Last night, President Joe Biden participated in a town hall in Cincinnati, Ohio, hosted by CNN and moderated by Don Lemon. He made some news there, because when he was directly asked if preserving the Senate filibuster was more important than passing voting rights bills, he sounded like he kind of wanted to have it both ways. He seems absolutely convinced that either: (1) Republicans are going to suddenly magically develop a conscience and a high-minded sense of civic duty and start joining with Democrats to pass good legislation; or (2) that getting rid of the filibuster would somehow "throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done." The first seems naive, at best. The second, however, is completely backwards.

Early on in the program, an audience member asked Biden in general about his prioritizing bipartisanship to a ridiculous degree, but without specifically mentioning the filibuster:

I am dismayed at how often Democratic plans for stabilizing the economy or shoring up new strains of the virus are held hostage by the Utopian need to gain bipartisan support. It appears, at every turn, the Democratic plan is weakened and still secures zero Republican votes. Sometimes the opposition is just wrong, and working to get them to agree with you is fruitless. Why is the strategy to abandon the need for bipartisanship not the right answer?

Biden reminisced about his time in the Senate for a bit, and then stated his belief that (as he predicted during his campaign) "the fever would break" among Republicans:

I was able to get an awful lot of compromises put together to do really good things, to change things. And I still believe that's possible.... A lot of my Republican friends say, "Joe, I -- I know you're right, but if I do this, I'll get primaried and I'll lose my primary. I'll be in trouble."

But I think that's all beginning to move. I don't mean overnight. Don't get me wrong, I'm not playing out some panacea here. But I think people are figuring out that if we want to -- I've always found you get rewarded for doing what you think at the time is the right thing, and people really believe you believe it's the right thing to do.

You can see why the word "naive" might not even be strong enough. But later on, Biden was specifically asked about the filibuster, in relation to passing voting rights and election reform bills. In this exchange, Biden can only be called "downright delusional." Host Don Lemon restated the question as: "Why is protecting the filibuster -- is that more important than protecting voting rights, especially for people who fought and died for that?" Biden responded [Note: in part -- a more extended version of both of these exchanges is provided at the end of this column with a link to the full transcript, to save space here]:

But here's the deal: What I also want to do -- I want to make sure we bring along not just all the Democrats; we bring along Republicans, who I know know better. They know better than this.

And what I don't want to do is get wrapped up, right now, in the argument of whether or not this is all about the filibuster or --

Look, the American public, you can't stop them from voting. You tried last time. More people voted last time than any time in American history, in the middle of the worst pandemic in American history. More people did. And they showed up. They're going to show up again. They're going to do it again.

But what I want to do is I'm trying to bring the country together. And I don't want the debate to only be about whether or not we have a filibuster or exceptions to the filibuster or the -- going back to the way the filibuster had to be used before.

Biden begins by continuing his "the fever among Republicans is bound to break any day now" thinking, then confidently predicts that none of the Republican voter-suppression laws is going to make the slightest difference because all the voters from last time will "show up again," and then finishes by saying he is merely trying to avoid Republicans using Democrats' moves on the filibuster as some sort of political weapon against them.

Lemon then quoted Barack Obama's assertion that the filibuster was "a relic of Jim Crow," and asked Biden: "If it's a relic of Jim Crow, it's been used to fight against civil rights legislation historically, why protect it?"

Biden's answer makes no sense whatsoever:

There's no reason to protect it other than you're going to throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done... Nothing at all will get done. And there's a lot at stake. The most important one is the right to vote. That's the single most important one. And your vote counted, and counted by someone who honestly counts it.

But it goes beyond that. For example, wouldn't -- wouldn't my friends on the other side love to have a debate about the filibuster instead of passing the recovery act?

Biden fundamentally either does not understand or will not admit the true scope of the problem. How would either jettisoning the filibuster entirely or changing it to allow voting rights legislation to pass on a simple majority vote in the Senate possibly "throw the entire Congress into chaos?" It's already chaotic! Why or how would this mean "nothing at all will get done," since removing the filibuster would actually do exactly the opposite and allow Democrats to pass not just voting rights bills but all kinds of other good ideas the Republicans have been blocking?

Biden seems scared of the filibuster being used as a potent political argument against Democrats (who would be busy passing his entire agenda), but this also makes no sense. You know why Republicans don't talk much about the filibuster now? Because they don't have to. It is working just fine for them as is. Why bother talking about it? They certainly have nothing to complain about, since they have already bottled up as much of Biden's agenda as they possibly can.

Contrary to Biden's argument, removing the filibuster would reduce the chaos and allow all kinds of things to get done. To state the opposite is to not face the reality of today's Senate Republicans.

Joe Biden may soon get his greatest wish -- passing a major piece of legislation with a bipartisan vote in the Senate that beats the inevitable filibuster attempt. But even this could be counterproductive to the rest of his legislative agenda. Mostly because it is only going to strengthen his mistaken belief that bipartisanship is still somehow possible on very contentious and partisan issues.

This would be a mistake, because it is false. After all, the bill in question is an infrastructure bill. Back in the hazy old days Biden loves to idolize (and even a whole lot more recently), infrastructure bills were almost completely nonpartisan. After all who doesn't want better bridges and roads? Oh, sure, the parties would haggle over the total price and how to pay for it (or "whether to pay for it," at times), but in general the two sides would work towards something acceptable enough for everyone and a bill would emerge, get overwhelming majorities in both houses (so all the politicians could go home and brag about all the bacon they just got for their state or district), and easily pass. To put it another way, infrastructure is the easiest possible subject to get bipartisan approval, since it is in no way ideological.

And yet, on this simplest of bills, Republicans have wasted month after month after month. By doing so, they have successfully stalled most of the rest of Biden's agenda. And they still haven't come up with a workable agreement ("surely by next Monday," they now swear). This simply should not be this contentious an issue -- and yet it is.

However, the rest of Biden's agenda is indeed contentious, at least as far as the Republicans are concerned. And without at least reforming the filibuster rules, at least half of what Biden wants to accomplish simply will not happen. Anything that the Senate parliamentarian decides is not directly connected to the federal budget is going to be deemed not eligible for a budget reconciliation bill and will thus require 60 votes to move forward. Biden may very well pass his economic agenda almost in full -- which would be a monumental and historic achievement, to be sure -- but nothing else is going to have a prayer of passing the Senate.

This means: No voting rights bills or election reform -- which means no counter to all the voter suppression laws (and laws which have politicized the counting and certification of elections) which red state after red state keeps passing. No reform of the Supreme Court (even minor reforms). No new protections for Unions or workers. No police reform. No immigration reform (comprehensive or otherwise). No social justice reform. No climate change programs that get ruled out by the parliamentarian. No protections for L.G.B.T.Q. Americans. No civil rights legislation at all. No new protections for women's rights. No new gun safety laws. No marijuana reform. And nothing that the parliamentarian rules out from the next big budget reconciliation bill (the "human infrastructure" bill Bernie Sanders is currently writing). And this has already meant: No federal minimum wage increase. No nonpartisan/bipartisan special commission to investigate the 1/6 insurrection at the Capitol.

These are all the things that Joe Biden will not accomplish without reforming the filibuster. Biden campaigned heavily on most of these issues. Even if the historic human infrastructure bill passes, Biden will only have accomplished roughly half of his stated agenda. And none of the rest of it is going to move an inch in the Senate for the next year and a half, no matter what Biden believes to the contrary.

That is what "nothing at all will get done" looks like, Mister President. Refuse to even consider filibuster reform, and you will have successfully torpedoed half of what you promised to fight for in your campaign. Because nothing at all will get done on any of it until (at the very earliest) after the 2022 midterms.

-- Chris Weigant

CNN Town Hall hosted by Don Lemon
[Note: all text taken from the official White House transcript]

The first question framed the issue in terms of bipartisanship, without mentioning the filibuster. Here was how the questioner put it:

[Q:] I am dismayed at how often Democratic plans for stabilizing the economy or shoring up new strains of the virus are held hostage by the Utopian need to gain bipartisan support. It appears, at every turn, the Democratic plan is weakened and still secures zero Republican votes. Sometimes the opposition is just wrong, and working to get them to agree with you is fruitless. Why is the strategy to abandon the need for bipartisanship not the right answer?

President Biden responded by pointing out his own long service in the Senate and again expressed his belief that "the fever will break," and suddenly Republicans will start voting in their constituents' best interests (instead of purely to halt his entire agenda dead in its tracks).

[PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN:] I was able to get an awful lot of compromises put together to do really good things, to change things. And I still believe that's possible.... A lot of my Republican friends say, "Joe, I -- I know you're right, but if I do this, I'll get primaried and I'll lose my primary. I'll be in trouble."

But I think that's all beginning to move. I don't mean overnight. Don't get me wrong, I'm not playing out some panacea here. But I think people are figuring out that if we want to -- I've always found you get rewarded for doing what you think at the time is the right thing, and people really believe you believe it's the right thing to do.

A later question got at the heart of the problem a lot more directly. Here is the entire question and Biden's initial response, where he first does a good job of correctly identifying how high the stakes are for our democracy, but then rather weakly states his wish for the old-style Mr. Smith Goes To Washington "talking filibuster."

[Q:] Last week, regarding the GOP's efforts to restrict voting rights, you said those efforts were, quote, "the most dangerous threat to voting and the integrity of free and fair elections in our history," end quote. While you have condemned these attacks, you and congressional members of your party have done little to actually stop these assaults. If these efforts are really the most dangerous in our history, isn't it logical to get rid of the filibuster so we can protect our democracy and secure the right to vote?

[THE PRESIDENT:] I stand by what I said. Never before has there been an attempt by state legislatures to take over the ability to determine who won. Not count the votes -- determine who won.

We have election officials across the board that they're deciding to push out of the way. And if, in fact, tomorrow -- let's say we're running last time and we're -- these laws had been in effect that are -- these changes. In Georgia, the Georgia legislature -- you know, Biden won by multiple thousand votes; they could say, "We don't think it was legit." And the state legislature votes, "We're going send electors up to Congress to vote for Trump, not Biden." That's never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever been tried before. This is Jim Crow on steroids what we're talking about.

And so, it takes -- to go to your second point, I've been saying for a long, long time: The abuse of the filibuster is pretty overwhelming. When I got to the United States Senate at a time when we had guys like Jim Eastland and Strom Thurmond and Robert F. Byrd and a whole range of people who were very, very, very, very, very, very conservative on race, to say the least -- even then, if you were to filibuster, you had to stand on the floor and hold the floor. And that's why Strom, I think, set the record at 24 straight hours or something. Don't hold me to the number. But, you know, so you had to take -- there were significantly fewer filibusters in those days. In the middle of the civil rights movement.

. . .

I would go back to that where you have to maintain the floor. You have to stand there and talk and hold the floor. You can't just say that now.

The moderator then picked up on the question and posed it even more directly. This was the key exchange, in full, right up to where Biden pivoted to talking about one of his signature achievements (which is totally irrelevant to the filibuster question, since it passed under budget reconciliation rules with precisely zero Republicans voting for it).

[DON LEMON:] Why is protecting the filibuster -- is that more important than protecting voting rights, especially for people who fought and died for that?

[[THE PRESIDENT:]] No. It's not. I want to see the United States Congress, the United States Senate, pass S.1 and S.4, the John Lewis Act, and get it [sic] on my desk so I can sign it.

But here's the deal: What I also want to do -- I want to make sure we bring along not just all the Democrats; we bring along Republicans, who I know know better. They know better than this.

And what I don't want to do is get wrapped up, right now, in the argument of whether or not this is all about the filibuster or --

Look, the American public, you can't stop them from voting. You tried last time. More people voted last time than any time in American history, in the middle of the worst pandemic in American history. More people did. And they showed up. They're going to show up again. They're going to do it again.

But what I want to do is I'm trying to bring the country together. And I don't want the debate to only be about whether or not we have a filibuster or exceptions to the filibuster or the -- going back to the way the filibuster had to be used before.

[LEMON:] But isn't that the only way you're going to get it done right now?

[THE PRESIDENT:] No, I don't believe that. I think we can get it done.

[LEMON:] If you -- if you -- you agree with the former president; he has called -- as you call him, your "old boss" -- that it's "a relic of Jim Crow."

[THE PRESIDENT:] It is.

[LEMON:] If it's a relic of Jim Crow, it's been used to fight against civil rights legislation historically, why protect it?

[THE PRESIDENT:] There's no reason to protect it other than you're going to throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done.

[LEMON:] Right.

[THE PRESIDENT:] Nothing at all will get done. And there's a lot at stake. The most important one is the right to vote. That's the single most important one. And your vote counted, and counted by someone who honestly counts it.

But it goes beyond that. For example, wouldn't -- wouldn't my friends on the other side love to have a debate about the filibuster instead of passing the recovery act? Or wouldn't they love doing it instead of being in a position where we provide for -- how many of you have children under the age of 17? Raise your hand. Guess what? You're getting a lot of money in a monthly check now, aren't you?

No, you deserve -- no, no, no, I really mean it. Republicans used to fight for it as well. It's called the Child Tax Credit. If you have a child under the age of seven, you get 300 bucks a month -- 350 bucks a month. If you have a child under -- between 7 and 17, you get a total of 200 bucks a month. And guess what? It's cutting child poverty in half. In half.

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant