Ezra gets a cloture graph
-
Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:59 PM EST
Leave a Comment:
- 2013
- 2012
- 2011
- 2010
- 2009
Discuss this post
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Video: US failure to maintain infrastructure betrays national legacy
Video: Foolhardy budget cuts cripple government operations
Video: Canada, home of many nice things
Video: Social conservative extremists fill Virginia GOP slate
Video: Rare confirmation of Obama pick prompts Supreme Court talk
Video: Crack smoking video claim dogs Toronto mayor
Video: A genuine Maddow show
Watchparty!
Archives
Senate reform.... let's hope it happens now before it's too late.
Without properly labeling the red area on the graph as "Volume of Obstructionism in American Governance" it doesn't quite hit one in the head hard enough... like a 2x4. Graphs are only as good as its clear & concise labeling. "Cloture"? Huh??
The problem is that it isn't obstructionism when your guy is doing it, or you don't mind that it is obstructionism. By all means, let them change the rules in the senate but you may be surprised how much you miss those rules when the other guys have the chamber and don't give a rat's you-know-what what you have to say about anything. The rules are kind of crazy but I have been around long enough to see both sides abuse them and in ways that made me sick. For example, everyone hates the filibuster (so do I, by the way) but last week Sen. Sanders was a hero for the day because of his righteous and ultimately meaningless pseudo-filibuster. The rules aren't going to change but if they do I suspect I'll read complaints about it here on this very blog before too long.
The hurdle use to be, what, 67 votes? Now 60. Wouldn't be surprised if it dropped to 55... smacks of much more reasonableness. Too much of a hurdle is too much of a hurdle. But with a House heavily Repub at this point, & Dem Senate... kinda futile to begin with for the time being.
California's new voted in primary system of top two vote get'ers moving onto the General Election, regardless of party, is the experiment of the century on taming wild opposites.
I agree that that is a much more reasonable number but anything that isn't majority rule will be cause for people to complain and anything that means the other guy gets what he wants will be reason for people to complain.
Peter, did you even look at the graph? Relying on your feelings to justify false equivalence is fun but pointless. Do you see that sharp spike at the end? Something happened then to cause that and it's not because both sides are equally to blame. The rate of filibusters started to rise because of rules changes that made it easier to filibuster; but it wasn't a rules change that caused that big sproing heavenward. Tell us what you think is the cause of that sudden, sharp rise. If you don't mind.
Hi MeddlingMonk, What do you mean? I think everyone knows that it is the "just say 'no'" stance of the Republicans forcing everything that has to pass to first meet the procedural hurdle of 60, rather creating that new hurdle. Do you think it is something else? Sixty is more than a little ridiculous but the Senate (and the House, for that matter) has passed legislation that did not have broad support and and the most recent election was a winner for the Republicans. Expect to see more of the strategy UNLESS the Dems grow balls and change the rules in the next congress. I don't think they will. I'd almost bet my life on it.
Good. You gave the right answer. Thank you.
Your original comment ('everybody is to blame', is what I made of it, rightly or wrongly) made me think you wouldn't. Maybe you write things very fast. Maybe you're thinking through your positions as you write. Whatever. I don't wish to be offensive, particularly now, but I'm starting to sense a lack of clarity in the ideas you're expressing. Maybe that's me even though I'm usually good at making sense out of any old gobbledygook. But I'm not going to make any demands of you on that account. Just expect me to press you when I'm not making sense of what you're trying to say. I think you can handle that. And It might be fun. ;)
America the best democracy money can buy...good luck to you.
Actually, that is not always true. The Democrats outspent the Republicans this time and still couldn't hold the line, though it probably kept the damage from being worse than it might have been.
What the parties spend is a far cry from what the now-unaccountable private groups have been spending.
As far as I'm concerned we have this concept called free speech... it's the public's own fault that they (we?) vote based on the advertisements that have such obvious agendas. It is completely insane (to avoid foul language) that we expect the government to enact laws that will protect us from our own poor judgement.
We must fix the fact the money buys our votes not by making the money illegal but by making the money ineffectual. If money (in the form of advertisements) buy your vote, please just stop voting.
Just look at what is going on right now, a budget bill that Democrats have not allowed Republicans to see and that has millions in earmarks is being pushed through...it's a good thing the Republicans have cloture, which Democrats have used often in the past, to slow down this process and insert common sense and a more bipartisan outcome.
@RobDon - Is this the 2011 budget bill that Republicans have not seen?
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=9ac3518e-7e19-4328-bf52-16a6c2a1d333
Dutchie, you could not have posted that link yesterday and the bill is nearly 2,000 pages and contains the budget for all of next year. Would you vote on a bill that you had not read and studied? I would not.
@RobDon, I don't know about posting yesterday since I didn't look for it yesterday. I do know, when I went looking, it took all of 30 seconds on Google to find the link. Where did you read that the budget bill was not available to Republicans?
It is an unfortunate fact on Capitol Hill that many bills voted on have not been read in their entirety by those voting. This is one task often (usually?) delegated to the Congressional staffers, who are expected to brief their bosses on salient points within the bills. Perhaps when you are elected to Congress you will find time to read and study the bills yourself, or otherwise reject them outright.
The quote I was referring to was from Mitch McConnell when he was comparing this bill and the December timing to last year's health care bill. His quote from the NYTimes:
He stated, some of the Republicans have seen parts of it but not the entire bill.
I agree, especially when they cost 1.1 trillion dollars! As far as my being elected, not a chance. Maybe you can run, if you promise a fiscal conservative platform, I'll vote for you!
(hopefully not a double first post)
I very roughly reformatted the so-called 2000 page bill into something more akin to what my professors would have accepted. It came to 60 pages... not to belittle the significance of the bill or the time it would take to understand it's implications but 2000 pages is far beyond any reasonable sort of exaggeration.
Compromise, consider yourself dead and buried. Meet your new, zombie self. His name is Cloture. He's a real bastard sometimes, but he'll get you what you want, (when you're the minority, anyway) even if it isn't always what you need.
Just proof that the senate is broken.
Just remember be careful what you wish for--it just might bite you in the a$$ in 2012
Great Graph, but could be slightly improved by 'Color-Coding' the Bars, to show the Party in Control of the Senate, during that Session! Please, and Thank You!
I agree with several others who commented, that Filibuster / Cloture apply, whichever Party is in power, but regardless of which side you're on, it's gotten WAY out of hand - Filibuster (and therefore the need for Cloture) was designed for EXTRAORDINARY Situations, not to be used Every Single Vote, as the proverbial 'Blunt Object', to Bludgeon the Opposition into Surrender and Future Defeat!
Would BOTH of you groups of Children GROW UP, Stop worrying about Bashing Each Other, and REMEMBER US, the American People? You are supposed to be working together for Us, NOT your Respective Parties!
It's near the Top of the Public's 'Christmas List', even the Tea Party's!
ps: More Reading and another Graph, for those interested:
Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate
I found this to be an 'Interesting Bonus', under 'See Also' 3/4ths down the page:
"Mae West hold" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae_West_hold
Your graph is confusing. The bottom numbers I think should be years but 100, 104, 108, 110 do not represent current years (on your show tonight this last bottom number went to 112) in a 100 years this would be correct, am I missing something.
If the bottom numbers are years it looks like each sucssevive change in the body of congress (democratic to republicans & visa versa) has spiked the number of filibusters. The number of filibusters is only going to increase, further freezing congress, the respect for any civil discourse between the 2 parties has vanished, the only way to provide an avenue for any future progress is to change the rules of the Senate. Get rid of Secret Holds, make a 55 vote to break a filibuster just have more transparency.
Tim N
The bottom numbers are sessions of Congress, Tim. That is why the x-axis is labeled "Congressional Sessions".
Several nights ago Lawrence Odonald was promoting the passage of the obama givein tax legislation. During his sales attempt he referenced clinton tax bill and indicated it only needed 50 votes. It begs the question, how did that happen. I believe the short answer is they actually required anyone filibustering to actually stand on the floor of the senate and speak continuously until they tired and capitulated. Harry Reid has simply allowed the opposition to win by default, no effort necessary.
It is time for a house cleaning of the weak and inept. Any senator voting for reid should also be targeted for removal. It was afterall their endorsement of a failure that created the corrupted legislation coming out of washington.
Unfortunately media, rachael, and the rest are equally to blame for they reinforce the false notion 60 votes is required.
The Democrats in congress will be, as usual, too little, too late.
Sure, they can reform the filibuster in order to pass.... what? Is anything good going to come out of the republican-controlled House, that the Democrats in the Senate will want to pass?
If they were going to change the Senate rules, they should have done it in 2008 after they saw what the repubs started doing in 2006.
I am sooooooo fed up with these people!
They really don't need to change the Senate rules to end the filibuster, and they can do it at any time during the session. They simply call a point of order saying it is unconstitutional, have the chair concur, then affirm by a simple majority vote. (Same as Repub "nuclear option"). I'd like to see Rachel ask her Dem Senator guests why they don't use this option to end the filibuster so they can finally do something to help the People.
It isn't only the dems that keep the repubs out of their meetings -- the repubs were very good at that during Bush's administration. Both parties do it, so do not just blame the dems.
We in the State of Washington voted for the top two winners of the primary in November's general election, regardless of party. I do not care for that idea at all, because as I see it we will not have representation by both parties.
I feel that even though the repubs are getting their wish for tax cuts, they will still not cooperate with the President or the dems during the next two years. All I can see getting from them is the "NO" we have continually gotten so far.
Also, I cannot bear to see Boehner's tears everytime he speaks on the subject of how hard he worked at menial jobs while attending college. Who hasn't done the same thing? Even so, he doesn't seem to care that there are people hurting now. You'd think that his experience would give him a different objective. But, of course, since he has crawled up the ladder to success, probably by stepping on a lot of toes on his way up, he doesn't seem to realize that that does not happen to the most. He has no compassion for his fellow man as I see it. STOP THE TEARS, BOEHNER, IT MAKES ME WANT TO SLAP YOUR FACE and I am not that type of person, usually.