Tweet
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
One of the most painful things about following Congress is that it is often hard to tell if a member is being an idiot or engaged in a cynical attempt to hide their true position. You can try to educate the uninformed but you can only hope to relentlessly expose the lies.
The latest game of “cynical or idiot” revolves around Carl Levin’s (D-MI) confusing argument against eliminating the filibuster. Via TPM:
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) was pleased that the deal looks like the proposal he put forth to avoid enacting further-reaching reforms with 51-votes.
“Look, we just can’t have a situation in the Senate where the majority can decide what the rules are at any time,” Levin told reporters. “Those aren’t rules. … That just becomes like the House of Representatives. So we avoided using a nuclear option which, I guarantee you, would’ve led to a meltdown in the Senate. It would’ve made the gridlock we’ve seen so far look like a Sunday school picnic.”
I have heard many Senators complaints about the House, such that the Speaker is basically all-powerful and debate is limited, but never the complaint that it is easily subject to gridlock. Bills that are supported by the House majority almost always get approved quickly and easily. In this way the House is like almost every legislative chamber in the democratic world. The reason there is little gridlock in the House is that the House majority adopted rules making it impossible for the minority to obstruct, unlike in the Senate. The lack of gridlock is what distinguishes the House from the Senate.
Levin is trying argue that eliminating the filibuster would make the Senate like the House, which has no gridlock, and at the same time argue it would some how make gridlock much worse. Somehow Levin expects us to believe that eliminating the ability of the minority to obstruct would magically result in more obstruction.
Photo by Matt Hampel under Creative Commons license
50 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Carl Levin (D-General Motors) understands that it would be much harder to hide shenanigans without the filibuster and the secret hold.
It is instructive that Harry Reid read Merkely the riot act for betraying the trust of Senators by releasing to the public what was essentially a whip count of folks for-against filibuster reform.
Stupidity or cynical complicity?
Ah, well …
Thank you, Jon, for this incredible series of posts about the Senate Democrats.
Your reveal, with each and every post, the truth that the Democrats wish, most assiduously to hide from the people, those who voted (and continue to vote) for them, as well as all other citizens of this nation.
Please carry on; you have my most sincere vote of confidence and appreciation.
DW
Excellent, Jon. Thanks for keeping on this important impediment to any semblance of democracy in the Senate.
I don’t know much about government, but I think a comparison of the US Senate and the UK House of Lords, by someone who actually knows something, might be interesting.
The House of Lords plays an important role in checking and challenging the decisions and actions of the government through questions and debates. (excerpt from UK site)
guardian
And,not unrelated, today the DC Court of Appeals ruled the President’s recess appointments to the NLRB violated the Constitution. He made them, finally, because they weren’t getting approved and the NLRB didn’t have a quorum, so they could take no action. A perfect example of the Repub vow of total obstruction.
So, the day before this ruling, the Senate decides to keep the filibuster, thus guaranteeing a non-functioning government with no department heads, no board positions filled, for the next four years.
Does anyone think we’ll see the head of the ATF confirmed?
this is one hell of a can of worms, and if the Senate thought they were fine to vote this way because, hey! recess appointments, I hope they are now realizing how stupid they were.
Back when I lived in a suburb of Detroit, and still considered myself a Democrat, I saw Levin speak at a judge’s backyard party. Funny, the following Sunday, he was on some talking head show, and he sounded like a 180 degree different fellow. They’re all lying sacks of “brown stuff” so I look at their actions for consistency. Levin’s smell.
Aaaaand Carl Levin comes out officially opposed to Majority Rule and democracy more generally.
Awesome. Why don’t they formally form a Quisling Party? Because the word “Democrat” no longer applies.
Next up, I’d like to see statements from DiFi, Boxer, Reed… and we can forget Manchin as we already know his line of “reasoning.” Also, what percentage of Senate Democrats are also of this position?
Lastly, I believe the term for this behavior is “Corruption As Duplicitous Exclusion.” See this essay on APSAnet.
It should be “instructive, TD, yet many will dismiss it as mere “political posturing”, preferring to “believe” that the poor, belabored Democrats not only could achieve no more, but that they should not be held up to any sort of public derision or mawkish (mocking?) scrutiny
Most excellent kabuki, don’t you agree?
At some point, rather than asking “What is wrong with the Democrats?”, the question ought to become …”How can anyone vote for these people?”
Ah, well … a million reasons will be floated to explain “Why?”.
Starting, one may imagine, with the “lesser weevil” story-line …
DW
Senator Levin, who is a graduate of Harvard Law School and ought to know better, made the flimsiest of straw-man arguments. The progressive reforms he criticized didn’t even come close to establishing rules like those of the House.
Time for Obama to begin his vacation for the next four years. Great speeches but little else might be expected, I suppose. Such a legacy: “He woulda been great except for those nasty Republicans who always screwed things up.”
Love that headline.
For what it’s worth I would argue cynical. He knows what he’s doing.
No wait, I nearly forgot. There’s still some great things Obama can accomplish. You know that awful deficit? He can burnish his legacy by cutting those nasty entitlement programs and putting SS on firmer footing by increasing the age and using chained CPI. Bet the filibuster won’t stop that. Maybe this is what Levin had in mind?
Good. I refuse to live in a Democracy where the majority rule. That is just nuts. Society needs smarter people who were smart enough to inherit wealth like Trump and the Walton clan to make the rules for us. For our Democracy to survive we need to make rules that give the greatest good to the greatest number of rich people./s
Imagine the day when the majority of the citizens in this nation understand and know what he is doing, Dan.
That’ll be the day …
DW
Yeah and plus we all know how the filibuster helps safeguard the rights of minorities, another talking point Levin forgot to add.
Like when yeah Japanese-Americans were threatened with removal and relocation during WWII, it was the filibuster that prevented…oh, never mind.
And when Civil Rights workers were being murdered in the South, and the rights of African-Americans abused and ignored, it was the filibuster that prevented…oh, never mind.
And when the Bush administration decided to give law enforcement all the things on their wish list of powers, thank god we had the filibuster to…oh, never mind.
What “minority rights” does the filibuster protect again exactly??
-stewartm
Wait, I’m thinking. It’ll come to me – - eventually.
It keeps a simple majority from persecuting minorities on any matter like abortion, marriage, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
Levin named Most Ridiculous Senate Combover.
Such a legacy: “He woulda been great except for those nasty Republicans who always screwed things up.”
Such a legacy: “He woulda been great if he’d implemented ANYthing he speechified about. One thing. He coooduh been a cun-tenduh.”
Yeah, I forgot sexual orientation. Good thing that gays had the filibuster on their side, else they’d have lost the right to marry a long time ago. Heck, their expressions of love might have even been criminalized!! /s
-stewartm
Is there a member of congress you would want your kid to marry into their family. Outside of $$$ consideratins of course after all we are americans and $$$ is the only things that count.
We have a fascist(as defined by mussalini)oligarchy with democratic frosting-emmmmm good
This whole issue smacks of arguing about which china to take on the lifeboat, as the ship (of state) is sinking.
Well, Levin’s up for reelection next year, when he’ll turn 80. Are progressives in Michigan going to do anything about it? The Michigan Democratic Party has been badly screwed up for a very long time.
So I’m trying to understand why the Senate failed America with their chickenshit actions. My interpretation is that the Democrats fear most what the pos on the right will do if they ever return to power, and they fear it with good reason. My interpretation goes on to believe that the Democrats have a plan of action that will remove enough republicans from power so that they can no longer participate in destroying our democracy, and we must have patience and a belief that can happen. Further we who believe in America and it’s democracy must participate in ways that help crush the right so that democracy can flourish again, at least until our leadership deviates again to misuse its power.
Instead of a bum. Which is what he is.
Actually it was a bit too obvious this time. But cheer up. The recess appointment strikedown has made the Senate totally relevant again. Especially when folks figure out that it invalidates every past recess appointment made under the same conditions (outside of an intersession recess) and every legal or administrative decision made by those illegitimate appointees. Do we have a list of within-session recess appointees? Rumor is that Earl Warren’s appointment to the Supreme Court was one.
When exactly in history has the filibuster been used for this?
This Michigander agrees with you about the state of the MDP. One of its many problems is the lack of a farm team, which is a major problem considering Levin’s age.
Right now, there is a nasty cat fight within Michigan’s labor unions over control of the party. Mark Brewer, who has been state party chair for 18 years, is facing the possibility of a challenge led by Bob King, the head of the UAW. However, it doesn’t appear that the challengers have a candidate to oppose him–a clear violation of Rule 1 of Coup Plotting.
I’m old enough to recall some serious unpleasantness in the Senate in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was being debated.
How much less can you do than nothing? Lyin’ prick.
Unpleasantness? Well, we can’t have that. The Senate must be first and foremost a “pleasant” place to work. Getting controversial things accomplished won’t fit well with that at all.
-stewartm /s
Which of course has been the point of my mocking it in this thread. It hasn’t been used to protect the rights of persecuted minorities at all. Nor has it prevented really bad law (the Patriot Act, the current sequester/budget bill, etc) from being enacted. Rather, it’s been used to protect the privileges of elites, people who have the power to buy Senators.
That is why they want to keep it so badly.
-stewartm
the dems are the political 1919 black soxs
Cynical deception or idiot? Why choose one…
Exactly, the Bush tax cuts passed with a reconciliation vote of 51-50 with Cheney casting the deciding vote. Otherwise comity in the Senate since rich people can disagree from time to time but please let us be civil.
The whole “point” of the Senate, from the very beginning of this nation, was, and is, to protect privilege, it wasn’t intended that hoi paloi should ever be allowed to even vote for members of the Senate.
However, I suspect, stewartm, that you already know that history and are simply making clear the continuing “purpose” of the “new and improved” voter “selected” version of the “modern” Senate.
Carry on.
DW
I thought the question was about theory and not practice, and so I answered it. In practice the filibuster has been used in more petty ways.
from about.com:
The record for the longest filibuster goes to U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, according to U.S. Senate records.
The second longest filibuster was conducted by U.S. Sen. Alfonse D’Amato of New York, who spoke for 23 hours and 30 minutes to stall debate on an important military bill in 1986. D’Amato was incensed about an amendment the bill that would have cut off funding for a jet trainer plane built by a company hedquartered in his state, according to published reports.
The third longest filibuster in American political history was conducted by U.S. Sen. Wayne Morse of Oregon, described as a “blunt-spoken, iconoclastic populist.” Morse spoke for 22 hours and 26 minutes to stall debate on the Tidelands Oil bill in 1953, according to U.S. Senate archives.
The fourth longest filibuster in American political history was conducted by U.S. Sen. Robert La Follette Sr. of Wisconsin, who spoke for 18 hours and 23 minutes to stall debate in 1908. The fourth longest filibuster halted debate on the Aldrich-Vreeland currency bill, which permitted the U.S. Treasury to lend currency to banks during fiscal crises, according to Senate records.
The fifth longest filibuster in American political history was conducted by U.S. Sen. William Proxmire of Wisconsin, who spoke for 16 hours and 12 minutes to stall debate on an increase of the public debt ceiling in 1981. Proxmire was concerned about the nation’s rising debt level. The bill he wanted to stall action on authorizing a total debt of $1 trillion.
Gridlock is a feature of the Senate, not a bug. Nothing about the filibuster deal can be analyzed accurately unless we understand that.
I second that nomination. Honorable mention goes to Biden for the old man mullet.
Could someone on FDL give us a write up of the new Appellate opinion invalidating the NLRB appointments?
Allowing the fillibuster to continue, coupled with invalidating his recess appointments mean that the Republicans can, with one member only, block any appointment. This ensures that the NLRB can’t operate AT all, which I’m sure the RepubliCONS would like.
At the very least, I wanted a reform where a fillibuster would actually require a FILLIBUSTER, you know, someone talking and stuff.
If a R had been speaking for around 24 hours for every filibuster they’ve done recently (what–around 350?), the R’s would have been speaking non stop for about one full year. Nothing else would have been done.
*That* is why I believe that adjusting the rules to require non stop speaking in order to filibuster is the way to go. Of course, no one in the Senate wants the Senate to function in the same way that lowly bloggers do, all efficient-like and full of good intentions for regular folks.
I’m coming to that conclusion myself, after believing for years that they were the 1962 Mets.
I’m surprised that Senator Pothole is number two on that list. You learn something every day.
A commenter on Charles Pierce’s blog said of one lawmaker’s bad toupee, “the only thing that would make it uglier is if it came with a chinstrap.”
Moreover, even with a “talking filibuster”, one of the avowed justifications–to make the Senate “the more deliberate body” fails. Where’s the deliberation with someone reading the phone book in a speech nobody else is listening to?
-stewart
Carl Levin ( D-Israel, D-General Motors) is just plain dross. I’ve dealt with his office many times. He and Dingel have lifetime “appointments” here in Michigan and will no doubt remain in office until no pulse is detected.
Answer. No, they will do nothing.
And of course, the Senate was originally designed to function by majority rule. The filibuster came later, and wasn’t used for almost the first 50 years of the institution. From the “Filibuster in the US Senate” wiki:
Prop ‘em up, and wave their arms around, ADC14, ain’t no heart required.
Stick a Mace paker in ‘em and they’ll continue to Cheney along … long’s the battery is charged they could manage what Margaret calls a “Harry Reid”, that’s “… whenever somebody takes a weak little ineffective baby step after weeks and months of righteously angry rhetoric about fixing something.” Just pump some hot air into ‘em, to make up for the “angry rhetoric”, stand ‘em up on some roller skates, give ‘em a wee nudge, and shucks, just like corporations, they could live forever …
The proper Levin … in and all that.
Say, who can come up with the name, even ONE name of a Democrat that can always be counted on to do what is right by the Constitution and the people?
Just one?
Anyone?
Damn, if this were a charity auction, I don’t know how any money could be raised for a good cause.
How about a “provisionally” good Democrat who occasionally makes the right noises, but is still subject to wimping out on most things?
It has to be an active politician, one “in office” … now, not some retiring “revolving-door” candidate … what we got?
Maybe I’m too strict?
Let’s loosen it up, shall we?
What new faces, what just elected, or appointed, Democrats do ya like?
Look, there doesn’t even have to be agreement … just some … or one, candidate for Who Do You Trust?
Consider it a game … with no winners or even … any losers.
Let’s make believe …
Okay.
All right.
This isn’t going to end well, is it?
Aw, shucks …
DW
That’s good. I agree.
I believe, in the end, the world will say, “Those Americans, they had a good run, didn’t they? They HAD a good plan. Just poor execution in the end.Forgot where they came from.”