
I've also seen a few calls for term limits again. Funny how that idea was dropped just as soon as the GOP had a majority and is back now that they are the minority.
And the senate should go back to requiring senators to actually stand up and talk during their filibusters.
Posted by: Cthulhu's minion | December 16, 2009 6:05 PM
James, the idea is that the procedural filibuster would be abolished but the minority would still be able to put the brakes on bad legislation - like, say when the majority party starts taking down industry regulation without evaluating the consequences. Or the majority can kill it outright by invoking cloture and sending it to a straight vote, or maybe protect the bill from killer amendments.
In the end, it would make party affiliation less important to the passage of a bill. Nothing else about the filibuster would change except the number required for cloture and the abolishment of the procedural tactic.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 16, 2009 7:15 PM
penn:
Even in the 109th Congress, the 55 Republican senators represented only a minority of the US population. I don't know if Republican senators ever represented a majority (maybe in the 1920s).Ryan:
Idiocy by design is no less of an idiocy.Posted by: bullfighter | December 16, 2009 8:55 PM
Ed:
That's not quite true. There is a significant number of Democrats who are still supportive of the filibuster. Hell, there are several Democrats eager to filibuster bills from their own party!BTW, what I am saying is not a defense of Democrats, but an indictment.
Posted by: bullfighter | December 16, 2009 9:02 PM
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 16, 2009 9:37 PM
@6 David Durant "I'm a big fan of the checks and balances in the American political system (I'm a Brit) but general consensus (*) at the moment seems to be that with the GoP refusing to co-operate with anything the Dems go on principle (regardless of content) it's becoming impossible to get anything done in the Senate.
I would hope that, over time, the voters could be persuaded to vote in people who are less viciously partisan but if this doesn't happen how does the US government get unstuck?"
Unstuck? This congress spent more money in their first few months on the job than any in history. Impossible to get anything done? They have greased up the pork barrel spending machine and made no excuses... well okay the down economy is the excuse for vast spending increases that stretch out for years into the future. Presumably well past when any stimulus will be needed.
Most everyone is missing Ed's point that the two sides simply exchange scripts and move forward with their agendas.
Posted by: Rich | December 17, 2009 4:00 AM
I didn't miss that point, Rich. It's just been so obvious for the past twenty or so years that it's hard to see any other way things could be. I've said over and over again that conservatism, progressivism, and any other -ism you can name are not by definition bad things.
As long as we have the ability to discuss, disagree and compromise, a person's -ism is a reasonable stance to take in political discussion. But you may have noticed that these days, a person's -ism has become part of his or her identity (starting with somewhere near my mother's generation, in the 60's) and it isn't possible to disagree without the other part feeling like their identity is being denied. The result? A political process that results to formalism to keep things moving. We can't even have a reasonable discussion about substantive issues anymore, so we resort to political "tactics" - and those are the same whichever side of the aisle you happen to identify with.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 17, 2009 8:18 AM
Ryan:
Mr. Jefferson, that begs the question: is it self-evident? If you're going to say it is, you'll also have to show why. Otherwise, you're just expressing an opinion.Of course it's an opinion, but opinions matter. The idea of "rights of states" is idiotic on its face. That is far more self-evident than what Jefferson asserted in the DoI, but do you apply the same criteria to those opinions?
Posted by: bullfighter | December 17, 2009 8:34 AM