Washington — Senate Republicans are using the filibuster to limit and often derail Democrats’ initiatives, paralyzing the Senate and making it nearly impossible to accomplish even the most routine matters.
The filibuster strategy “makes the Senate dysfunctional,” said Mark Strand, the president of the Congressional Institute, a nonpartisan research group. That, in turn, blocks the Obama administration’s agenda, but it also sours public opinion on Washington, with polls showing clear public disdain for Congress in particular. Republicans think voters will reward them for that in November.
However disruptive it is to governance, their extensive use of the filibuster — extended debate to block a decisive vote — could prove to be a valuable campaign asset this fall. Democrats used similar tactics in 2006 and won enough seats to gain a Senate majority. Now Republicans hope it’s their turn.
Since Barack Obama became president nearly 13 months ago, Republicans have made it clear that 60 votes — the number needed to cut off debate in the 100-member Senate — are required to pass not only major Democratic programs, but also many routine proposals. (Democrats controlled 60 Senate seats from July until Feb. 4, when Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., was sworn in.)
“Republicans have ratcheted use of the filibuster up to completely unheard of levels. Look at the things that the House (of Representatives) has passed that can’t make it through the Senate. The list just keeps growing,” said Norman Ornstein, an expert on Congress at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right policy organization.
The list includes legislation to overhaul health care, which has stalled and isn’t a good bet to be revived; global warming legislation; and a bill to overhaul financial regulation. Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada scaled back a bipartisan jobs bill, fearing that a larger package would get tied up in a filibuster. He also filed a “cloture petition,” meaning he plans a vote to cut off a filibuster if one starts.
The Senate’s 2009-10 votes to cut off filibusters have come on a wide variety of issues, big and small: Health care, domestic and defense spending, and 15 Obama nominees. While 38 of the 42 votes to cut off debate were successful, the debates about debates tie up the Senate and often prevent measures from ever reaching the floor.
“Republicans are gambling they can convince the American people Democrats can’t get much done, and at the moment, their gamble is paying off,” said former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat and the president of the New School in New York.
During the 2005-06 session of Congress, Democrats ramped up use of the filibuster. The party controlled 45 seats and sensed the tactic could spur political gains in 2006. Democrats threatened or used filibusters on a wide variety of issues, including legislation affecting campaign finance, abortion, war spending, the Patriot Act, and the nominations of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and Dirk Kempthorne as Interior Secretary.
Democrats gained six Senate seats in 2006, capturing the majority, and for the next two years the unified, energized party used the tactic to defy increasingly unpopular President George W. Bush. The Senate took a record 112 votes to cut off debate in the 2007-08 session, about 18 percent of all Senate votes.
The current Congress is on a somewhat slower pace; so far, the 42 votes are about 10 percent of the total. While Democrats insist that Republicans are being obstructionist, GOP senators have a different view.
“It strikes me that Democrats are looking for someone to blame for their failed agenda that they can’t even get Democrats, let alone the American people, to support,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a 33-year Senate veteran.
Clearly, however, Republicans think they’ll gain politically at the polls, hoping that an annoyed public will punish those in power — Democrats — in this year’s midterm elections.
“Being unable to stop filibusters can make the party in power look ineffective,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, who’s written extensively on the filibuster. “The Republican goal now is to make Obama look like an ineffective leader.”
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Good. The less they do the better off America is.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) says…
"During the 2005-06 session of Congress, Democrats ramped up use of the filibuster."
BOTH parties have used this strategy when it was to their advantage; consider that before you finger point.
PalinPalms (anonymous) says…
@TomShewmon
Increadible insight, I agree compleatly, I mean just because only 33 or so senators of both parties run in each election is no reason that the democrates wont lose 40 seats
georgiahawk (anonymous) says…
The partisan crap just continues and nothing gets done! It may be good politics but it is not good leadership!
staff04 (anonymous) says…
"Republicans have ratcheted use of the filibuster up to completely unheard of levels."
I think this illustrates the point that finger-pointing isn't totally inappropriate in this situation mr_right
"the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right policy organization"
Hardly. This is the crew that had to put up a cash reward to any climate scientist who would publish opposition to scientific consensus on climate change and receives huge amounts of funding from big oil. They worshipped Cheney and Bush. Their values are not anywhere near the center when you add up the numbers. A more apporpriate descriptor would be "center of the right."
"We'll discuss this I'm sure ad nauseum Nov 3 am."
Where, if Tom's predictions don't come true, he'll be typing from his bunker...and broadcasting his predictions for 2012 over the socialized telecommunications infrastructure!
Newell_Post (anonymous) says…
The 60-vote rule is not in the constitution. It is in the Senate's own administrative rules.
When the Democrats had the 60-vote block, they could have changed that rule to a simple majority, or even something like 55%. Did they do it? No. Both parties are far more interested in maximizing their own wealth and power (and in back-stabbing the other party) than in doing anything good for the people of the US.
We need a legitimate, populist third party now more than at any time in US history. The TEA Party isn't it. They're just a bunch of cranks. A real leader with some vision, some name recognition, and some political know-how needs to step up and make this happen.
lindseydoyle (anonymous) says…
“Republicans have ratcheted use of the filibuster up to completely unheard of levels. Look at the things that the House (of Representatives) has passed that can’t make it through the Senate. The list just keeps growing,” said Norman Ornstein, an expert on Congress at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right policy organization.
Talk about a bald-faced lie. The Democrats only lost their super-majority on Feb 4. A filibuster hasn't even been used yet. And AEI is not a "center-right policy organization." It is a neo-con front group. Politicos are using the ploy of having us focus on Dem vs Rep. One party is just as rotten as the other.
quik (anonymous) says…
lindseydoyle has it right here. This entire story is a lie. The dem's could have passed healthcare and cap and trade without a single republican vote if they had the stones to do it. The filibuster was not used. The dems needed some political cover and could not find a single republican to go along. Why would any republican risk joining the dem's in voting for two massive, deficit busting bills that the public overwhelmingly does not support? How stupid would that be?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
right_thinker (Tom Shewmon) says…
"Dems will lose at a minimum, 20 seats. I'm betting more like somewhere between 30-40."
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/feb...
_____________________________________________
Just like Patriotman/Conservativeman, the KentuckyFriedCommunist... "Where did I say that? Show me I said that!"
Calliope877 (anonymous) says…
It'll backfire on them.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
"Exactly where did you reference the entire Congress? Was not the article about the Senate and filibuster rule?"
_____________________________________________________
I don't think he ever reads the articles. At least, not past the first paragraph or two. Hell, he doesn't even read the articles he cites as evidence that Faux News is so great. Weeks later, it's still funny:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jan...
Nah, it could be an article about a group of grandmas who get together and quilt every Sunday, and you can be guaranteed right_thinker will jump in with:
"Blah blah blah far-left zealot blah blah secular progressive bl blah Obama blah blah Pelosi blah blah blah Reid blah blah Dem congress blah blah blah Mr. Rogers blah blah Soros/moveon blah blah liberal blah blah socialist blah blah marxist blah blah Rasmussen blah blah Kool-aid drinkers blah blah blah corrupt liberal news networks blah blah blah corrupt liberal media blah blah blah award-winning forum blah blah agnostick blah blah blah centrist blah blah blah
"blah blah blah Mr. Kealing?
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
"WOW!"
jkilgore (anonymous) says…
Our two-party system has degenerated to the point that our nation's ability to function is in peril. Instead of working to compromise and make workable legislation, both parties seem incapable of working together, just so that they can "win." This is so wrongheaded, I don't know where to begin. And below? I see a Kick Harry Reid Out of Office site.
The sadly humorous thing is, the Republicans are blind enough to believe that eight more years of their spend, spend, spend without taxation is wise. The Democrats have the same answer. The Republicans want to turn our country over to the fat cats in oil, insurance, and the Pentagon. The Democrats want to hand it over to the banking thieves.
Does anyone else see this?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
beo, I had originally suspected obsessive compulsive disorder for right_thinker.... but the last several posts from right_thinker indicate a severe form of dementia.
Sad, really.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Here's a little "Seek and Find" for you, right_thinker. See how many political figures you can pick out of this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrSiIq...
Try not to get to worked up. Remember: It's just a video.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
"My post simply pointed out that I was thinking for myself or I would have continued to vote for the party of No... "
So instead BeO jumped to the party of "Don't Know", which apparently suits him much better.
" ...who can only put forth candidates like or even worse than W."
So BeO, thinking for himself, cast his vote for someone simply because he wasn't W. At least he was 'thinking' for himself when he made *that* brilliant decision.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Worth repeating:
“ 28 March 2009
at 6:40 p.m.
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
Ok, I'm done, you don't need to ban my account, I won't be back.”
;)
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
Did a responsible Republican say this or is this another red herring to promote the Democratic Party?
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
see
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/loyal...
headdoctor (anonymous) says…
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
see
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/loyal…
____________________________________________
I am going to pull one of your stunts. George.
http://www2.ljworld.com/comments/post...
Liberty275 (anonymous) says…
"Tom, we are awaiting your brilliant explanation for the projected 40 seat swing in the Senate"
I don't see anything he wrote about the senate. OTOH, he does seem does seem to be brilliant enough to know the house also has seats and all of them are on the line every two years.
diplomacy205 (anonymous) says…
I think the Republicans should only filibuster anything that will damage the country.
For example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Lib275...
From the article...
*********************
Washington — Senate Republicans are using the filibuster to limit and often derail Democrats’ initiatives, paralyzing the Senate and making it nearly impossible to accomplish even the most routine matters.
The filibuster strategy “makes the Senate dysfunctional,” said Mark Strand, the president of the Congressional Institute, a nonpartisan research group. That, in turn, blocks the Obama administration’s agenda, but it also sours public opinion on Washington, with polls showing clear public disdain for Congress in particular. Republicans think voters will reward them for that in November.
*********************
I used the search function of my browser for a little experiment, searching only the text of the above article.
Occurrences of the word "senate"--14
Occurrences of the word "house"--1
Of course, if you bothered to read the article, you might've picked up on the focus of the article. ;)
ivalueamerica (anonymous) says…
Yet Tom is completely oblivious (hah, I could stop there and it would be a complete thought, but I will continue) about the fact that Americans are angry with Obama for not fixing the mess quicker, but they still blame Bush for being the most failed president in American history.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…
that link is hilarious, thanks AG.
watching Tom post articles that refute his own viewpoints:
priceless!
Bring out the PALIN!
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
What's sad is that the Republicans have only to threaten a filibuster to get their way. If the Republicans had to make good on their word and actually stand up and speak ad nauseam for days on end, they'd a: tire of it quickly and b: give hard evidence to the Democrats in support of their charge of obstructionism. Harry Reid should make them follow through on their threats.
gphawk89 (anonymous) says…
diplomacy205 (Anonymous) says…
I think the Republicans should only filibuster anything that will damage the country.
Agree. They should filibuster everything until they take the house and senate back.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
The Republicans have done enough damage over the last 40 years. The last thing we need is to have any of them in office any more.
sciencegeek (anonymous) says…
There's reasonable debate, and then there's knee-jerk, closed-minded, biased ranting. For examples of the latter, check out Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and TomShewmon.
The only way to deal with these rabid fanatics is to ignore them. PLEASE, people, don't legitimize their dreck by responding to it!
rrussell (Rex Russell) says…
The case for this article being accurate is more evident daily. As an Independent, I find much to dislike on both sides of Congress' aisle. On one side, you have Democrats who are so dysfuntional that they stumble and trip over themselves at times. On the other, you have Republicans who have decided that it is in their best interests to not cooperate and negotiate with nothing. Even the bills they like. The idea is that any progress on anything would translate into some minor "success" for Democrats and the majority party. The plan is to give them nothing and hold firm. Until the "wait and see" after the election. Under this scenario, no amount of conciliatory bipartisanship-like attitude will come to any fruition at all. This in turn would make the opposing party look ineffectual and therefore less attractive at election time. This is the plan, and it's out in the open now. As obvious as a wart on your face. Here's their flaw in their plan though. The Democrats have lost millions of Independent voters recently. Republicans hope to pick them up. The problem for me is that they look less appealing than the fumbling Democrats. It's like a choice between driving a car that sputters and gets lousey gas milage, ...and one that won't start at all. As I see it, we will go down the drain together whether you're Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. The clock is ticking. Right now, I see one party with the attitude geared to supporting all Americans, and one more concerned with themselves, their political power, and little else.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
I think a GOP Congress and Dem Presidency worked well the last time we had it. Balanced budgets and a prosperous economy would be far better than the disaster we're headed towards now.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"I don't think we're heading for “a disaster”."
That's your opinion and I have mine. Since neither of us is an economist the question comes down to who you trust. Since the Keynesians like Ben Bernanke who are "in charge" of our economy completely failed to see the recession coming (and failed to prevent it) and Austrians like Tom Woods and Peter Schiff predicted it years in advance (and that it's source would be a housing market collapse) I tend to trust those who were correct. They say that the worst is yet to come. What is your basis for trusting those who say that the worst is behind us?
rrussell (Rex Russell) says…
Liberty, you may be both right. I think that a situation, much worse than it is now, was averted. A double dip is very likely and very probable. That is what is so disconcerning to me about the present gridlock in Congress. They know the trainwreck is coming and they are playing a game of chicken with all of our futures. With so much on the line, ths disingenuosness and lack of basic cooporation is speeding us on to a firey end>
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Russell, unfortunately from my point of view, when it comes to general economic matters there is no gridlock because
(a) budget bills cannot be filibustered;
(b) the federal reserve, as an "independent" entity, controls so much that effects the economy and is subject to very little congressional oversight;
(c) most GOPers and Dems are Keynesians or close, they just differ in which special interests they serve.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, that's all just your opinion. I disagree about it being a lack of regulation and that's my opinion. Both of our opinions aren't due to our expertise in economics since neither of us are economists. I trust Austrian economists because of their track record in predicting this recession and I distrust the Keynesians because of their track record in failing to predict it and their failure to prevent it in their positions of power.
Now you can explain your opinion about what happened all you want and I know from previous experience that you have no interest in discussing the accuracy of your views. So I turn instead to ask you why you have such faith in your sources. I can list mine: Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, Llewellyn Rockwell, Ron Paul, Robert Murphy, Antony Mueller, Phillipp Bagues, Frank Shostak, Doug French, David Gordon, Henry Weaver, Jeffery Tucker, and of course, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises.
What gives you such faith in your sources for views? Of course I have a feeling that you make things up as you go, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you read these things somewhere. Why do you trust these sources?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"You think the whole matter is about the number of names you can drop."
Name dropping? Generally that requires that the names be famous, and I seriously doubt you and most anyone else outside Austrian economic circles recognized more than one of the names I listed besides Ron Paul.
"You act like the names you drop are baseball cards and you are “right” because you own a Barry Bonds card."
I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression. My point is that I don't come with these things off the top of my head. You're not an economist and neither am I. When you make a statement like "The reason for the failure of the housing market was rampant speculation and poor regulation of who would get loans," why should anyone take your word for it? Who are you to make such statements? Obviously you had better have a legitimate source for such opinions otherwise you'd just be making stuff up. I list the sources for my opinions to make a point. Since neither of us is an expert and both must rely on the expertise of others, I am saying that those I listen to are reliable for the reasons already listed. What reasons do you have to rely on those who are the source for your opinion?
BTW, it's not letting other people think for me to turn to experts for information. The thinking part is deciding which experts to turn to. I've clearly listed my thinking behind why I trust Austrian economists--they've been right where others were wrong. Why do you trust your sources for opinion?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
You can list half-truths taken out of context all you please porch, that doesn't change the fact that Austrian economists were right about the financial crisis and the Keynesians were wrong.
"Peter Schiff agrees completely with me on the housing market crisis."
I would love to hear why you think this.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Oh my, this is so predictable it's sad. You went to wikipedia and started looking up those names didn't you? Antony Mueller wasn't there so you went to google and looked at the first link that came up. Interestingly your quote comes from halfway down the article. How much of it did you read?
merrill (anonymous) says…
Jan 14, 2009 ... The outgoing administration has presided over 8 years of disasters and ... George W. Bush's presidency cost the country about $11.5 trillion, if we estimate liberally. .... of which $10 billion was debt service between 2006 and 2008, ... Kogan estimated that Bush spent about $140 billion on related ...
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/...
Brownback is no fiscal conservative!!!
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"(laughter)
Peter Schiff sure predicted the depression well, didn't he?
(laughter)"
---------------------------
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"In an August 2006 interview Schiff said:...I see a real financial crisis coming for the United States.”
------------------------------
Nice going dummy.
-----------------------------
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"Let me focus in on the relevant passage:
“As part of these exchanges on Fox News and his repeated appearances on financial news network CNBC, Schiff had mentioned factors such as speculators and “the absence of lending standards” which are now seen by many to indeed be contributing factors to the “housing crisis” of 2007-2009.”"
-------------------
porch, are you trying to say that "lending standards" and government regulations are the same thing? You can go to Schiff's blog and the first thing on there (right now) says that less regulation and not more is part of the solution. You can try to twist words all you want, but you are just making yourself look like a liar. From Schiff's blog for Feb. 14:
"Rather than tightening the reins on the reckless monetary policy that undermined our savings, diminished our industrial output, inflated asset bubbles and led to reckless speculation on Wall Street and excess consumption on Main Street, we are loosing them further. Rather than repealing regulations that distort markets and create moral hazards, we are adding new ones that do more of the same.”"
http://peterschiffblog.blogspot.com/
----------------------
Whatever porch. I know with you that up is down and white is black. There's no point in arguing with a liar who will change facts to suit his religion. Goodnight porch.
leedavid (anonymous) says…
I am unable to find a lot of similar articles when the democrats were filibustering everything during the Bush years. If it wasn't an issue then what makes it one now?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Go to bed liar.
Mixolydian (anonymous) says…
Considering what the democrats have been pushing lately, sounds like the only reasonable plan. Sounds like the majority of Americans agree.
Take a hint....Clinton was a good president because he didn't do caca.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
“(laughter)
Peter Schiff sure predicted the depression well, didn't he?
(laughter)”
–––––––––
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
“In an August 2006 interview Schiff said:…I see a real financial crisis coming for the United States.”
Oh I see exactly what you are talking about. You're completely unethical and a liar. In a series of posts you try to discredit my sources and at the same time claim they agree with you. I hope you were just doing some pre-KU game drinking because you've hit a new low.
"You lost another argument"
Yet another victory claim? I think you're right in that I lost. I certainly shouldn't be so foolish as to think you have any ethical standards and are above flat-out lying. You are a waste of time.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
the american people are literally voting against the radical takeover of our country by the crazed Obamanoids, RE: Virginia, New Jersey [a miracle] and Mass [another miracle].
the complete nuts obama surrounds himself who, for example, love Chavez, Mao, and Castro, is evidence enough of Obama's perfidy.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, let's review: you are an ethical liar and a complete waste of time. It's funny that you think a quick scan of wikipedia and google is doing your research. Considering I've read hundreds of articles and listened to hours upon hours of lectures by these people, that you make such stupid statements goes to show how dishonest and worthless you are.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
*unethical liar.
rrussell (Rex Russell) says…
Let's get back to the subject of the article. Every person sitting in Washington knows the train wreck is coming. With this stonewalling, the threat of disaster and the speed of the train gets faster. We do not have time to bicker and squabble like children. Truth is, it's time for some hard unpopular decisions and everyone is going to have to hurt for a while. We are going to have to accept some steep cuts to entitlement programs across the board and taxes will be have to be raised at the same level as the level of cuts. First, what we need is the President to offer some cold-hearted leadership and tell the American public how dire things are getting. And be plainly honest. Tell everyone we are in a big hole and everyone will have to sacrafice to get us out. Detail a plan with a timeline. Second, we need the Republican Party to accept the fact that they are the minority party at the moment and quit acting like petulant children. Genuinely come to the bargining table and hash out all the bad news that needs to be done. Time is ticking and we will all go down the drain if they don't act.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, you are just a troll who wll lie left and right.
"this all started with you doubting that the collapse of the housing market was one of the causes of this last depression"
Liar liar, pants on fire.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says...
"porch, that's all just your opinion. I disagree about it being a lack of regulation"
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/feb...
You are a lying troll and I apologize to everyone else for feeding you.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch_person (anonymous) says...
"You know, Liberty_One, grownups admit when they are wrong. You were wrong. You weren't aware of the housing market collapse,"
You are such a bald-faced liar. I've been talking about the housing bubble for over a year dummy.
April 7, 2009:
"it had nothing to do with the causes of the housing bubble, namely cheap money and giving out loans to unqualified people"
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/apr...
March 9, 2009:
"Bush manipulated the market in order to create the housing bubble and a false impression of prosperity in order to get re-elected."
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/mar...
January 26, 2009:
"With Uncle Sam pumping money into the housing market you end up with a housing bubble. "
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/jan...
November 14, 2008:
"The boom in housing was propped up by federal housing subsidies that distorted the market by allowing Fannie and Freddie to attract capital they would not have been able to under free market conditions. This created the artificial boom in housing prices that enevitably lead the burst bubble and loss of equity."
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/nov...
You are a liar and troll. Are you going to be a grownup and admit you were wrong porch_troll?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Wow, you are projecting badly. Is this what you do when you get caught lying?
You are a liar and troll. You falsely accused me of not knowing about the housing market collapse and have been caught in a lie. Why don't you act like a grownup and take your own advice? Fess up to lying troll.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Taken both sides? You're a joke today. I've consistently said that government intervention caused the housing bubble. I've never said otherwise. I've been criticised for being too dogmatic in my "blame gub'ment" approach, and now you think you can lie and say I take both sides? Do you think anyone would seriously believe that I, Liberty_One, would ever not blame any recession on government intervention? How much have you had to drink today?
You are a liar and troll. Be a grownup and admit you lied.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Projecting much?