Let's Have Real Filibusters!
If it wasn't already obvious, Senator Ted Cruz's recent talk-a-thon should prove to Majority Leader Harry Reid that the time is now to bring back the old-fashioned "talking" filibuster. The American people would love it. It's entertaining, and we all have fond memories of that Jimmy Stewart movie, right? So come on, Harry, unleash the "real" filibusters!
Ted Cruz's speech was notable for two reasons, really. The first is that it wasn't actually a filibuster -- it was designed to do nothing more than get Ted Cruz's face on television news (which it admirably succeeded at). The second was that, if you ignore that first part, it was apparently the fourth-longest speech in modern Senate history (Strom Thurmond still holds the record at over 24 hours). So there is obviously a desire by some senators to engage in this test of stamina in front of the American public.
Reid has been previously reluctant to support bringing the old-style talking filibusters back. They waste the Senate's time, he has said. And since Democrats hold the majority, the first ones to actually use the filibuster will be Republicans. But they're obviously ready to do so, since Cruz's stunt was actually the second one this year (Rand Paul talked for a much-less-impressive 13 hours, earlier).
Reid should realize that filibusters will -- in the long run -- help Democrats. Right now, and in the immediate future, the spectacle of one senator talking until he drops is an unusual one. The media loves it, mostly for its unique nature. They are fascinated by the process, because it is so rare.
That fascination, however, will die out very soon. If Reid moved for a vote on changing the Senate's rules to force actual talking filibusters, and if such a rule change happened, then it would quickly become apparent how often Republicans are abusing it. Oh, sure, it's seen as noble to stand up and talk all night because you care about matters of war and national security (Paul) or Obamacare (Cruz), but what's going to happen when someone launches a filibuster over some stupid procedural measure? What will the media say then? Will they focus on the novelty of someone endlessly talking, or will they point out the pointless nature of what is actually happening? The American media (much less the public) have a very short attention span, and what is now novel will quickly become normal. The uniqueness will wear off, and my guess is it'll have a very short half-life.
Talking filibusters should return, no matter what the politics of the situation. In the first place, Americans love them because (for once) senators have to actually work for their money. I doubt I could stand and talk for 21 hours -- physically, it is a daunting prospect. So if Republicans want to hold up every piece of legislation, make them talk instead of just "filing a cloture motion." At least the taxpayers will get some entertainment value out of the salaries we pay these folks.
The time for the talking filibuster to return is now. Paul and Cruz have proven that Republicans are ready for it even when the option doesn't actually exist. So why not force all filibusters to happen the way they were originally designed? While it might give a short-term boost to Republicans, in the long run the public will get weary of rampant obstructionism on minor matters, and Republican senators will think twice about whether a measure is important enough to stage a filibuster.
And when that happens, we'll wind up with fewer filibusters than exist now -- because there will be a price to be paid for halting everything for one speech. Only the more important matters will be deemed worthy, instead of (as it stands now) Republicans requiring a 60-vote majority on everything the Senate does.
Which is why now is precisely the time for Reid to act. Right after the budget votes, Reid should introduce the rules change for a vote. He can -- quite rightly -- state that since Republicans feel so strongly about filibustering that they'll even fake one when there is no possible chance of it having any effect on legislation, then why not do it for real next time? Republican senators would probably vote for the rule change, because they'll only see the short-term benefit and not the long-term picture.
Now's the time, Harry. Bring back the talking filibuster!
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Good idea! Though I doubt Republicans will bite. They'll immediately see the disadvantages in having to work all day. Missing fundraisers. Having to work all day. Being seen up there all alone obstructing. Having to work all day. And not being able to block everything indefinitely anonymously. Oh, and did I mention that they'll never agree to having to work all day?
The second was that, if you ignore that first part, it was apparently the fourth-longest speech in modern Senate history (Strom Thurmond still holds the record at over 24 hours).
Yea, that was when Thurmond (a Democrat's Democrat) was filibustering the Civil Rights Act..
Somewhat of an infamous record to hold, wouldn't ya agree?? :D
Now's the time, Harry. Bring back the talking filibuster!
Which might be a worthwhile plea if we were talking about someone who actually has a backbone..
But alas... It's Harry Reid we are talking about, eh....
LD,
Good idea! Though I doubt Republicans will bite. They'll immediately see the disadvantages in having to work all day.
Yea and Democrats are the epitome of nose-to-the-grindstone-ness, eh??
Once again...
Glass Domiciles....
Rocks...
Not good bedfellows...
"Violence and technology? Not good bedfellows"
-Nick, JURASSIC PARK II
Michale
He can -- quite rightly -- state that since Republicans feel so strongly about filibustering that they'll even fake one when there is no possible chance of it having any effect on legislation, then why not do it for real next time?
But there truly can be only one Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week: Texas state senator Wendy Davis (pink shoes and all). Don't ask me why the pink shoes were some sort of enormous deal in the media, because I have no explanation, sorry.
Whatever she had on her feet, though, Davis rode a wave of social media to gain national attention for her filibuster -- a real, old-school, Mr. Smith-style filibuster, mind you -- to block the passage of yet another anti-abortion law in the continuing Republican War On Women. Davis spoke for more than ten hours without bathroom breaks or even being allowed to sit or lean on anything, which is a pretty impressive feat right there.
Ultimately, the victory Wendy Davis scored this week will be crushed, when the Texas senate returns and passes the bill anyway; but the bigger picture shows that Davis has energized Democrats (and women) in Texas more than any single event, at least since a bunch of Texas legislators fled the state to prevent a quorum.
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/06/28/ftp263/
Ring any bells?? :D
Sometimes the only possible option is to at least get your objection on the record in a big way.
I am sure you would agree that Cruz did that..
I'm just sayin'...
Michale
A Small President on the World Stage
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303342104579099623833385780.html?mod=rss_mobile_uber_feed
A sobering assessment of our POTUS, made all the more depressing by it's accuracy.....
It's all part and parcel to the same overall consensus of the US's place in the world..
Syria, obamacare, NSA, IRS, Benghazi, Debt Ceiling, Debt, etc etc etc...
It is a failure of leadership, pure and simple..
We are well on our way to becoming irrelevant on the world stage..
Time will tell whether we have crossed the Rubicon or not...
Michale
Michale,
You obviously haven't been paying attention. Congress, Democrats included, hardly works at all. Republicans, at the federal level, haven't worked at all! They've been too preoccupied with preventing Obama from accomplishing anything to waste any time doing The People's business! That would take time away from pointlessly repealing and/or defunding "Obamacare." And nothing is more vital than keeping tens of millions of uninsured Americans from obtaining affordable healthcare! Just look what a disaster Social Security and Medicare were. If Democrats are allowed to get away with making government work for the people grateful citizens will vote Democratic--forever! That simply has to be avoided! At any cost!
And nothing is more vital than keeping tens of millions of uninsured Americans from obtaining affordable healthcare!
You obviously haven't been paying attention. It's been well established that obamacare does not allow tens of millions of Americans to obtain affordable healthcare..
It further scrooes over tens of millions of Americans by cutting their pay and hours, forcing small businesses to close and chasing doctors away from their chosen professions..
I realize that none of that matters to anyone here..
The Left has well-established that they care for nothing but obama's "signature legislation"...
If Democrats are allowed to get away with making government work for the people grateful citizens will vote Democratic--forever!
Democrats make government work??
Detroit...
'nuff said...
Michale
Michale:
If someone accuses a R of breaking an egg your response is to dredge up some example of a D once breaking a egg. This tit for tat style of argument completely avoids the actual issue at hand and grows tedious. Nevertheless, I would like to hear you address Dave's question; "If the opponents are convinced Obmacare will be an unpopular failure why not simply let it happen and reap the electoral benefits of the ensuing outrage?". I do not understand these scorched earth desperate tactics unless as Dave and many others suspect it is due to the secret expectation that it will be popular and that the opponents will lose support.
SF Bear,
If someone accuses a R of breaking an egg your response is to dredge up some example of a D once breaking a egg. This tit for tat style of argument completely avoids the actual issue at hand and grows tedious.
Believe it or not, I feel EXACTLY the same way as you do regarding this. I call it the "Yea, But" defense.
And, I completely agree that it is not much of a defense..
BUT.. (no 'yea', just 'but') :D
In the type of forum we find ourselves in here, it behooves one to be fair. If you castigate Republicans for doing this this and that and you know that Democrats do it as well, it's ALWAYS a good idea to put in that qualifier..
Anything less smacks of hypocrisy..
That's why, more often than not, when you see me crack down on Democrats for something and Republicans are also guilty of it as well, I usually attach a "Don't get me wrong, GOP is just as guilty as Dems over this...." type rider...
So, while I do agree with you that the "Yea, but" defense is annoying and counter-productive, it's part and parcel to the blame-game we call Partisan Politics..
Nevertheless, I would like to hear you address Dave's question; "If the opponents are convinced Obmacare will be an unpopular failure why not simply let it happen and reap the electoral benefits of the ensuing outrage?".
Ya know, sometimes I wish I could just say 'I would really like an answer' and actually get Weigantians to actually answer.. Oh well, I guess it's just a personal foible of mine, a bear I must cross. :D
Anyways, I will answer that question with a question of my own..
If obamacare is so good and so great why not just "let it happen" and make the Republicans look like fools when it IS so awesome and great??
Naw, I am just kidding. I'll answer the question..
Because the answer to BOTH questions is simply...
It lays the groundwork for the inevitable and oh-so-satisfying "I TOLD YOU SO!!" that follows.. :D
"This excitement isn't about the fun of baseball, it's not about the prize. It's about the gloating and rubbing their noses in it, the "Nah-nah-na-na-na! We beat you!" taunting, if you will, - that comes with the winning. - Yeah! That's right. Oakey Oaks and the Honorable Mayor Turkey Lurkey will finally have bragging rights again for one full year!"
-Announcer, CHICKEN LITTLE
I do not understand these scorched earth desperate tactics unless as Dave and many others suspect it is due to the secret expectation that it will be popular and that the opponents will lose support.
It's called 'politics'. Perhaps you've heard of it. :D
At the risk of using the "Yea, But" defense again...... :D
It's the same thing as when Dems cry the sky is falling over the sequester or government shutdown or all of the other things that invariably fizzle out to nothing..
I hope I have answered your question to your satisfaction. :D
Michale
Believe it or not, I feel EXACTLY the same way as you do regarding this. I call it the "Yea, But" defense.
And, I completely agree that it is not much of a defense..
In other words, I am not denying what ya'all accuse Republicans of. By and large, for the most part Republicans are stone cold guilty of what you accuse them of. (Except for terrorism. That's just redonkulus...)
*MY* point, something ya'all never concede is that, by and large and for the most part, Democrats are guilty of the EXACT same thing.. While there are a few who don't have (much) of a problem admitting that, the majority would rather swallow glass with a gasoline chaser rather than admit that ya'alls precious Democrats are no different than the evil and despicable Republicans..
For example. Ya'all ridicule Cruz for his useless gesture that had absolutely no legislative meaning.
Yet, ya'all applaud and cheer on Little Miss Pink Shoes for the EXACT same useless and meaningless gesture..
You see my point??
Once again, the power of that little, but all-mighty '-x' is on display for all to see...
That is why I employ the "Yea, But" response. Because I am not arguing the point. I am simply spreading it around..
Michale