The D.C. Press Yawns While Republicans Return To Radically Obstructionist Ways

ERIC BOEHLERT/Media Matters For America:

Republicans in the U.S. Senate made history this week when they successfully filibustered the nomination of Rep. Melvin Watt (R-N.C.) to become director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Watt received 56 Senate votes, four short of the 60 necessary to end the filibuster.  

The move represented the latest round of raw, extremist obstructionism that Republicans have proudly practiced for the last five years, particularly when it comes to mounting extraordinary efforts to block presidential appointments that in the past were considered to be routine.

The historic element of the Watt rejection was that throughout American history it has been virtually unheard for a sitting member of Congress to be filibustered -- to be denied the courtesy of a final vote -- when selected by the president to fill an administration position. Prior to this week's partisan blockade of Watt, a Congressional rejection like his hadn't happened since before the Civil War, in 1843.

That important historical context should have been included in every story about the Watt filibuster, but it wasn't. That's not surprising considering the Beltway press corps seems to have made a conscious decision during the Obama presidency to omit virtually all context with regards to the Republicans' continued radical behavior as they cling to filibusters to methodically block, stall and reject most White House policy proposals, as well as countless nominations.

The pliant coverage over the years has likely only enabled Republicans to push ahead with their corrosive strategy, knowing there's certainly no downside with regards to adverse media attention. After all, Republican moved to recently shut down the government, yet lots of journalists suggested the radical, destructive move was because "both sides" just couldn't agree, essentially blaming Democrats for Republican extremism.

Note that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) recently announced he was going to block all Obama nominations until he got more answers about the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi. Although as CNN's Jeffrey Toobin noted, Republicans block Obama picks as a matter of general principle, so it's not like Graham even needs a stated reason for the obstruction.

Watt wasn't the only presidential pick rejected by Republicans on October 31. They also blocked Patricia Millett, who was nominated to fill one of three vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Despite the fact Millett had previously served as an assistant solicitor general, and represented the administration before the Supreme Court 32 times, under both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Republicans denied her the right to an up or down vote.

It's telling that Republicans barely even bother to give reasons for the filibusters any more, and that the press doesn't find that odd. 

Republicans claim Watt is too "partisan" and not "qualified"; vague allegations that can be leveled against virtually any presidential pick. As for Millett, Republicans didn't even pretend to care about her judicial record. They simply want to make sure the vacancy on the D.C. Court of Appeals she was picked to fill remains permanently empty, so that the court will remain split evenly between Democratic and Republican appointed "active" judges, while the balance of senior judges -- who still hear cases -- remains overwhelmingly Republican.

The Millett and Watt votes were remarkable in many ways, although they didn't generate much coverage, especially not on television. None of the network newscasts mentioned the votes last night, and Watt and Millett have received just a handful of cable news mentions, according to Nexis.

Of the filibuster coverage that does exist, the tell-tale shortcomings that have defined the media's work on GOP obstructionism are on display. For instance, the Associated Press categorized the filibusters as "a setback for the president," which is precisely how Republicans want the story to be portrayed: They embrace extremist tactics, reject the president's picks, and the press chalks it up as a White House failure, or "setback." (If you're a Republican, why stop?)

The Washington Post pointed to the filibusters as examples of "partisan rancor," suggesting Democrats were partially, or equally, to blame.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that while judicial nominations remain an issue of deep contention, "Among senators of both parties, there is agreement that a president should be granted deference in picking members of his cabinet and top executive branch positions."

But that just completely ignores recent history. Last November Republicans launched an unprecedented, preemptive smear campaign to make sure Susan Rice was not picked as Obama's next Secretary of State. (It succeeded.) Then they engineered an unprecedented campaign to try to stop Republican Chuck Hagel from becoming Secretary of Defense. (It failed.)

And as late as July, two of Obama's nominated cabinet picks still hadn't received votes in the Senate, thanks to determined obstruction. 

Note to the Times: Republicans now absolutely do reject the idea that "presidents should be granted deference in picking members of his cabinet." If the president is a Democrat.

Acknowledging that simple fact is an important first step towards accurately reporting the story of GOP obstructionism.  

Rand Paul No Progressive Hero, Despite Anti-Drone Filibuster

by Adele Stan/Alternet

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is winning plaudits from progressives for his 13-hour filibuster [2], launched Wednesday morning, against President Barack Obama’s nomination of John Brennan to the post of CIA director. While Brennan deserves to be ditched for his failure to speak up against the CIA’s use of torture and the administration’s drone assassination program, Paul’s Mr. Smith move [3] is less one of courage than one of political opportunity.

Instead of lauding the anti-woman [4], anti-civil rights [5] neo-libertarian senator, progressives would do better to ask: Why have all the Senate Democrats signed onto the Brennan nomination?

Just last week, John Kiriakou [6], a former CIA agent who blew the whistle on the U.S. Government’s torture program, began a two-and-half year prison sentence for having done so. Meanwhile, in his nomination hearing before the Senate, Brennan admitted that, while serving in the CIA’s number two spot, he never spoke against the agency’s practice of torture. And now, through the acquiescence of Senate Democrats, he’s to lead the agency.

And instead of applauding Rand Paul’s ostensible bravery, why are his progressive fans offering scant analysis of his motives [7]?

It’s important to recall how Rand Paul made his way into the Senate in the first place, and who put him there [8], namely the neo-libertarian Tea Party-fomenting astroturf group, FreedomWorks, and the Senate Conservatives Fund led by Jim DeMint, the former senator from South Carolina who now leads the Heritage Foundation. Those two organizations backed Paul’s primary challenge to a candidate hand-picked by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s senior senator, as a reminder to the Republican leader that he’d better toe the Tea Party line. And he has.

In his anti-drone filibuster, which admittedly offered C-SPAN viewers an often-enlightening education on the Obama administration’s flouting of the U.S. Constitution in its pursuit of al Qaeda and the Taliban, Paul also played to his paranoid base, suggesting that the U.S. Government was targeting survivalist right-wingers as potential terrorists and might soon be launching drones against them.

As right-wing activist Lee Stranahan tweeted [7]: “I believe what Rand Paul is doing is showing how to run for president in 2016.”

What Rand Paul did last night was to put on an awesome show that won him a lot of attention. And, yes, it was gratifying to hear Spencer Ackerman [9], of Wired’s Danger Room site, and The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf [10] name-checked on the Senate floor for stellar journalism that asks the hard questions [9] about the Obama administration’s claim [10] that it has the right to assassinate U.S. citizens -- even on U.S. soil -- in particular circumstances. (Yes, really.)

And it was surely entertaining to listen to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, read tweets on the Senate floor, when he was dispatched by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to give the Kentucky libertarian a break, and to state that the “technical term” for what was going on with Twitter right now because of the #standwithRand hashtag, was that is was “blowing up.”

However riveting that all was, it was horrifying to see noted progressives using that very same hashtag simply because no Democrat was willing to make as dramatic a stand against having a torture apologist and assassination strategist for a CIA director -- not to mention an attorney general who is game to give cover to the unconstitutional actions of the administration.

But to stand with Rand means to lend support to a showman who opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he thinks private owners of public establishments, such as restaurants, should be able to turn black people away on the basis of race. It means giving a patina of honor to a man who held up a flood relief bill in order to attach an amendment that would give civil rights to a zygote to “end abortion once and for all.”

Courage? I suppose you could say George Wallace was courageous when he defied a federal order to integrate the public schools of Alabama. Rand Paul’s courage springs from the same well.

Progressives would do better to lean on politicians who claim to embrace the progressive agenda, and make it impossible for them to support the likes of John Brennan.

BREAKING: Senate Republicans Make History, First To Filibuster Defense Secretary Nominee

By Hayes Brown/Think Progress

Senate Republicans today chose to uphold a filibuster against Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel, despite many of them previously pledging that they would be willing to allow him to be confirmed.

Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and John Cornyn (R-TX) all voted against cloture, despite their pleas during the Bush administration that a president’s Cabinet nominees should receive an up-or-down vote.

Four Republicans, Sens. Thad Cochran (R-MS), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mike Johanns (R-NE), voted to break the filibuster. The final vote was 58-40, with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) voting present, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) not voting at all, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) voting “no” as a procedural move so that he can bring another vote to the floor at a later date.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had originally scheduled the cloture vote for tomorrow morning, but surprised many by pushing it up to this afternoon. Earlier today, Reid took to the Senate floor to lambaste his Republican colleagues for delaying an up-or-down vote on Hagel, the first filibuster of a Secretary of Defense nominee.

Prior to the roll call’s beginning, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) attempted to explain that the vote that was set to take place was the vote “to confirm Chuck Hagel,” rather than merely being a procedural vote. Inhofe also claimed that a 60-vote margin was common practice, rendering the actions of the Republicans not a filibuster. However, the motion was still filed by Reid as cloture — the ending of debate — rather than the actual confirmation of Hagel, as laid out be Levin before voting. This leaves the door open for Hagel’s nomination to remain on the Senate floor and renders the GOP’s actions a filibuster under the Senate’s rules.

While Senate Republicans are opposed to voting on Hagel today, they seem to believe that they’ll change their minds after the Senate returns from its President’s Day recess in 10 days. This morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that he expected to be willing to move Hagel forward at that time, “unless there’s some bombshell that he likes blood sucking vampires.” Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and John McCain (R-AZ) said roughly the same thing today, leaving their votes against Hagel today confusing.

The hope for such a bombshell emerging seems far less than likely. A speech given by Hagel in 2008 that conservatives have long-sought as evidence that Hagel falls far outside of the mainstream was released today, turning out to be a dud. Likewise right-wing implications that Hagel was secretly being backed by a group called “Friends of Hamas” also proved to be utterly false, fabricated on a far-right media outlet.

After today’s filibuster, the Senate will reconsider Hagel after their break. While today’s vote showed that the GOP was willing to obstruct and delay, they ultimately will be unable to do this forever. In the end, Hagel still possesses more than the majority vote needed for final passage.

Democrats watch in awe as McConnell filibusters himself

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced legislation to raise the debt ceiling on Thursday, apparently with the intent of showing that even Democrats would not support such a bill.

However, McConnell’s plan backfired after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called for a vote on the legislation, which would have given the president the authority to raise the federal debt ceiling on his own. The top Senate Republican was forced to filibuster his own bill.

“What we have here is a case of Republicans here in the Senate once again not taking ‘yes’ for an answer,” Reid said, after McConnell announced his filibuster. “This morning the Republican leader asked consent to have a vote on this proposal, just now I told everyone we were willing to have that vote — up or down vote. Now the Republican leader objects to his own idea. So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill, so I object.”

Apparently aware the incident would bring media attention, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) expressed astonishment at McConnell’s legislative antics.

“What just transpired deserves a word,” he remarked. “Sen. McConnell came to the floor this morning and offered a change in law that would help us avoid the kind of obstruction and the kind of show downs we’ve had in the past over the debt ceiling.”

Durbin explained “to those who don’t follow the Senate” that by calling for the legislation to be passed by a 60-vote majority, McConnell had filibustered the bill. He said this was probably the first time in history that a senator had filibuster his own proposal.

Reid and other Democrats have called for the Senate’s filibuster rules to be reformed, claiming that Republicans have abused the parliamentary procedure and obstructed lawmaking.

Watch video, uploaded to YouTube, below:

After Enthusiastically Using Filibuster, GOP Begs Democrats Not To Filibuster Cut, Cap, And Balance Plan

By Travis Waldron/Think Progress




Since 2009, Senate Republicans have forced virtually every bill to pass the 60-vote cloture threshold before it could come to the floor for actual debate. Thisunprecedented obstruction forced Senate Democrats to find 60 supporting votes — as opposed to a simple majority of 51 — to pass health care reform, financial regulatory reform, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the economic stimulus package, and nearly every other bill they considered, and killed critical legislation like a climate change bill, immigration reform, and the DREAM Act. In addition, Republicans have successfully filibustered an unheard-of number of judicial and cabinet-level nominees, hindering the efficacy of both branches.

But after they failed to get 60 votes for their Cut, Cap, and Balance plan last week, a group of Senate Republicans is urging Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to bring it to the floor for debate, thus allowing it to pass with only 51 votes. The senators sent Reid a letter today, obtained by Slate’s Dave Weigel:

We urge Senate Majority Leader Reid to reconsider the tabled bill and let the Senate debate it fully, in full view of the American people — so that it may garner the four or five votes that it needs to pass — and to agree that it should pass without invoking the 60 vote cloture threshold in recognition of the urgency of the matter.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) made the same argument on Fox News this afternoon, saying the bill was only tabled, not defeated, and Reid should bring it to the floor for debate.

The Republican approach ignores numerous obstacles for the bill. If Reid brought it to the floor, it would need to gain five more votes to pass the Senate with just a simple majority. Even if it passed, President Obama has promised to veto it. And even if Obama signed it into law, it would still need approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress to send the actual Balanced Budget Amendment to the states for ratification. The House passed the bill, but would need roughly 57 more votes to approve the amendment, while the Senate would need to find 21 more votes.

Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), continue to cling to the notion that their radical Balanced Budget Amendment — which would force draconian spending cuts and exacerbate the pain of future recessions — is a serious plan in the search for a debt deal. Even less serious than the actual plan, however, is asking Democrats not to use the very rules that have allowed Republicans to grind the Senate to a halt for the last three years.

Dawn Johnsen: My Nomination Was Blocked To Score ‘Political’ Points Against Obama On Terrorism

By Ian Millhiser 

In a must-read article about the broken confirmations process in the Senate, Dave Weigel quotes former Office of Legal Counsel nominee Dawn Johnsen explaining that conservative objections to her failed nomination had nothing to do with actual disagreements with her views:

“I’m not going to talk about any individual meetings with senators,” [Johnsen] says, “but the impression that I got was it wasn’t about me, that it wasn’t personal. It was political. And there were some senators who were very open about that. It wasn’t a difference in substantive views. The things I was attacked for saying about torture, for example—Lindsey Graham and John McCain have talked about that the same way.” (Neither publicly supported her nomination.) “You definitely need to look at how all the terrorism issues and nominees who dealt with terrorism issues were treated. The attempt was to describe President Obama’s approach as not sufficiently tough on terrorism, and make that a political issue.“

And Johnsen is hardly the only Obama nominee that became the focus of a smear campaign despite no legitimate objections to her fitness for public service. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) accused failed judicial nominee Goodwin Liu of wanting to use the courts to turn America into “communist-run China,” and a law review article that became the centerpiece of the conservative claim that Liu was a judicial activist was in many ways a call for judicial restraint. Similarly, while no one on the right has provided a plausible explanation for why Peter Diamond’s nomination to the Fed board needed to be blocked, Sen. Richard Shelby’s (R-AL) claim that the Nobel Prize-winning economist was unqualified is obviously absurd.

Johnsen, Liu, and Diamond can at least say that their nominations were high-profile enough that people noticed the campaign of obstruction against them. The sad truth is that many nominees simply die a quiet death as senators delay their confirmation votes into oblivion. Indeed, this silent obstructionism caused Obama to have a lower percentage of his judicial nominees confirmed during his first two years in office than any other president in American history.

Weigel’s piece concludes with an uncharacteristically smart idea by Manuel Miranda, the disgraced former Senate staffer best known for hacking Democrats’ computer servers and stealing confidential documents. Miranda proposes allowing nominees at the rank of assistant secretary or lower to begin doing their job before they are confirmed by the Senate. Doing so would be a real step towards preventing the hollowing out of government we are currently witnessing.

Filibuster To Protect Big Oil Welfare Fueled By Oil Money

By Brad Johnson 

Tonight, Republicans filibustered the majority’s attempt to repeal $21 billion in subsidies for the big five oil companies — the same companies that madeover $30 billion in profits in just the first three months of 2011. While three out of four Americans believe Exxon Mobil and the other oil majors should pay their fair share, instead of receiving taxpayer welfare, the oil-friendly Senate split 52 to 48 to end the subsidies. Though the majority of the Senate voted to repeal these oil tax breaks, the procedural motion required a 60 vote threshold. An analysis of campaign contribution records shows the gusher of dirty cash that fueled the filibuster:

A Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis finds that the 48 senators who sided with Big Oil received over $21 million in career oil contributions, while 52 senators who sided with the American people received only $5.4 million in contributions. Each senator who voted for Big Oil received on average more than four times as much oil cash as those who voted to end the subsidies.

While eight Republican senators voted for a bill that included a repeal of tax breaks for big oil in 2007, only Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine voted with the Democrats in supporting ending taxpayer handouts to big oil tonight. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Ben Nelson (D-NE) joined the Republicans to protect the oil companies’ corporate welfare.

After Filibustering Judicial Nominees, McConnell Falsely Claims That He Opposes Judicial Filibusters

By Ian Millhiser

Ever since President Obama took office, Republicans have waged an unprecedented campaign of obstruction against the president’s judges. As a result, nearly one in nine federal judgeships are vacant and federal judges are now retiring faster than new judges are being confirmed. Yet Senate Republicans Leader Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor yesterday to make the astounding claim that he has always been a champion against filibusters of judicial nominees:

Some have also suggested that one’s view of the filibuster depends on where one sits. And it’s true that when I was in the majority I opposed filibustering judicial nominees. But I opposed doing so when I was in the minority too, and I opposed doing so regardless of who was in the White House. In short, I was against expanding the use of the filibuster into an area in which it traditionally had not been used—period.

Watch it:

McConnell is simply not telling the truth about his record on judicial filibusters. While McConnell certainly joined his caucus in claiming that such filibusters were unacceptable when President Bush was nominating judges, McConnell literally filibustered the very first nominee named by President Obama. McConnell was one of 29 Republicans who joined a failed filibuster attempt against Judge David Hamilton, the first person nominated to a federal judgeship after Republicans lost the White House.

And judicial nominees are hardly the only victims of McConnell’s single-minded campaign to prevent the Senate from functioning. Indeed, the minute McConnell became Minority Leader, the number of filibusters spiked massively:

So while McConnell’s claim to consistency on judicial filibusters is obviously false, he has been consistent on one thing: doing everything in his power to make sure only conservatives are allowed to govern.

O’Donnell Suggests That God Wants Her To Be Elected So That She Can Filibuster In Lame Duck Session

By Ian Millhiser

In an interview with the conservative Christian Broadcasting Network, Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell suggested that the almighty has “strengthen[ed] and empower[ed]” her campaign so that she can be around to filibuster during the lame duck session:

God continued to strengthen and empower us when, you know, His strength is perfected in our weakness, and that’s what’s exciting. Because you see that, if it weren’t for faith—when all logic said it’s time to quit—we pursued; we marched on, because we knew that God was not releasing us to quit.

And now, with such an important lame duck session, you realize why we were to endure that stuff. [...]

I could be that 41^st vote, making sure that they don’t get 60 votes, and that we can continue the filibuster to make sure that this backroom deal wheeling and dealing doesn’t succeed.

Watch it:

Because O’Donnell is running in a special election to fill out the remainder of Vice President Joe Biden’s senate term, the winner of her race will join the Senate in time for the lame duck session. In its segment on the O’Donnell interview, CBN flags the GOP’s plan to cut taxes on the superrich as a key vote where O’Donnell can make a difference during that session. Apparently, O’Donnell thinks that God has flip-flopped on His longstanding position on rich people.

Momentum For Senate Filibuster Reform Builds

Sam Stein/Ryan Grim

Momentum is building to reform Senate rules that allow silent filibusters and force a 60-vote requirement for virtually any action, interviews with Democratic candidates and sitting senators indicate.

Democratic candidates said that they hear regularly from voters about abuse of the parliamentary tactic, which is likely to come up as the first vote new senators face in 2011. The supermajority requirement in the Senate has become such an obstacle to reform that it infiltrates policy discussions at every step. Last week at the Netroots Nation political conference, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) gathered environmental writers to discuss energy legislation; the first few questions were related to energy, the rest of the conversation was dominated by the filibuster.

"The use of the filibuster and the way it's led to backroom deals has created the impression in the heartland that the Senate is dysfunctional," said Jack Conway, a Democratic candidate facing Republican Rand Paul in Kentucky. "They don't understand why Washington can't address the issues people care about. People in Kentucky wanted people focused on jobs -- 14 months [of the health care debate] laid bare how broken the system was."

Conway was joined in his backing of filibuster reform by the three other Senate candidates who HuffPost interviewed for this story: Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, Elaine Marshall of North Carolina and Roxanne Conlin of Iowa. Sitting Senators Al Franken (D-Minn.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) also said they supported reform.

"It's not constitutional. It's not statutory. It's a rule," said Hodes, adding that he wasn't certain what the new rule should look like exactly, but the current ones needed to be reformed. "Everywhere I go, they say, 'Make 'em bring out the cots and the telephone books.' People are eager for real backbone and some toughness from Democrats."

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a leader in the effort to reform the filibuster, said that support is strongest among new members and those running now. "They're all tuned into it," said Udall, elected in 2008, of the freshman and sophomore senators. "The core of support will by those: 2006, 2008, and whoever comes in in 2010." Merkley, Cardin and Franken have all been elected since 2006.

Merkley said that he's been canvassing his colleagues to determine how strong support is for reform. "I think we will be able to pull a couple dozen senators into the debate," he said. "Now is the time to heat up this conversation. Going into this election cycle with people running for office...it is important for people to remember that there was no supermajority requirement till 1917."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), during an address to the Netroots Nation conference, expressed his support for filibuster reform, comparing the situation to baseball's decision to ban the spitball and basketball's move to implement a shot clock. Neither rule had been needed before pitchers and basketball coaches abused the process, he said.

Reid has let the filibuster opponents know he's on their side. "Senator Reid has now said that he thinks that at the beginning of the next Congress there needs to be some kind of reform," said Udall. "There's a sense that we need to do something. Exactly what it is nobody quite knows yet."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has been holding Rules Committee hearings to study the issue of reforming the filibuster. What was recently considered impossible is now looking inevitable.

"There is a lot of talk around the country and senators are hearing it. I think there is more interest in it in the caucus. I don't know if it is an issue we will deal with this cycle, but...I think its time is coming," said J.B. Poersch, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "Some of it is because, around the country, several of our candidates have adopted similar platforms and you have an opportunity to elect new Senators who have that on their agenda, too."

Udall said that the discussion has radically changed in the Senate. "The tone has changed. It used to be, when I first got here, people would say, 'Why are we doing this this way? This doesn't make any sense. And they would be referring to the procedure and the rules. And the saying always was, 'Oh, we're stuck with these rules. You can't change them. You need 67 votes. It's part of the filibuster. You just can't change it.' And people don't say that anymore," said Udall.

They don't say that anymore because it's not true and Udall, along with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), has effectively made the case to his colleagues that it is entirely constitutional to change the rules.

The Constitution gives the vice president the power to break ties - not break 60-40 splits. Why would such a vote matter if the institution was not designed to be run by a majority?

Opponents of reform argue that the Senate is a continuing legislative body and that its rules can only be changed with 67 votes. But three vice presidents have previously ruled otherwise in the past - two Republicans and one Democrat.

If Vice President Joe Biden -- who has spoken out against abuse of the filibuster and has been studying ways to reform it -- were to rule on the first day of the next session that the Senate has the authority to write its own rules, Republicans would immediately move to object. Democrats would then move to table the objection, setting up the key vote. If 50 Democrats voted to table the objection, the Senate would then move to a vote on a new set of rules, which would be approved by a simple majority.

The simple act of holding the vote would have a therapeutic effect on the Senate even if it fails, said Udall, as it would inspire fear that abuse of the rules could lead to their destruction.

"People would then realize on both sides that if we abuse the rules, then they might change, because you do have an option of changing them. So I think there's a very healthy effect that flows from having the ability to adopt rules by a majority vote," he said.

Republicans in the Senate have performed more filibusters during the current congressional session than any minority in Senate history.

McConnell’s Faulty Logic: A Cloture Vote To Begin Senate Debate Actually Means A Vote To End It

By Faiz Shakir

Time and again, Republicans have urged Democrats to “slow down” and “start over” in the course of pursuing their agenda. In his role as chief obstructionist, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has used “his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down” and has forged unity among his caucus to filibuster the Democrats’ agenda. Today, McConnell will once again try to stop reform.

At 5 pm today, the Senate will hold a cloture vote on a Democratic plan to overhaul regulation of Wall Street. If the Democrats can muster the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster, it would begin a process of commencing a 30 hour debate, filing amendments, and ultimately holding a vote.

This past Sunday, McConnell pledged that his caucus would hang together to filibuster the vote. On the Senate floor earlier today, McConnell offered a backwards-logic explanation for the GOP’s obstruction:

MCCONNELL: A vote for cloture is a vote that says we’re done listening to the American people on this issue. And a vote against ending this debate is a vote for bipartisanship, for working out an iron-clad solution to the problem of Too Big to Fail. A vote against ending this debate tonight is a vote that says it’s no longer enough to tell our constituents to trust us. It’s a vote that says this time, we’ll prove it.

Watch it:

In fact, a vote for cloture simply means that the Senate is going to begin a final debate on the bill. As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said on the floor today, “This afternoon’s vote is a vote merely to begin debate. It’s not the end of the process, just the beginning.” Reid added that the debate would be “broadcast live” on C-Span.

The public is steadfastly on the side of concluding this debate. About two-thirds of respondents in a new Washington Post survey say they support “stricter regulations on the way banks and other financial institutions conduct their business.” Nevertheless, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) affirmed that “41 Republicans right now are going to stand together” to stop the debate from proceeding.

Matt Yglesias writes, “On financial regulation, over the months I’ve heard a number of Republican Senators say reasonablish things about the bill, or about problems with the bill. But it’s time to put up or shut up. If you’re concerned the bill doesn’t address something, then write an amendment to address it. If you think the bill is too tough in some respect, then write an amendment to weaken it. There’s no good reason to insist that everything be done in a secret Shelby-Dodd negotiating process.”

McConnell predicts filibuster of financial reform

By David Edwards and Gavin Dahl

The Wall Street reform bill may eventually pass in the Senate but not before it faces a filibuster Monday, according to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Fox News' Chris Wallace pressed Sen. McConnell (R-KY) Sunday on whether he would have the 41 senators needed to filibuster the bill when it comes up for a floor vote Monday. "It's my expectation we will not go forward with the partisan bill," answered McConnell.

"We don't have a bipartisan compromise yet but I think there is a good chance we're going to get it. What I'd like to see is an opportunity to prevent the Democrats from doing to the financial services industry what they just did to the health care of this country," said McConnell. "And Ironically, Chris, my view is very similar to that bastion of conservatism and tool of Wall Street, The Washington Post editorial page, which said this morning that this bill needs to be improved."

"The fifty billion dollar bailout fund needs to come out," continued McConnell. "We need to have a system in there under which the creditors can expect that they're going to be treated fairly somewhat similar to the bankruptcy laws and we need to have enhanced capital requirements. None of that is currently in the bill that the Majority Leader would try to have us take up on Monday, which came out of committee on a strictly party-line vote."

To pass the bill as is, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would need the support of at least one Republican senator.

The Hill reports that eyes are trained on Maine's two moderate senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Neither one has so far declared they would support the bill.

Last week, Sen. Reid (D-NM) dared Republicans to block financial reform, assuming the American people support Congress taking on Wall Street.

The Washington Post editorial mentioned by McConnell ends with these words:

"Based on our reading of the bill that emerged from Mr. Dodd's committee, a bipartisan compromise on these points is well within reach. That is, unless Democrats and Republicans are more interested in scoring political points than fashioning policy."

This video is from Fox's Fox News Sunday, broadcast April 25, 2010.

AP: Republicans set record for use of filibuster

By The Associated Press The filibuster — tool of obstruction in the U.S. Senate — is alternately blamed and praised for wilting President Barack Obama's ambitious agenda. Some even say it's made the nation ungovernable.

Maybe, maybe not. Obama's term still has three years to run.

More certain, however: Opposition Republicans are using the delaying tactic at a record-setting pace.

"The numbers are astonishing in this Congress," says Jim Riddlesperger, political science professor at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth.

The filibuster, using seemingly endless debate to block legislative action, has become entrenched like a dandelion tap root in the midst of the shrill partisanship gripping Washington

But the filibuster is nothing new. Its use dates to the mists of Senate history, but until the civil rights era, it was rarely used.

A tactic unique to the Senate, the filibuster means a simple majority guarantees nothing when it comes to passing laws.

"The rules of the Senate are designed to give muscle to the minority," said Senate historian Donald Ritchie.

With the Senate now made up of 100 members, two for each of the 50 states, an opposition filibuster can only be broken with 60 votes — a three-fifths majority.

As a matter of political philosophy, the concept of the filibuster arises from a deep-seated, historic concern among Americans that the minority not be steamrolled by the majority.

It is a brake and protective device rooted in the same U.S. political sensibility that gave each state two senators regardless of population.

The same impulse gave Americans the Electoral College in presidential contests — a structure from earliest U.S. history designed to give smaller population states greater influence in choosing the nation's leader.

Given recent use of the filibuster by minority Republicans and the party's success in snarling the legislative process in this Congress, Democrats say the minority has gone way beyond just protecting its interests.

The frequency of filibusters — plus threats to use them — are measured by the number of times the upper chamber votes on cloture. Such votes test the majority's ability to hold together 60 members to break a filibuster.

Last year, the first of the 111th Congress, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the first two months of 2010, the number already exceeds 40.

That means, with 10 months left to run in the 111th Congress, Republicans have turned to the filibuster or threatened its use at a pace that will more than triple the old record. The 104th Congress in 1995-96 — when Republicans held a 53-47 majority — required 50 cloture votes.

During most of Obama's first year in office and for a few weeks this year, 58 Democratic senators and two Independents who normally vote with them held a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate.

That vanished last month when Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown captured the seat of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who died last summer.

Most notably, Brown's victory has stymied Obama's push to overhaul health care just as the bill was approaching the finish line. Before Brown's election, both the Senate and the House of Representatives had passed separate versions of the reform legislation.

Brown broke the Democratic 60-seat majority before the two chambers could meld differences in their bills for a final vote in both houses.

However, one of Brown's first votes after taking office saw him joining four other Republicans to help Democrats break a threatened filibuster by his party's leaders against a job bill.

The measure, $13 billion in tax incentives for businesses to hire unemployed workers, was quickly passed the next day with 12 Republicans joining Brown and 55 Democrats in favor of it.

Filibusters to make the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress look inept are one thing. Quite another is a vote against creating jobs in an economy with nearly 10 percent unemployment and midterm elections nine months away.

Quick Fact: Fox again falsely claims majority vote in Senate is "nuclear option"

From media matters research department

A February 22 Fox Nation headline incorrectly referred to the process of reconciliation as the "nuclear option." In fact, "nuclear option" is a term coined by former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) to refer to a procedure that would be used to change Senate rules; reconciliation requires no rule changes and was used repeatedly by Republicans during the Bush administration.

Fox Nation falsely refers to reconciliation as the "nuclear option"

Fox Nation: "WH: If GOP Filibusters Health Care, We'll Use Nuclear Option." On February 22, Fox Nation's home page displayed the following graphic:

The graphic linked to an article from Greg Sargent's blog, The Plum Line, that was headlined, "White House: If GOP Filibusters, We'll Pass Health Reform Via Reconciliation."

FACT: "Nuclear option" refers to changing Senate filibuster rules, not to reconciliation

Lott coined "nuclear option" to refer to proposal to change filibuster rules. Lott coined the term "nuclear option" to refer to proposed changes to the Senate rule requiring a three-fifths supermajority to end a filibuster. Lott was one of the leading advocates of this proposal. However, as Media Matters for America noted, after strategists deemed the term a political liability, both Republican senators and media figures misattributed the term to Senate Democrats.

FACT: Reconciliation is already part of the Senate procedure, and Republicans previously used it to pass Bush's agenda

Reconciliation is already part of the congressional process. The budget reconciliation process is defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution."

Republicans previously used reconciliation to pass President Bush's agenda. In a March 28, 2009, article, The New York Times reported that "the long record of Republican support for fast-tracking budget-related bills definitely dilutes their ability to challenge Democrats on the issue." During the previous adminstration, Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act."

FACT: Fox routinely misuses "nuclear option"

Fox Nation, Fox News personalities routinely invoke the "nuclear option" while discussing reconciliation. Fox News personalities including Sean Hannity, Dick Morris, Bret Baier, and Greta Van Susteren have all falsely compared reconciliation to the "nuclear option."

New poll finds more Americans in favor of eliminating the filibuster.

By Zaid Jilani One of the greatest obstacles to passing progressive legislation in Congress has been the use of the filibuster in the Senate. With upwards of “40 cloture votes since the start of the 111th Congress in January, this Senate is on pace to record the second-largest number of filibuster roll calls,” transforming what was intended to be a seldom-used procedural tactic into an all-out tool for obstructionism. Now, a new CBS/New York Times poll finds that more Americans support ending the filibuster and requiring legislation to pass by a simple majority: As you may know, the Senate operates under procedures that effectively require 60 votes, out of 100, for most legislation to pass, allowing a minority of as few as 41 senators to block a majority. Do you think this procedure should remain in place, or do you think it should be changed so that legislation is passed with a simple majority? Should remain 44 Should be changed 50 [Don't Know] 6 Changing the filibuster would not be without precedent. In 1975, the filibuster threshold was lowered from 67 to 60. Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) have introduced legislation that would “change Senate procedure to create a four-step process that would eventually allow a majority of 51 votes, rather than 60, for cloture — ending debate and moving to a final vote on passage of a bill.” Yet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has “dismissed the effort” as unlikely to succeed. OpenLeft’s Chris Bowers has an ongoing whip count for the effort to pass Harkin’s reforms here.

Lamont: Lieberman "Dithering" On Health Care

By Sam Stein/Huffy Post

One of Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) most strident critics accused him of "dithering" on health care reform after the Independent stated that he would consider sustaining a filibuster of the legislation.

Ned Lamont, who beat Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic primary only to lose to the senator in the general election (after Lieberman defected from the party), accused his one-time opponent of posturing for attention in making his filibuster threat.

"I think he wanted to rush to war now he wants to dither on health care," Lamont told the Huffington Post. "You don't have to posture. You just have to sit down and talk to your fellow Democrats and move this thing along."

"To me, a filibuster is just a way to avoid the issue," Lamont added. "Rather than do a press release he should be sitting down with his fellow senators."

Lamont would go on to insist that some of Lieberman's major objections to the health care bill were bunk. People in Connecticut, he said, support a public option for insurance coverage in part because it could expand coverage but also because it would result in lower costs -- something that he appreciated , as a business leader. Lamont also noted that by adding an opt-out clause for states to the public plan, Lieberman's concerns that this would resemble a new entitlement program were essentially moot.

"What he is saying is 'I don't want Connecticut to have the opportunity to even opt in,'" he said.

As for getting Lieberman back in the fold, Lamont didn't have a solution. He encouraged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to make reform more palatable to moderate Republicans so as to make Lieberman's opposition irrelevant. He then conceded that such a scenario remains unlikely if the package also includes a public plan.

"I would make the case to everyone on the floor... that this is just a choice, it is an option, it is competitive," Lamont said. "It gives us a shot and let's us play into a bigger pool.... If Harry Reid makes that case, I think he will be able to get some folks behind it that will surprise you."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/lamont-lieberman-ditherin_n_335869.html