Harry Reid confronted the progressive blogosphere last night at the Netroots Nation conference, and he made it clear that he’s heard our advice on the filibuster.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Saturday that Democrats will try to change Senate rules on the longstanding practice of filibusters.
Reid said that while Democrats were still looking at options as to how they would change the filibuster, Republicans’ use of the rules to force a 60-vote majority on most items before the Senate meant that a change was needed.
“This Republican Senate has started abusing the rules, so we’re going to have to change it,” Reid told liberal bloggers assembled in Las Vegas for the “Netroots Nation” conference.
“We do not have a plan fully developed yet, but we’re looking at ways to change it,” Reid said.
The Hill is factually inaccurate in saying that we need 67 votes to change the Senate rules. That’s true once rules have been adopted at the beginning of a new Congress, but the vote to establish the rules in a new Congress is by simply majority (51) vote, and the vice-president can break a tie. So, we can change the rules next January provided we still have 50 senators. If we don’t, we will have lost control of the Senate anyway.
I like the way Reid stated the case for filibuster reform. “This Republican Senate has started abusing the rules, so we’re going to have to change [the filibuster rule].” There’s no equivocation in that statement. It gets right to the point and it doesn’t leave any room for backtracking.
I’ve seen Harry Reid break speed records for backtracking, but this locks him in nice and tight, and he seems to actually agree with our argument against the filibuster.
The Republicans may have created quite the quandary for themselves. They’ve obstructed so abusively that they might discover they have dramatically less power with 47 senators than they had with forty-one. That kind of makes their fall campaign an exercise in futility. Good for them. It couldn’t happen to a lousier group of people.
I agree the filibuster and maybe the Senate itself needs some reform. But I am hesitant. I don’t want to wake up one morning to Abortion being illegal thanks to a 50 seat Republican Senate and a Republican Administration. I realize this is hypocritical, because I want progressive legislation to pass on a simple majority and not right-wing legislation. But I must be honest . . . for what it is worth, I have concerns . . .
chadwick, I can understand your concerns, and share some of them.
The Social Security fight in Bush’s second term alleviated some of my concerns. Bush wanted to privatize Social Security, as did most of the Republican party. And yet they couldn’t even get a bill voted out of committee in the House or Senate. Why?
Because it’s not enough to have a majority in Congress (and control the White House). A united opposition party, and an energized citizenry can stop a majority party.
I’m more concerned about the following scenario: Senate Democrats don’t change the filibuster rule. Republicans continue to obstruct Obama and the Democratic agenda. Voters, frustrated at years of 10% unemployment “throw the bums out” and install a Republican majority. The first act of the Republican Senate is to do away with the filibuster. Then they pass numerous bills for President Palin (or Romney or…) to sign, so that she/he has the most successful first 100 days since FDR.
I think the consequences are 90% good for progressives and 10% bad. The senate is already anti-democratic. The filibuster magnifies that. If the public elects a president and full congress willing to roll back reproductive rights, so be it. It seems unlikely. What has happened is that public has elected a president and full congress to roll back bushism and they have been thwarted by the outrageous abuse of a minor procedural rule, a rule that has no constitutional standing.
I’m disgusted by certain supposedly left leaning writers wringing their hands about how we can’t get rid of the filibuster if the republicans win seats. This is cowardly politics and a brain-dead argument. The filibuster is a minor, extra-constitutional rule of senate procedure. It has nothing to do with the will of the people-THAT’S THE POINT! And of course, even were we to grant that it has some tenuous, metaphysical relationship to elections, the whole point of the senate is that it is filled by three elections, not one. What irks me about these arguments is that they are perfectly designed to give aid and comfort to certain conservative democrats who will likely have “grave reservations” about a new system which would greatly reduce their influence.
Hesitation based on electoral blowback is also nonsense. A major reason democrats are in trouble now is because they rolled over and let the republicans control the senate with a 41 seat minority. And, finally, were the positions reversed, the republicans would obviously have no compunction in trashing the filibuster.
You deal with your concern by winning elections. Only when Democrats get corrupt, lazy, or divided on an issue like a protracted war do Democrats lose their majorities.
As long as Democrats provide peace, prosperity, honesty, transparency, and effective government, they get re-elected.
Unless there is a campaign of deceit that they are blind to and cannot call out. Which is why the liberal blogosphere exists.
Turn out the numbers in every Congressional District, and Democrats will keep getting elected. It is the folks in Congress themselves who determine how many or how few folks you can turn out for them. Primary when needed. Heck, strengthen the campaign by primarying every time. Make primaries routine not exercises in pique.
Your concerns are empty.
Oh I don’t mean you don’t actually have concerns I just mean the they’re kind of useless to have. Even if they had the fillibuster the Dems wouldn’t use it to stop stuff like this if they were in a 50-50 senate. I’m not even talking about right wing Dems, just that the Senate Dems seem to believe that if the GOP has control of the chamber the GOP should control the chamber which is not something the GOP believes. So they wouldn’t stop it anyway.
I personally wish the Dems viewed the GOP as illegitimate the way the GOP views the Dems. Because the Republicans have destroyed every single thing they have touched in this country for the last 50 years if not the last 75. They are the party that is illegitimate.
.
“There’s a lot of Democrats I’ll be happy to see go,” Moulitsas said in an interview. “I’ll celebrate when Blanche Lincoln is out of the Senate. There is a price to be paid for inaction and incompetence. We’re not getting much done with 59 [Democratic senators], so if we’re down to 54, who cares?”
Moulitsas went on to suggest that a smaller Democratic majority in the House might be better for advancing a more progressive agenda. “If 20 Blue Dogs lost their seats, nobody’s going to care,” he said. “That’s their problem and I’m not going to cry about them. To me, a more cohesive caucus might be a better deal moving forward than one in which the Blue Dogs need to be appeased.”
Obama, Pelosi urge activists at Netroots Nation to keep fighting for change
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."“it doesn’t leave any room for backtracking.”
I think that man could backtrack through a brick wall
He would do it by saying,”The Republicans have agreed to not abuse the filibuster this session, so we do not have to change it after all.”
Just for clarification I do think filibuster needs to happen-hopefully with the new congress; but I do not think we should be arrogant in thinking there will not be backlash and that there will come a day when we do wish we had it. That’s all-just honest concerns–but they do not trump the need for reform, precisely because of all the reasons highlighted in Booman’s post and the comments. I like the idea of a gradual decrease in the filibuster threshhold. It allows for delay but also rewards diligence. I also think the senate should be changed to a tiered system where states have more proportional representation–not just like the house but maybe something that reflects the disparity of population density. Maybe larhest states get 4 Senators, medium get 3 and then all other states get 2, as current. Its still not “the people’s house” but it could also keep Wyoming, Idaho and West Virginia from thrawting CA, NY and FL. 🙂
Please insert “reform” after filibuster in my first line above. 🙂
chadwick, thanks for the clarification, and for sparking the conversation.