Who's Afraid of a Filibuster?
While the ultimate occupants of three United States Senate seats are yet to be determined in Alaska, Georgia, and Minnesota, chances seem small that Democrats will increase their new majority to 60 seats – the supermajority that insures against a successful filibuster. So the same Republicans who once complained about the use of that legislative weapon by the opposition now brandish it in warning to President-elect Barack Obama.
Nobody can doubt that the Republican remnant in the Senate will obstruct as soon as that seems politically safe. Right-wing pundits, from Rush Limbaugh to the Wall Street Journal editorial page are already egging them on furiously. But is there enough muscle behind that filibuster threat to block Mr. Obama’s mandate?
The short answer is no – and the new president’s own political arsenal should enable him to call the Republican bluff.
Let’s count the actual votes on the Republican side of the aisle, asking which Senators would have both the inclination and the will to join a filibuster. Every issue calls forth different levels of resistance, of course, but in each instance the opposition would need at least 41 total. In the very worst case, should the Republicans pick up all the remaining seats, they will begin with three more than that.
Six Senate Republicans will face reelection two years hence in states that went for Mr. Obama: Judd Gregg (R-NH), Arlen Specter (R- PA), George Voinovich (R-OH), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Chuck Grassley (R- IA), and Richard Burr (R-NC). Having seen their fellow incumbents fall in the last two elections, that half dozen may well consider themselves in varying degrees of political peril. Poor Mr. Gregg watched his New Hampshire colleague John Sununu drop this year as their state turned deep blue. Mr. Martinez won his seat in 2004 by a single point and is widely considered vulnerable. So are Mr. Specter, nearing his 80th birthday, and Mr. Voinovich, now 72.
Several other Republican incumbents may confront difficult reelection races in 2010 too, including Kit Bond (R-MO), whose state went for John McCain by a miniscule margin (many votes fewer than the number who voted for Ralph Nader). Nor should we forget Jim Bunning (R-KY), 77 years old and aging badly, who was nearly taken out in 2004 by an underfunded, little-known Democrat. Recent polls show him sinking.
And finally there is Mr. McCain himself, whose popularity in Arizona has diminished markedly this year. His term will expire in two years as well, and at least one poll shows that he would lose his seat to Janet Napolitano, the state’s popular Democratic governor. Perhaps that is why he returned home to campaign on the eve of the election.
As the nation rebalances its politics away from the right, Senate Republicans may well ask whether they can maintain even their diminished numbers in the next cycle. How eager will any of these endangered incumbents be to participate in filibusters that will leave them open to the “obstructionist” label that Republicans used to slap on Democrats who fought the Bush administration?
The matter of incumbents and filibusters seems highly relevant to another problem that the new president must solve. What will he do with the remarkable political machine created by the Obama campaign?
Filibuster prevention would be a worthwhile and inspiring project for those idealistic millions. Early next year, the president-elect and his new Democratic Party chair can start to deploy those massive resources into sweetening the Senate. They can mobilize the grassroots and the netroots in the 2010 Senate states -- and across the country -- to keep pressure on Republican incumbents while building support for their potential challengers.
Such a scenario presumes, of course, that the President-elect is determined to enact the promise of change rather than placate the opposition. So far there is no reason to presume otherwise -- and that is why he must prepare for the worst.
Conason is really dumb but why must he always show it?
.
The LIBERAL LEFT-WING OF CONGRESS will control Obama.
Let's hope the LIBERAL LEFT-WING OF CONGRESS will control Obama as oppposed to the CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WING OF CONGRESS that ran the country into the ground.
RonH: What exactly is dumb about Conason's argument? All you did above was make a comment worthy of a third grader, instead of engaging Conason. Face it: Your GOP got its clock cleaned this year and you're reduced to third grade insults. It's this very anti-intellectual mindset that led to the nomunation of Sarah Palin and the GOP's landslide defeat.
The U.S. is ready for major overhauls of the healthcare system and the economy, and it's fair to say the country is sick of the Iraq War. Your party lost, Obama and the Democrats won, and it's time for a major shift in policy. Any Senators that attempt to use the filibuster to obstruct the needed changes will pay a political price, and Conason is pointing that out. There's nothing "dumb" about the argument. Try arguing with Conason instead of posting something worthy of a kid in a sandbox.
"Obstructionists", "unpatriotic", "unAmerican", "devisionists", Republicans loved those words when they used them to describe Democrats...wonder how much they will love hearing them used to describe THEM?
Obama ? empty suit. He'll be controlled by white guys which he will surround himself with for credibility since he has none. Just another slave to the white establishment...sort of like Conason.
Anonymous...don't you just wish! If nothing else Obama has been elected as the leader a nation that is bankrupt in more ways than one! A country that did not lose it's morals to sinners that didn't go to church..but, to the "white guys" that belong to country clubs and take brakes at expesive spas...and tharshed out the economy so badly that it will take the rag tag money of even the lowest income taxpayor to "bail out".
We pretty well know just who's wareing the "empty suits' in this country..we've got the empty pockets to show for it!!
Whatever happened to the "Nuclear option", ah, excuse me, the "Constitutional option"? Seems to me the shoe is exactly on the other foot now. The Reps filibuster, the Dems call for a point of order ending debate anyway, which the President of the Senate (ie the Vice President) rules in their favor. This is appealed but is immediately debated and then carried by a simple majority vote, ending debate.
Bill Frist put this on the table in 2005 to try to intimidate the Demaocrats from even a single filibuster. I don't see why it shouldn't be considered now.
Actually, I'm against actually using it, but *threatening* to use it might be just as effective.
Thanks Joe! Points well taken. I will pass along your thoughts to all my friends.
I've been waiting for someone to point out that the Democrats have a powerful majority that can be harnessed to pass a bold program.
And it cannot be stopped by Republicans. This is not 2006. They are in political and ideological disarray. As you have pointed out, a number of Republicans are clearly at great risk.
A number of Democrats are probably hoping that Republicans will try to obstruct the Democrats legislative initiatives.
Hopefully, Democratic congressional timidity is a thing of the past.
Why does the mainstream media and this article keep mentioning Rush Limbaugh? They guy is a college drop out, draft dodging drug addict. He has no credibility. Except what you clowns give him.
"Under the control" of WHAT white guys? Hillary? Jimmy Carter? Rove? Are you nuts? Obama will call his own shots, believe me.
But speaking of "under the control", I think a lot of the Republican senators will be happy to be out from under the control of Dick Cheney and will go back to having the privilege of voting for what is best for this country. And you are going to see a lot of legislation now that will be best for the country, not best for oil companies and Cheney's pals.
It's my hope that Obama and the DNC put lots of money and grass-root intervention into upcoming governor's races, as well as those that will bolster the Democrats' dominance in Congress. The Republicans have already indicated they will be going after governors' seats, and why? Because the 2010 Census will be used for redistricting...the more governorships they control, the more they can gerrymander districts to (they beieve) guarantee their own success in the 2012 election. They may be anti-intellectual, but they are cagey and determined, even in their current state of shock. The leaders of the Democratic Party must stay one step ahead of them. Obama has already shown he is capable of this. I'm glad he's on our side.
Joe is once again being his brilliant self.He is right on as usual-kudos Joe!
The right wing radical ruthless nuts are the ones who should look in the mirror. they are the ones beaten up on the bus going to school. They are getting back with deviate behavior. The country was run by a club other than Bush but Bush was one of the members. Big Dick was the bandleader.
I believe the right gave the Democrats the opportunity to have the next election. At least the next four years.
It is the Democrats turn to bring society back to civility.
Barack Obama should be a trememdous leader for the people and he will work for the people and not against them...
Everyone worker can exhale for a frew minutes and get their grip. But always keep in doubt the next move of the right wing nuts...
Beware !!! of the NUTS !!
I'd just like to point out some other articles on this subject. One, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Full-of-Fulibuster-Forget-by-Philosophe... , suggests that Democrats don't need a filibuster-proof majority, I suppose because the Republicans will now play nice.
The other article, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Now-What--More-Piracy-by-PrMaine-081106... , makes the point that the behavior of the current Senate Republicans is proof that something needs to be done about the Filibuster.
"This article" mentions Rush Limbaugh? My browser must be stuck, because my page with the article has no mention of BoilButt.
Or could it be that you are a whining Repub loser without a political prayer?
I'll recheck my browser. Is your end covered?
We don’t owe the republicans a thing. Their party is controlled by the confederate slime whose act of treason by firing on Fort Sumter started the civil war. The Republican Party is controlled by Confederate slime that fought to maintain a feudal class system dominated by wealthy elite. We owe these people nothing. They killed to prevent civil rights. They supported a President who spent eight years betraying his oath of office and who laid this nation into a war of plunder and shattered our credibility around the globe. They do this while smugly hiding behind the amoral stance of Old Testament morality while claiming to worship the Jew who fought against rigid, unforgiving law and was crucified as a threat to the religious Sate of ancient Israel.
If we democrats are smart will understand that the South is region that feasters with treason against the united states and the constitutional principles for which we stand. If we are truly smart will stop trying to ‘work’ with them and see them for what they are: vicious enemies of democracy, and social justice.
We will keep them down because allowing them to have power is a direct threat to democracy.
Well then John Conyers ... bring on the Impeachment!
We don’t owe the republicans a thing. Their party is controlled by the descendants of the Confederate slime whose act of treason by firing on Fort Sumter started the American Civil War. They fought to preserve feudalism. They killed to prevent Civil Rights. They supported a President who spent eight years betraying his oath of office and who deceived this nation into a war of plunder that shattered our credibility around the globe. They cheered the murder and torture of innocent Iraqis while claiming to worship a Jew who fought against rigid, unforgiving law and was thus tortured and crucified as a threat to the State.
If we Democrats are smart will understand that the South is region that festers with treason against the United States and the Constitutional principles for which we stand. If we are truly smart we will stop trying to ‘work’ with them and see them for what they are: vicious enemies of democracy, progress, and social justice.
We don’t owe the republicans a thing. Their party is controlled by the descendants of the Confederate slime whose act of treason by firing on Fort Sumter started the American Civil War. They fought to preserve feudalism. They killed to prevent Civil Rights. They supported a President who spent eight years betraying his oath of office and who deceived this nation into a war of plunder that shattered our credibility around the globe. They cheered the murder and torture of innocent Iraqis while claiming to worship a Jew who fought against rigid, unforgiving law and was thus tortured and crucified as a threat to the State.
If we Democrats are smart will understand that the South is region that festers with treason against the United States and the Constitutional principles for which we stand. If we are truly smart we will stop trying to ‘work’ with them and see them for what they are: vicious enemies of democracy, progress, and social justice.
Anonymous,
I don't mean to sound unkind, but you might consider cracking open a history book sometime. Confederates were Democrats -- not Republicans. Southern resistors to the civil rights act -- Democrats again.
"If we Democrats are smart..." Love that.
And your point is what? This is not 1964, it's 2008. The regressive party has now been exposed as the party of economic royalist, racial bigots, and Christian fundamentalist that it has been since 64'. Get used to being in the very small minority for as long as you don't embrace ethnic diversity and religious diversity, female equality, and economic opportunity for the middle and working classes most especially.
So the south's secession from the union wasn't treason?
And slavery was OK by you then, right?
Those are nasty, incendiary words that would appeal to someone that isn't in sync with Obama at all. "Keep them down"? Now that is real democracy. Do I hear you correctly? It seems you are in for balanced gov't as long as it agrees with your agenda.
He campained on an "end to mindless partisanship" and to govern from the center. There are many people in this country (a majority I will remind you) that have great respect for traditional values such as family and erring to the side of preservation of life instead of taking it when there is any doubt, caring for the poor and protecting the environment, among others.
My hope is high for Obama, and we need him to succeed, even though I didn't vote for him. And I have no interest in blocking his plans as long as they don't mean creating a new social agenda most in the country disagree with.
When is a filibuster a filibuster? It seems all a Senator has to do is SAY filibuster and it tables bills. The Democrats didn't filibuster SCOTUS nominees, they just threatened. Just the threat brought on another threat! The 'nuclear option!' If it was good enough for the Republicans it can be good for the Democrats. Using it would allow them to bounce Lieberman from the HSC chair. And as you suggest there are enough Republican Senators willing to vote with the Democrats on controversal legislation to save their a$$e$. Loyalty is out the door if it means they will lose their seats.
I've never met a Republican who cared one whit about being unkind--jeeze--hypocrites to the end...
I’ve clearly cracked open more history books than you. It was a Republican president who fought to preserve the union and he was assassinated by a treasonous Confederate after making the mistake of seeking reconciliation with that benighted region of our country. Southern Democrats split with the rest of the Democratic Party in the 1960’s to form the Dixie-rat party headed by the racist George Wallace. those Dixie -rats joined the Republican party in droves after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. Your Republican party bears no resemblance to the party of Lincoln. If the current crop of Southern bigots joined the Greens then IT would be the party of racists slime. It's not the name of the party that matters, it's the membership. Now get back under your rock and stop trying to twist history in order to defend the indefensible.
Dcristof wrote:
“He campained on an "end to mindless partisanship" and to govern from the center. There are many people in this country (a majority I will remind you) that have great respect for traditional values such as family and erring to the side of preservation of life—“
First of all, the mindless partisanship has been almost entirely republican. Is it not the party of dozens of highly paid, high profile televised hate mongers? I was called a traitor for daring to question the non-traditional value of pre-emptive strikes against nations based on fear. And I recall that 'compassionate conservatives' questioned the patriotism of people merely for speaking their minds as they did with the Dixie Chicks.
It was not Democrats who arrived at their 2004 convention wearing badges that were designed to mock veterans who had earned a purple heart. The Republicans sure did. As for preserving life you might want to have that discussion with an Iraqi who has lost his entire family because of the un-investigated lies of George W. Bush.
Why does Bush remain un-investigated? It is because the Republican party is always more concerned with destroying a political enemy than prosecuting a criminal. I am referring now to the extravagant spectacle of a rabid partisan political machine that impeached a sitting President for having oral sex performed on him. Please stop defiling the concept of 'traditional values' by applying them to the amorality of the contemporary Republican party. One last item to clear up: President-Elect Obama was not elected to govern from the ‘center’ which is a right wing code word for conservatism. Obama was elected to return our government to the age of enlightenment and to move us into the 21st century. Progress is America’s most traditional value and we will have it whether you like it or not.
I say again: we Democrats owe you nothing.
to chuck grassley, in reference to the auto industry finacial help and suggesting that auto ceo's make a dollar a year. good idea. i have another good idea. why does not congress persons slash their salary to one dollar a year?
I wish Joe were right. Unfortunately, though, the problem won't be attracting a few Republicans on any given issue. Rather, the problem will be holding onto Democrats from red states. Things will me much better in the coming congress, but 60 votes will not me easy to gather.
yeah, what he said.
listen to a republican jabbering about the history of their party- they go from abraham lincoln, and straight to ronald reagan. they skip over everyone else in between: grant, teddy roosevelt, hoover, nixon, ford.
notice that today's typical knuckle dragging, mouth breathing "republican", and more importantly, their leadership, never mention a certain very successful postwar republican president.
the last "real" republican president who understood what the relationship between citizen and government truly was, was dwight d. eisenhower. a decent american who understood that the federal government was there to serve and protect people. the five star army general who lead the western allies to victory in europe in world war II, who warned us about the military industrial complex.
eisenhower was the great builder who gave us the interstate highway system. the commander in chief who ended an unpopular war of attrtion in korea, and stopped a middle east war in it's tracks. a republican president who realized that african americans had equal rights and did not hesitate to send in the army to enforce school desegregration in the south. a man of integrity and common sense, who called the far right wing of the republican party "a bunch of idiots".
the republican party needs to get rid of the idiots and return to it's roots- one favoring balanced budgets, individual liberty, trade unions, and free enterprise operating fairly in a government-regulated environment.
and once again becoming the party which brought us lincoln, teddy roosevelt, and eisenhower.
and what of the idiots?
they should form a new party- the idiot party.