Why Senate Filibuster Rules Must be Changed

Reader Comments
Back to article

"Any intervention in a complex system may or may not have the intended result, but will inevitably create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes."
See the video below (hypocrisy):
http://wallstreetpit.com/17634-what-a-bunch-of-hypocritical-phonies
If the fillibuster is removed, then democrats won't have the option of using it when they lose 30% of their seats in November.

Dan Tanna of IL 1:17PM March 11, 2010

The problem is not the filibuster. The problem is lack of statesmanship. You and your cronies knew, after kyping turncoat Specter, that Republicans lacked the numbers for filibuster. You all believed that you didn't need Republicans, and therefore had free reign to pursue your progressive agenda. You foolishly tried to go it alone and failed. Not because of Repbulican's but rather because traditional Democrats did not walk lock step with progressives in your own party. Scott Brown's extraordinary election was just frosting on the cake.
Now that the facts are straight. Let me cut through the froth and provide a synopsis of your arguement which is, "I don't like the rules of the game, therefore the rules should be changed that make winning the game more advantageous to the majority (read progressive liberal) party."
I, too, can find quotes from revered Americans to offset the quotes you use to underpin your argument. So that doesn't fly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the filibuster has not been used during this year long debate on socialized medicine. So what filibuster are you referring to exactly. All I see is a minority party "threatening" the majority party with filibuster use. And I see you and the Democrat part tuck collective tail and run.
That's the spineless leadership that will cost you in November.
Understand, Mr. Harkin, that Republicans are only threatening. If you and your cronies are so full of righteous indignation and so sure of the end result then force the Republicans to filibuster. Call their hand. Make Republicans filibuster and determine once and for all if the threats are just bluster or real. But to whine about it is absured.
You wont because you and I know that a vast majority of Americans are opposed to a government take over of health care. The popular election of a Republican who won a senate seat in the most liberal state in the nation (Ted Kennedy's seat) was a haymaker to the glass chin of the president and his progressive parties agenda. So staggering, that the president called for a standing 8 count.
The Democrat milquetoast response now is, "we should change the filibuster rules." Is it to change the rules, or change the threat of filibuster?
The point is this: play by the rules, Mr. Harkin. You don't change the rules midway through the game when your competition is whipping your butt. Read Dale Carnegie's book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

david of ID 6:40PM March 02, 2010

Take a look at what the Democrats said in 2005.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjdbjrXiobQ

jans of IL 8:44PM March 01, 2010

Mr. Miller, with all due respect, 1 million is not necessarily an impressive number, not in a country with a total population of over 300 million, meaning 1 million represents about 3/10th's of 1% of the total population. Therefore, I will hold off for that reason alone, though I give other reasons in my preceding comment.
DC Palmer, you've just cast the first stone, apparently without regard to the glass houses adjoining. Democrat houses, I might add. (Consider how many time the Democrats used the filibuster to block President Bush when the Democrats were the minority party -- used it for partisan purposes, not for the larger good. Just like today's Republicans, all too often.)
Cyros of MN, is slinging arrows helpful? Was it helpful when some of President Bush's opponents compared him and the Republicans generally to fascists when abuses of the Patriot Act came to light? I suggest it was not then, and it isn't now. In this case, using "leftists" as if its definition is "instruments of Satan" doesn't contribute to a calm, deliberate, civil debate. Please stop demonizing others.

MekhongKurt 8:30PM March 01, 2010

I've just commented on Senator Graham;s article, in which he defends the use of the filibuster. My comments take a somewhat contrarian view, though not a position of complete opposition.
Now I come to Senator Harkins article. Senator Harkin is, I believe, among the more reasonable and thoughtful of our Senators, as I also believe is the case with Senator Lindsay. But I also don't fully agree with Senator Harkin, either.
Were we to entirely eliminate the filibuster, along the Australian model (in which parliamentary system members are strictly limited in how long and to what topic they speak), given the fiction of a "legislative day" -- i.e., the Senate can dismiss and reconvene any number of times in a matter of minutes, each convening pretending to be the start of a "new day," something politicians are generally loather to explain to their constituents, then a bare majority could ride roughshod over the minority, such as a 51-49 or 52-48 vote. Those represented by the dissenting 48 or 49 are citizens, too, and their views deserve careful consideration and reflective deliberation.
Part of the problem in our perceptions revolves around terms such as "super majorities." Much was made of the Democrats "super majority" in *both* Houses of Congress after President Obama took office.
In the case of the House of Representatives, it's quite true that the Democrats do have something at least approaching a super-majority -- but we can't forget the Blue Dog Democrats, who sometimes look more like Republicans than they do Democrat. They can reduce that majority considerably when they vote en mass or nearly so.
However, in the Senate, not only do the Democrats not have a super majority after the ascension of Republican Senator Brown to the seat formerly held by the late Tex Kennedy, but they never *did.* There were fewer than 60 Senators from the Democrat Party, though two Independents do caucus with them. In theory, that is. Senator Lieberman proved rather dramatically an Independent can be a very loose cannon and dart off somewhere beyond Pluto, deep into the Oort Cloud, leaving members of both major parties scratching their heads. "Huh? Where's Joe off to *today*???"
Yet were the filibuster essentially gutted or even eliminated, then a bare majority of 51 could carry the day. As I said a few paragraphs back, "those represented by the dissenting 48 or 49 are citizens, too, and their views deserve careful consideration and reflective deliberation" -- an idea that merits repetition and emphasis.
Yes, it's clear the Founding Fathers meant for majority rule to be the fundamental basis of our government. It's equally clear they wanted to make sure the minority were not disenfranchised.
We don't make it easier for our Senators. Obamacare is opposed, 50-42. Ask about the individual parts, and those parts are popular by as much as around 70-30. Tell the people those parts *are* Obamacare, less than 1/2 switch to support it. How does a Senator read THAT?

MekhongKurt 8:12PM March 01, 2010

Consider joining
1,000,000 people who support ending the filibuster
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=217655509977&ref=mf

Jack Miller of GA 6:46PM March 01, 2010

We do not need to change the filibuster rules. We only need for Democrats to call the Republican bluff. A Republican filibuster will a 24-7 exercise in self-inflicted public humiliation, all recorded and broadcast by C-SPAN. I look forward to it. I am just disappointed that Democrats keep letting me down.

DC Palmer of WI 6:45PM March 01, 2010

Maybe if democrats would stop trying to pass far leftist bills and would do something on behalf of their constituents there wouldn't be so many fillibusters.

Cryos of MN 1:17PM March 01, 2010