Dodd: Filibuster Reform is "Foolish"

This is why I was going to hold my nose and vote for Dodd (0.00 / 0)

His continually calling Lieberman a "Democrat" and now ignoring the mayhem that Republicans are creating with their abuse of the filibuster rules just makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.

I suppose it really is time for him to go if he is so horribly oblivious to Lieberman's perfidy and the Republicans' emerging tyranny.

Time to go.

---

by: thomashooker @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 17:03:51 PM UTC

This is... (0.00 / 0)

why I was not going to hold my nose and I wasn't going to support Dodd.

 And by the way...a primary is probably unlikely for U.S. senate, now that Blumenthal has been crowned, but if there were to be one, I would vote for Alpert.

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 17:41:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Weirdly (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman is apparently on-board with dumping the filibuster.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 17:22:37 PM UTC

Lieberman co-sponsored Harkin's bill in 1994 (0.00 / 0)

..to change the rules of the filibuster, which Harkin is re-introducing this year. Here's video.

Nov 22, 1994

Senator Harkin talked about his proposal to limit filibusters in the Senate. His proposal includes the following-- the first cloture vote would need 60 votes to pass. If it failed, 2 days later the next vote would need 57 then 54 and finally 51 votes to pass the cloture motion and thus end the filibuster and move on to the bill. After his remarks, he and Senator Lieberman took questions from the press.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/pro...

---

by: Scarce @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 17:38:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't Count On It (4.00 / 1)

Lieberman has the inclination to say one thing when it appears opportune, but then voting the other way once he gets what he wants -- as in "No one wants to end this war more than I do."

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 20:57:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some graphs which illustrate the problem (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Scarce @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 18:08:40 PM UTC

You have to explain the last line... (0.00 / 0)

The reason this years is so low is because Harry won't even bring it to the vote if he can't count 60 noses (As Ms. Maddow explained). If he brought everything to a vote ignoring the nose counts we would already be past 150.

Between that and the "holds" the 41 members of the GOP have basically shut down the Senate. The answer is to replace the Majority Leader with an asshole who can play hardball and will bring everything to a vote. Make them stand up and filibuster. Make sure that everyone KNOWS that the GOP is the party of "NO!"

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 18:50:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The graphs are not years, but congresses (0.00 / 0)

..of 2 year lengths. In other words, the 111th congress is now about half over. The TPM graph is a clearer expression as all the lines are dramatically higher (files, votes, and invocations of cloture).

---

by: Scarce @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 19:06:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Still, Met00 is right about the past year (0.00 / 0)

In fact, according to another source, the filibuster was either used or threatened over a hundred times by early December of last year from the beginning of the year.  So I believe that the last congress's figure is highly misleading.

---

by: thomashooker @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 19:54:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the support (0.00 / 0)

And Scarce, it was TPM's article that detailed what I added (I think, if not it was C&L or Americablog).  

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 12:06:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree except . . . (4.00 / 1)

The Dems don't know how to play hard ball, and that's the only way to get results when you are dealing with an opposition whose only response to anything you propose is "no."

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 20:59:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dems don't WANT to play hard ball (0.00 / 0)

They certainly know how. Democratic Senate leaders like Dodd and Reid just don't use the power they have.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 00:47:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

say what? (0.00 / 0)

Reid can "put it up for a vote". Let the GOP work and publicly state why they are voting "No!". Let's give the Democrats that are running against those GOP incumbents the words and the actions of their obstruction to eat.

Let the people see where their "representatives" stand. Then let's see them go home and pander for votes when they have to explain why they voted against allowing every American the CHOICE to purchase Medicare from the Government.


The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 12:10:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They already "reformed" it to make it worse (4.00 / 2)

Even a traditionalist should be able to see that the recent incarnation of the filibuster gives a free ride to obstructionists.  The Senate should at least put it back to the way it was when it required a Senator to actually "debate."  (Cloture is simply the means for ending the debate.)  Then the public could get the view of fat old white Senators reading from their dry-cleaning list just to block some kind of essential legislation.  It did wonders in the 60s to see the fat, ignorant, bigoted Southern Senators who were against civil rights.  The filibusters actually increased support for civil rights in the North.

As it is now, people think that it is the Democrats' fault for the current paralysis.  (Don't get me wrong, the Democrats have more than their share of fault; they're just not totally responsible.)  If the public got, say, 10 hours of hearing what's on Jim DeMint's mind (or any other of the current batch of know nothings), we'd be more likely to get health care and other reforms, than less.

As for Senator Dodd, I can only say, I can't believe I gave that guy money.  Every time I did he'd send me a nice email telling me I was his BFF.  And then every time there was a plausible reason for asking for more money, he'd hit me up again.  But when he decides not to suffer the humiliation of another campaign, nary a word do I hear from him.

---

by: dkfennell @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 18:39:12 PM UTC

I think Reid has a thing for... (0.00 / 0)

Senators Tom Carper and Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh. He seems to think by making them stand up and vote against a Democratic President would somehow hurt the Democratic party, or maybe their chances at getting re-elected.

Screw them.

So he loses 4 right-wing Democrats. Odds are, if he showed America just how big the Party of No! was and how they are stopping all legislation, the Democrats running against them would be able to make one hell of a good case that they should be removed from office. Heck, we may even be able to get some good progressives to get rid of the ConservaDems in primary challenges (and yeah, Bayh is gome, but it looks like the Democratic Party is going to put a BlueDog House member up for his spot, so there really will be no change there).

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 12:20:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]