It’s theater. Neither party wants to end the filibuster. Pelosi missed her call, which was drama.

What else could she do to make that happen?

I personally would love to see her basically put the House on strike. put the to chambers against each other in the game of chicken. Refuse to pass any bill until the Senate changes its rules.

That’s a good idea. Do you think the Democrats in the house would be resolute enough to see it through?

The filibuster rule applies to the U.S. Senate, not the House of Representatives. It’s not up to Pelosi to do anything. Pelosi is just talking because that’s what she does best. The rule of filibuster has been part of the senate tradition for ages, and it’s not going to change. Both parties like it. It’s a great excuse for both parties to use as to why legislation gets gummed up.

The filibuster will be ended it is only a matter of time. It being used for more than like two bills a years is only about 10 years old.

Even if hell freezes over, it won’t happen.

Wait until the GOP takes over the senate to see the filibuster disappear. The Democrats are simply using the filibuster as an excuse to avoid voting and giving the progressives what they want. Remember that G.W. and the GOP passed everything they wanted without the 60 votes. The filibuster is a canard.

One thing she could do, which she starting to do, is make the Senate go first on any controversial legislation. And it’s not necessarily true that the House has to go first for spending bills, because they can just use an old bill as a vehicle like they did for HIR.

The Republics were able to do that because Republics move in lock-step like nazis. Democrats never have done that. Plus, 9/11 was fresh and could be used as a weapon in various ways against the Democrats. Democrats were afraid to filibuster because of that. The conditions are different now. The parties function differently. It’s not just a numbers game.

Where was the filibuster when GW brought us such gems as the Patriot Act? Where were the freaking D’s?

Those questions are rhetorical, of course.

The less power any of those individuals has the better. So what if a junior senator has as much power over a bill as Pelosi? Does anyone really believe that better legislation would be enacted if it was easier for the dems to pass bills? And what about when the reps have the ball, better then?

Too fucking bad Pelosi, guess you’ll just have to deal.

knowing democrats, they will probably eliminate the filibuster just about the time republicans gain a 51 vote majority in the Senate.

Keep the filibuster. No sane person wants either moron party to be able to do anything.

Which means, of course, no new taxes, since revenue bills must originate in the House. Sweet deal for the rich!

There used to be a consequence for not voting for cloture. The party holding the filibuster had to have a speaker speaking on the floor at all times until there was a cloture vote. Remember the days when there was a filibuster and the Senate janitors would wheel in the cots? It didn’t happen very often did it?Now when they filibuster, and everybody goes home and sleeps in their own bed and it happens on every issue. Make them stand and deliver for as long as it takes. They’d stop doing it if it were as uncomfortable to do as the rules used to require.

Article I, Section 7 “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House.”

(from my pocket Constitution, thanks Sen Byrd!)

No one should believe anything Pelosi has to say on any subject after her recent backstabbing of Social Security. (inserting language in the supplemental calling for a vote on the cat food commission’s recommendations as approved by the Senate).

The filibuster is a convenient screen to allow both parties to default to their corporatist agenda. Pelosi has no power over it. The House and Senate never listen to each other over their prerogatives anyway. So really this is just an example of Pelosi looking like she is saying something when she isn’t saying anything.

The resolution Pelosi inserted is a non-binding resolution that does not require a vote.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:hr1493ih.txt.pdf
see p. 5

“It is the sense of the House that ….prior to the adjournment of the 111th Congress, any recommendations made by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and approved by the Senate should
be brought to a vote in the House of Representatives”

So the question is, what’s it for and why was it slid in now? I don’t know but the resolution IS non-binding and it doesn’t require a vote.

Also important to remember re the filibuster is that it is being used many times more often than in the past. It isn’t in the Constitution and its requirements have changed over time. So the idea that it is fixed and immutable is simply spin.

I think we should cut Speaker Pelosi a little slack on this proposed vote on what is now a pig in a poke. And support her when she is leading for Progressive issues such as attacking the filibuster.

She really has done I think a superb job as Leader and in dealing with the Blue Dogs who have been as obstructionist as the filibustering GOP in the Senate.

Whether we like the HCR or not Spaeker Pelosi must be credited with saving Obama’s ass and getting a version passed. (I don’t like the bill but I did think it should be passed when it was.)

I ask again when we start attacking our 80%-90% friends; who shall we replace Nancy Pelosi with? the Blue Dog Hoyer?

I think the best strategy is to empower and then remind them of where their power comes from.

reply to mocha @ 18:

Putting it in now so she can use it as cover later is the only thing that makes any sense. Do you have another possibility?

The fact is it was slid in, by Pelosi. There was no reason for her to support either the cat food commission or back voting on its recommendations. She is legitimizing the cat food commission’s attack on Social Security. Connect a few dots. If the resolution meant nothing why do it, more important, why do it so sneakily?

We could kiss their ass and send them money too for good measure!

Moneybomb!

lmao.

The Speaker’s job became a joke the day impeachment was removed from the table. The incompetent who did that is the one who ought to be trying to re-establish the office as part of an equal branch of government, instead of pointing the finger at others.

This is a lesson I keep trying to drum into progressive heads – if you aren’t willing to use the power you have, you effectively do not have it. Pelosi can bring the government to a halt if she wants – she controls the agenda in the house of Congress that initiates budgets. She is in control of the house of Congress that can impeach a President for “crimes and misdemeanors”. There have been enough crimes and misdemeanors in the last decade to keep a circuit court busy for years. She hasn’t used the power she has been given.

And we have Jane to thank for nailing Pelosi on her little fake out instantaneously.

Thank you, Miz Hamsher!

Progressives have no friends in Congress or the White House. Point out to me Pelosi’s progressive accomplishments. This idea that she agrees with us 80% to 90% of the time is either wishful thinking or propaganda. When has Pelosi ever blocked or punished the Blue Dogs? Her most recent accomplishments were to pass a bill funding Obama’s wars and to put in a call for the recommendations of a commission bent on slashing Social Security to be voted on. This is progressivism?

We have said for an age not to look at what Obama says but what he does. This should apply to every Democrat. If done, you will see why I say we have no friends in Washington.

The House should refuse to originate, as it must, any authorization for any funds to run the Senate until and unless that body gets rid of the filibuster and the hold.

Jon, you make some good points, and in my heart, I agree with you about ending the filibuster, but the problem is, I think Obama’s going to be a one-term president, and if the repubs get back in, then that filibuster rule is going to come in mighty handy.

Good luck with that.

I notice it’s been working REAL well over the last two or three decades.

But keep on trying. Like they say, it’s best to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

Oh wait…

Obviously we disagree in our analyses. I suspect I am more tempted to join you than you me.

Don’t you think if we give up on efforts to play a role in the Democratic Party and influence the Congress then perhaps it is time for a genuine effort to form a third party. I personally am not quite ready for that step because I do not think we have a movement well enough developed to assure cohesiveness and clear messaging. .

But that’s a lot of what this blog is about. :-)

Peloser is calling for this change because of the Catfood Commission. Once they gut SS with only 51 votes, it’s gonna be hard for anyone to justify the 60 vote threshold on any bill.

I think the failure is in our lack of organization and identity as a a strong interest group.

Do you favor a third party? Who shall we replace them with? Serious question: where is our leadership?

The House should refuse to originate, as it must, any authorization for any funds to run the Senate until and unless that body gets rid of the filibuster and the hold.

I’m down with that, but it ain’t never gonna happen because doing so would require, well, you know, courage. And we sure as hell know the Dems and Peloser don’t have any guts.

The Speaker of the House is still fairly powerful, although the power of the position right now is a pathetic shadow of its former self. Republicans have effectively instituted a 60- vote threshold in the Senate. So, most observers would argue, even a junior Senator, with no leadership position, from the minority party in the Senate has more power to shape legislation than the Speaker of the House.

No. The Democrats control the Senate, and thus control the Senate rules, so the Democrats have explicitly instituted a 60-vote threshold in the Senate. The Senate Democrats are gifting that power to the junior minority party Senator, and they can take away that gift whenever they feel like it.

This is the obvious scandal here is that Senate Democrats are expressly more interested in maintaining obscure and arcane self-imposed procedural rules than actually taking on the mantle of good-governance. Full stop.

I think the failure is in our lack of organization and identity as a a strong interest group.

Do you favor a third party? Who shall we replace them with? Serious question: where is our leadership?

We can’t look for leadership in forming a third party from people inside the current political establishment, including someone like Jane or Glenn Greenwald. They are free to criticize Dem leadership, but forming or trying to form a real, actual third party would get them ostracized. I’m pretty sure that if Glenzilla tried to form a third party Joan Walsh over at Salon would fire him. If Jane tried to form a third party, suddenly her access to lots of people, both on the fundraising side and the policy/administration/legislative side, would disappear in a heartbeat. Suddenly her place on lots of panels and her invitations to lots of events would dry up. It’s sorta like sports; you gotta stay in-bounds, inside the foul lines or the umps and referees (in this case, the Dem establishment) will call a penalty and eject you from the game.

Serious answer, although it won’t sound like it.

THe first thing you’ve got to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. You don’t have to have the map out of that hole yet, but you do have to stop digging.

As long as we continue to enable these Democrats to behave in any manner they want by giving them our votes, they will continue to behave as corporatists. And why not??? That way they can get our votes AND big corporate cash. And the longer we keep doing this, the worse and worse it’s been getting.

So, I say stop digging now. I don’t have the map out of the hole, or answers to a lot of important questions, but right now IMO it’s in our best interest to send a loud and resounding message to this Democratic Party that we are no longer going to enable this behaviour by rewarding you with our votes simply because the Republican running against you is batshit crazy.

It’s also been my experience that in this great land of opportunity and great ideas, that when opportunities arise, enterprising individuals find ways to take advantage of those oppportunities. If enough on the left stopped blindly supporting the D party, then answers to your questions may reveal themselves naturally, as usually when there is a void to fill, someone figures out a way to fill it.

BUt for now, I just want to STOP DIGGING. These Democrats are digging us into the fascist hole from hell.

I have a theory that it allows her to prevent Republicans from pulling some maneuver to delay a vote and forcing it into the next session of Congress. They might want to try to delay if the Republicans regain the majority in November elections. They might want to try to delay if public sentiment is so against the recommendations of the deficit commission that Pelosi would know she had the votes to defeat a bill from the Senate. They would hope people will simmer down or forget by January and be able to get some blue dogs back. I might be wrong. Maybe she is in cahoots with Obama and Rahm to fuck us hard. But, when you read the resolution and see it does not require the Congress to vote before the session ends, it opens it up to an explanation that isn’t as sinister. I think it is unfortunate that what was said Thursday was not corrected other than in a 1 sentence update in a post by David Dayen.

This confuses the issues Jon. The filibusters concise history can be read here.

The REAL issue is that when the ‘compromise’ was made back in 1787 in giving small States the same amount of Senators that large States had the nation was essentially a rural population. Those conditions have changed big time.

We now have cities and counties with more population than entire States,e.g. San Diego,CA county population is 3,001,072 while the entire State of Nebraska’s population is 1,783,432.

Add to that fact that States with large populations do not receive back from the Federal government anywhere near what they contribute and ‘fairness’ has been completely tossed out the window because of changes from when the 2 Senators per State was created.

A new allocation of Senators per State is needed and therefore a Constitutional Convention is needed. For instance, States with populations above 10 million would be entitled to 3 Senators and States above 20 million entitled to 4 Senators.
Such would be in keeping with the implied logic of ‘one man,one vote’.

Associated with that idea is that the House needs to expand the number of Representatives to more properly represent the people. When the number of Representatives is the same as after WWII despite the population being three times larger, it cannot be argued with perspicacity that the House truly represents the citizens of this country, And the President has the ability to demand the House increase it’s numbers WITHOUT a Constitutional Convention.

Holding out the House as an example of how legislation should be made is a poor example of what needs to be done to ‘fix’ the Senate.

Since the end of the Civil War where we declared we were a federation, and not a confederacy, the entire purpose of the Senate became a complete anachronism. There’s no reason why Wyoming needs to be “protected” from New York, because the distinctions between the two with respect to Federal domain are essentially nil. Now we’re all just Americans, and more localized government is essentially a matter of logistics, not segmentation.

If we’re going to get to the discussion of holding a convention, then abolishing the Senate entirely makes a lot more sense than marginally reforming it.

Reply also to OFG@37

Yes. Stop digging. I h ave tried to do my part as a subversive in my local Democratic parties and other situations.

Sounds like we are on the same page as to difficulties inherent in going the 3rd party route. I have seen and been frustrated over and over again how successful the single interest groups on the right have been in pushing the GOP in their direction and getting their agenda enacted………… and even affirmed in SCOTUS. The right fringe has never been more than 20-23% but how effective they have been,

Also I wonder if we perhaps should be longer term thinking and push forward those things that will increase democracy. Such as taking on the Senate rules such as filibuster. Also I think even more of a move to one man one vote would be to do away with the electoral college. In fact had Obama taken those things on with the majority he had rather than HCR etc perhaps our lives would be no better but there would be hope for the future.

You are doing the 11-dimensional defense for Pelosi that so many have used with Obama. They can’t possibly mean to do what they appear to be doing so we will create a series of ever more fanciful scenarios to explain their actions. The rebuttal to this is simply that if they had a reason to do what they were doing they could simply have come out with or leaked it. We have seen none of that. If Pelosi wants to explain herself, she can. Otherwise we should let the facts speak for themselves.

But the republicans could bring up any bill they want to next year if they retake the House. They could copy the commission’s recommendations verbatim and vote on it.

If they regain the majority, they decide anyway. They could even undo anything the lame duck session does. They would then be in power.

I’m sorry, I don’t get this “theory.”

I think this idea only makes sense if there is some way that Pelosi thinks she can keep the DLCers and the Blue Dogs in line. She hasn’t demonstrated an ability to do that up until now, and in a lame duck session leading to GOP control of the House, that seems even less likely.

Let me put it this way: Republicans plus DLC plus Blue Dogs adds up to something like 300 votes. That’s way more than are needed to pass a resolution. All three groups have made noises about how we need to do something about all those expensive entitlement programs. Getting the 213 votes needed to pass a bill that does that strikes me as child’s play.

What am I missing?

uh, the idea of ‘confederacy’ was done away with at the Constitutional Convention (“Articles of Confederation) so I really don’t understand “Since the end of the Civil War where we declared we were a federation, and not a confederacy,”.

Aren’t “DLCers” now going by the name of “New Dems’”?

I’ve asked this question before, but what’s a 3rd Party going to accomplish?

To keep it true to principles it will have to have a thoroughly authoritarian structure to met out discipline for wayward members, and if it lacks such a mechanism it will be just as ripe for capture as the current major parties. Am I missing something? It seems like perhaps we ought to focus a lot less on trying to spuriously wrangle representation that has, at best, secondary imperatives to service its constituency, and instead just avoid the empirically and logically contradictory institution entirely wherever possible?

I wrote a diary back in April pointing out that progressives need to control only about 5% of the vote in most elections to determine the outcome. We could do this without a formal party structure. We could do it without even having our own candidate on the ballot. Briefly, the Democrat either supports, fights for, and votes for our agenda or we pull our support of them, period. No do overs, no second chances. We either do not vote or vote for someone else. The take home message is that if a Democrat votes against us, we will see they lose.

I don’t have many (any?) answers, and the ones I come up with are as likely to be wrong as right anyway.

BUt I can’t just keep doing the same thing. I’ve been pulling that lever and filling that oval and giving my dollars and donating my time to the Democratic Party and all I’ve seen is a long and continuous move to the right.

I was so enthralled with Obama I look back sometimes and laugh (and cry). And the day after the election, when Obama not only won, but we had historic majorities in the Congress??? Talk about being full of HOPE for CHANGE. I cried tears of joy at the inauguration. I was so proud of my country for looking beyond race (at least a majority of voters), I was proud, full of hope, full of energy.

And now I’m more down in the dumps than I’ve ever been in my lifetime. Not even Bobby’s assassination or Watergate had me this down.

It really does feel like the deal is sealed, and it’s all just show now. Well, it may be or it may not be, but one thing is for certain. I don’t have to keep giving my approval to this continued movement to the right. So the Democrats get no money and no vote from me until they decide to come home to the base.

I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. It left me.

You’re confusing the naming of the document with the reality of what it entailed. Prior to the Civil War there was still a distinct and present notion of State autonomy which was thoroughly dismantled by the Civil War, wherein the national government forbid cessation. We may not have been called the Confederate States of America, but prior to the outcome of that war, that’s what we were.

I’m sorry, I don’t get this “theory.”

It’s even worse than that. It points the finger at Republicans. We need to stop them. But the truth is we need to stop Obama. Even if the Republicans passed the cat food commission recommendation, Obama could veto the bill and the override would be impossible. But again the nasty truth here is that Obama wants to slash Social Security. The argument that we must stop the Republicans is an admission of this.

I also have never feared so much for the people in this country, now I fear going rogue. It is depressing but I can’t let it go. I keep seeking positive actions, that is why I ask the questions.

When I read the postings here I have hope and feel though we progressives are in some ways all over the map I do have hope and believe with some better organization and messaging the strategy of a powerful interest group within the system is a quicker route to some things. Couple that with when possible addressing the maldistribution of representation and it can look pure sunny.

In the south and the Tea Party States Rights are alive and well. You are right to focus on them. Much evil is perpetrated on minority groups under their mantle. It will I think take a friendly SCOTUS to remedy the current situation.

When someone comes up with a positive way of making these people do what they don’t want to do, I’m happy to help. So far, I haven’t seen one.

In the meantime, I think it’s time we demonstrated that they can’t just take a dump on us and expect we’ll continue to vote for them.

Politicians are about power. It’s what they need. Only by being able to give it to them or take it away do we matter.

What facts there are to support the notion that Pelosi inserted this resolution to facilitate gutting SS? There are no recommendations yet, no proposals approved by the senate, no statements. There is just speculation and apprehension and predictions based on a couple leaks. I say my theory holds no less water than the theory that this resolution is so Pelosi, Rahm and Obama can fuck us right and good on SS before the end of the session. It’s non-binding and doesn’t require a vote before the end of the session. I think it’s just as likely in there to prevent something as to facilitate something.

I just think based on what we know about the resolution it’s just as likely to be intended to prevent a whole new group from fucking us on the way in the door as it is to facilitate the old group fucking us on the way out the door.

Since the Sovereign Default Commission is comprised of 18 people, at least 14 of whom have expressed a willingness if not eagerness to cut SS benefits and Surprise! it takes 14 of 18 votes for recommendations to come out of the Commission, it sure seems like it’s laying the groundwork to destroy Social Security in order to “save” it.

As always, you are under no direction to agree but come December when the recommendations are made formally and the Senate and House vote up or down on the recommendations in a lame duck session after the election that will most likely have caused a few dozen more incumbents in both houses to be planning their lobbying careers, it seems a reasonable conclusion that they will be given a final opportunity to give the voters a big FU goodbye “gift”

Pelosi is all talk–when it gets right down to the wire, she folds. I don’t bother listening to her anymore. She’s a liar.

Yup, like trying to buy milk at the hardware store.

“As always, you are under no direction to agree”

You know nothing more about what will happen in December than I do. Right now you have your opinion and I have mine. Clearly you think yours is more informed. The whole “Pelosi inserted a resolution to fuck us” was based on the incorrect information that the resolution requires a vote before the end of the session. It does not. I think this leaves the door open to its intent. The tone directed at those who disagree is truly unfortunate.

You are correct. All I have is my opinion and in December, we’ll discover which of us is correct. I hope it’s you.

I’m not holding my breath.

Book Salon up at the Mothership with Barry Eisler’s Inside Out: A Novel hosted by Jeff Kaye

And at least some of the American people who pay attention would know exactly who was stopping the legislative agenda in its tracks.

If you don’t have a map or a plan, then why should anyone follow you?

Because unlike our current “representatives”, he’s honest enough to admit it.

Slightly off topic, but I read where Dylan Ratigan proposes barring congressional members from becoming lobbyists for 7 years or such. Sen. Bennett of Colorado has proposed something similar. I think it’s a good idea, but I don’t see how Congress would approve that. That’s their next career if they get voted out.

So I’m wondering how that would ever get done? Would we need a national referendum to get that passed? I don’t see any other way. Same with accepting corporate donations. I think both parties, not just the GOP, were quite pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizen’s United. I seriously doubt the Dem party will put tight restrictions on that. I don’t know how that gets fixed.

Any suggestions?

I’m sure the minority party in the Senate, the Republicons, would love that as well. In fact, isn’t that their plan?

Hear! Hear! Amen to that!

The Second Republic will have no House of Lords. The Senate is and always has been an abomination.

I sort of like their show. Just make them no more powerful than the UK House of Lords. Bring them out for ceremonial affairs.

We’ll see if she does anything further. I’m very suspicious about this. Seems like a good way to give people like us the idea that maybe there is hope for the future if we just vote to keep Dems in office. She knows her ass is on the line, just like the entire Senate/Congress for 2010. Talk is sooooo cheap, I’d have to see a “Done” before, I believe anything will change.

The current set up works way too well for both sides. This way they don’t have to piss off their pimps (corporate masters). They can pump out shitty legislation like HCR and say it was the GOP’s fault.

If they actually change the rule and pass some decent legislation as a result, I might vote Dem again, otherwise, I’m staying home.

current senate rules and precedent don’t require 60 votes to pass legislation — even legislation that is filibustered.

which makes the biggest joke — although not the funny kind — this post.

what a load of nonsense the dem leadership is selling. very sad to see it being bought here. which just goes to show, i guess, that the msm is not the only media that practices stenography.

when the “let them eat cat food!” commission issues its report and the dems are the ones calling for an “upper-down” vote on gutting ss and medicare maybe it will sink in that one of the reasons we’re getting the dem version of filibuster kabuki this year is to prepare the way for their version of the neoliberal economic shock doctrine.

This whole discussion is moot for 2 reasons:
A) We are effectively a one party system as it stands right now and
B) There ain’t one of those spineless bastards with the balls of Mike Gravel, to not only stay up 3 days straight but to read something as explosive as the Pentagon Papers while doing so, even if it wasn’t a true filibuster. Remember, our “beloved” progressive pioneer George McGovern took a pass on just accepting the documents.

I have a theory that it allows her to prevent Republicans from pulling some maneuver to delay a vote and forcing it into the next session of Congress. They might want to try to delay if the Republicans regain the majority in November elections. They might want to try to delay if public sentiment is so against the recommendations of the deficit commission that Pelosi would know she had the votes to defeat a bill from the Senate.

That doesn’t make any sense because the resolution is non binding. It won’t prevent anyone from doing anything. Thus, it’s just an excuse for Pelosi to do her little simper and give everybody’s social security to the rich. You are playing the 11th dimensional chess card, how’s that been working for you so far?

I mean, wtf, Pelosi FACILITATED the health insurance company bailout, AND the banker bailout, what makes you dream a little dream that she won’t do it again with social security?

Ridiculous.

What happened is that Pelosi didn’t expect anyone to notice her little get out of responsibility free card until after the elections, too late.