What’s Reid’s problem that he won’t really do it?  Does it just offend his sense of propriety?  Or is he so used to being bullied by Republicans that he hasn’t completely grasped that he’s really the one in charge now? 

He agrees with them and appreciates the excuse they offer, knowing that his constituents disagree.

What’s Reid’s problem that he won’t really do it?  Does it just offend his sense of propriety?  Or is he so used to being bullied by Republicans that he hasn’t completely grasped that he’s really the one in charge now?

Whatever the answer is, he and his House counterpart have to go. They’re like Bizarro World Democrats, who allow Republican Presidents to do anything that they want, and stymie Democratic Presidents at every turn

The real question is, how does the Dem grassroots pressure their Senators and Reps to put these two born losers on the “back benches” where they belong and vote in some leaders worthy of the name? And who are the best candidates to replace them?

He agrees with them and appreciates the excuse they offer, knowing that his constituents disagree.

That’s the only reasonable conclusion.  Conservative Democrats are just Republicans who ran on the other side of the ticket.  They DON’T oppose the Iraq War.  They DON’T oppose a regressive income tax.  They DON’T want marriage equality, liberal SCOTUS judges, reduced military spending, universal health care, a thriving domestic industry, or green energy initiatives.

The Democrats may hold the majority, but the liberals are still in the minority.  And the conservatives on our side of the aisle are more than happy to cave to their Republican counterparts as part of some grand kabuki theater because these are the policies they real want on the books.

Obama is dead center on a host of political issues and he is repeatedly billed as “The Most Liberal Man In The Senate!!11!1eleventyone!” because he’s so out of line with his far more conservative peers.

I think people were right, like Matt Yglesias, who claimed at the time of the Gang of 14 that liberals were better served if they let the Republicans get rid of the filibuster. We might have national healthcare in this country if there’d been no filibuster in Truman’s day.

And, remember, if they’d gotten rid of the filibuster the result would have been…...................Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

WORD!!!
My mom and I were talking about this a few weeks ago.  We want real filibusters.  Parties used to have Senators who specialized in the filibuster. They’d train for it, like for a marathon.

Far-out idea and all, but couldn’t Joe Biden step in if asked to and preside over the Senate after inauguration?  While I know that it would be pretty much unprecedented, I’m sure that having 40 minority senators dictating policy is also somewhat on the unprecendented side.

I always had the same question about Veto threats when Bush was still (acting like) President.  S-CHIP (and many other bills) had the votes to pass, but not beat a veto, so they dropped it.. why?  Why not put it on record that Congress wanted S-CHIP reform, and the President shot it down.  Make the veto (and now, the filibuster) the story, and make it cost some of that precious political capitol they love to talk about.

I guess we’ve replaced President Bush with Senate Minority Republicans on the grand scheme of people we can’t allow to look bad.

The filibuster is NOT in the Constitution.  It is a hallowed tradition but the Repugs have so abused it; it’s probably time for it to go.  However, let’s see how things play out.  If Obama only needs one or two (R) votes to get his programs he’s likely to get them on a lot of issues.  Give Reid a break, he only had 51 (sort of) and now he’s got at least 58.  Life is better.

Nate basically has this wrong; there isn’t really any way to force Republicans to speak to sustain a filibuster.  The Senate can only proceed to a vote on a bill either by unanimous consent, or by getting 60 votes to invoke cloture.  As long as one Republican is on the floor, all s/he has to do is object to any request for unanimous consent, and the Democrats have to get 60 votes.  The threshold required for cloture is a percentage of sitting senators, not senators voting, so the Republicans wouldn’t even need to be there to vote against cloture; they just need to refrain from voting for it.  The Democrats, on the other hand, would need to keep at least 50 members on hand at all times to respond to a quorum call, or else the Republican in the chamber would suggest the absence of a quorum and the Senate would adjourn.  So Democrats would be bearing the brunt of whatever physical toll this would take, and Republicans would be the ones getting a good night’s sleep, and would have no incentive to cave.  After all, Republicans are happy for the Senate to do nothing over the next two years; with Democrats in the majority, a long stalemate like this would be taking time away from work and votes on Democratic priorities, not Republican ones.  The Republicans tried keeping the Senate in session continuously a few years ago to try to pressure Democrats to abandon some filibusters of judicial nominees, and it didn’t work.  A similar effort in 2009 would encounter the same problems.

The only time a read-the-phone-book, wet-your-pants filibuster like in a Jimmy Stewart movie would take place would be when Democrats had the 60 votes to invoke cloture and Republicans could only stop them by refusing to relinquish the floor so that a vote could be called.  Then McConnell really would have to keep talking.  But this sort of filibuster never really happens, because it has no chance of working.  After all, unless you’re actually in a Jimmy Stewart movie, the 60 person majority can keep being 60 people longer than any one person can stand and talk, so unless some Senator wants to get headlines for him or herself in a losing cause there isn’t any reason to do it.

The escalating abuse of the filibuster is a genuine and growing problem, but if keeping the Senate permanently in session were a way around it somebody would have done it already.

I’d be happy enough to see Reid replaced by Chris Dodd or somebody like that—he hasn’t done much to impress me since that Harriet Miers gambit.  Even Schumer, who’s basically a better-upholstered Rahm Emanuel, would be a step up. 

We may be able to get around the filibuster on health care and some other issues by using the budget reconciliation process.  Debate on stuff that goes through this process is limited to 20 hours, so you can’t filibuster.  The Senate Budget Committee, chaired by Max Baucus, determines whether you can do this, and Ezra has reported that he’s open to the idea.  (He’s usually a pretty bad Democrat, so it’s a surprise.)

Interesting stuff, mjb.  I’ve heard similar stuff from people who know a lot about Senate procedure. 

Given what you’re saying, though, do you know why we have historical filibusters like the one Huey Long did, where he read out recipes for his favorite foods and how to make pot liquor?

I think people were right, like Matt Yglesias, who claimed at the time of the Gang of 14 that liberals were better served if they let the Republicans get rid of the filibuster. We might have national healthcare in this country if there’d been no filibuster in Truman’s day.

And, remember, if they’d gotten rid of the filibuster the result would have been…...................Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

I disagree entirely.  The fact that Democrats have been lackluster and apathetic in their handling of the filibuster - in both minority and majority - doesn’t mean it is a useless tool that should be tossed aside.  On the contrary, the GOP has highlighted what an effective weapon it can be.  I was thrilled to see Senator Dodd embrace a filibuster against his own party last year in an attempt to hammer down FISA.

The filibuster is an important weapon of the minority that can be polarizing on popular support.  Get a Senator willing to stand up and go toe-to-toe with the majority of his constituency for hours or days on end and you have a media event that people fixate on.  Public opinion becomes louder and more polarized and you get to see where the majority of the nation stands.

Grinding politics to a halt on big issues is what the filibuster is for.  It makes people sit up and take notice.  And it serves as a historical exclamation point in political timelines.

The fact that Reid hasn’t embraced the filibuster as a weapon in the minority or as a form of siege warfare in the majority demonstrates that he doesn’t have faith in the public at large to have his back on these major issues (or, alternately, demonstrates how he’d rather not have the public take so much notice of what the Senate is up to).

But the filibuster is a populist’s best friend.  Getting rid of it allows railroading like you see in the House, with minority status making you virtually invisible to the political process.  We absolutely need the filibuster.  It’s the senators themselves that need to be tossed.

No one would wet himself in a “real” filibuster. There are enough Republicans so that they could take turns holding the floor. In practical terms, all that would be accomplished would be that the Senate would grind to a complete halt.

Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing. But it should be reserved for issues of supreme importance. I agree with Zinfab that the filibuster is an important weapon against the tyranny of the majority. And if you think Democrats are going to be the majority in the Senate indefinitely, you’re kidding yourself.

But the filibuster is a populist’s best friend.

Except that it keeps you from getting expansions of social programs through the door.  One of the big reasons Europe has a bigger welfare state than we do is that it’s really hard to pass major legislation around here.  There’s just too many choke points in the system.

“I don’t know if Pelosi is as big a problem.  It’s really Reid that’s the major issue.  They need a new majority leader.
Amanda Marcotte on 12/17 at 12:24 PM
“

Yep, Pelosi is fine. Reid is spineless. Daschle was, too. It must be something about Senate Majority Leaders.

Remember, Reid was terrible Minority Leader, too.  I suspect he is a Repug-lite.
Is there any way to replace him as Majority Leader?  It should be done ASAP.

Pelosi “Impeachment is off the table” is an OK leader?

The Repugs would just borrow diapers from Sen. Vitter.

Given what you’re saying, though, do you know why we have historical filibusters like the one Huey Long did, where he read out recipes for his favorite foods and how to make pot liquor?

These are generally theatrical, rather than actual efforts to change the outcome.  At best, the filibustering senator could hope to raise the profile of the issue, but he had no real hope of winning the vote.  Long’s filibuster failed to stop the New Deal bill he was opposing, or to force the changes he wanted.  Strom Thurmond’s record-setting filibuster similarly failed to stop the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (which had already been gutted by Richard Russell, anyway).  The record he broke belonged to Wayne Morse, who also failed to stop the bill he was protesting against.  All three were pretty assiduously self-promoting, even for senators, and they were hoping both to make their point in a dramatic way and to advance their own careers by doing so.  And a lot more people remember them and their filibusters than the bills they were fighting, so I suppose it worked.

On 112 votes?

Yes.

The Democrats, on the other hand, would need to keep at least 50 members on hand at all times to respond to a quorum call, or else the Republican in the chamber would suggest the absence of a quorum and the Senate would adjourn

No, it would not adjourn, it simply would suspend business until a quorum was present.  Any motion to adjourn would fail as long as there were more Senators present voting to remain in session.  Also, Senators could sleep in their offices and be summoned to return upon any quorum call.

After all, Republicans are happy for the Senate to do nothing over the next two years

Oh, I doubt that.  Especially if it’s crystal clear that it’s entirely the fault of Republican obstructionism.  I’m sure there are other actions an irate constituency can take against a sitting Senator who is adamantly defiant of the wishes of those he represents, such as recall petitions and impeachment by the state legislature.

Interesting point, mjb.  But again, I have to wonder how on earth it is that the filibuster is a threat when it can’t ever really be used.  It’s a weird game of chicken going on.

It’s not so much that it can’t be used, as that it doesn’t look like you’d expect.  The talk-till-you-drop filibuster is camera-friendly but it’s a last-ditch, hopeless tactic.  As long as the Republicans still have at least 41 votes, though, a filibuster is just passive resistance.  If they want to, all they really have to do is sit there and object, and there’s no good way to force them to stop.  This is more effective than a Jimmy Stewart filibuster, but also more boring, so no one makes movies about it.

If we do get the last two Senate seats at some point and clear the 60 vote barrier (or induce one or two Republicans to break ranks on key votes), then Republican filibuster threats will get a lot more empty.

Incertus is right, and Pelosi is awesome.  The two things that most stand out in my mind are:

(1) Holding the caucus together against Social Security privatization in early 2005.  Of the ~200 Democrats in the House, only one went over to support the Bush plan.  She even kept anybody in the caucus from offering compromise plans, so that the Democratic response would be a clear and hard NO.  This is just an insane level of party discipline, and it came at our party’s darkest hour, just after Bush had won reelection and claimed a mandate. 

(2) In late 2005 - early 2006, she changed the standard Democratic position on Iraq to a pro-withdrawal one.  Steny Hoyer (the majority leader and the #2 Democrat in the House) and Rahm Emanuel wanted the party to maintain centrist positioning, but Pelosi got decorated ex-Marine Jack Murtha to put forward the withdrawal resolution.  With a guy like that leading the charge, Congressional Democrats felt comfortable declaring pro-withdrawal views, and that became the position of a majority of the party.

If they want to, all they really have to do is sit there and object, and there’s no good way to force them to stop.

Make them say it on the C-SPAN cameras.  Explain to the American people how they are being obstructionist, and just what it is they are obstructing.  Force them to come out and say on camera why they are against the measure; or if they start reading pot liquor recipes, show that too.  Make them actually filibuster.  That’s far better than a 10-second sound bite about how we didn’t have 60 votes, which just sounds like whining.

I don’t think Reid is a terrible majority leader.  I think he’s the WRONG majority leader.  He’s a consensus-builder in a time where there is no consensus to build, no one on the other side of the aisle willing to bargain in good faith; he’s soft-spoken in a contentious atmosphere, which comes across as wimpy instead of statesmanlike.  And he’s a centrist, even conservative Democrat who doesn’t share all the values Progressive/Liberal Dems promote.  He’s still a Democrat, and in general he’s a good guy.  But he’s not the right guy.  I have the same feelings and worries about Obama.

liberalrob: I don’t mean to make it sound like I think there’s nothing to do but throw up our hands and wanly concede that without 60 votes nothing can be done.  Making the argument for economic stimulus, health care reform, EFCA, carbon pricing, etc. and bringing pressure on vulnerable Republican senators to break ranks is obviously something which we can do (although I’m doubtful that recall petitions would be effective—I’m not aware of any precedent for recalling members of Congress).  But framing the argument around a procedural point like the filibuster seems less promising to me than pressing the argument on the policies themselves.  If a protest of some sort against Republican filibusters can highlight liberal arguments on the underlying policy questions, then great.  But the failure of the Republicans to get any traction when they tried it suggests to me that an effort to make an issue of Republican filibusters will only get the attention of people who care about filibusters in the first place, and there just aren’t many of them.

Face it LIEbrals, your DEMONcrap representatives are the Nice Guys™ of American politics.

Harry desperately needs to spend more time with his family.  If not for their sake, then he should do it for ours.

Thanks, mjb—your explanations have been donkeylinked.

mjb Totally has it.

It takes positive votes to overcome a filibuster - which means having the majority on the floor to vote.  Running a filibuster only requires someone be on the floor speaking.  They can totally be absent to vote against it.

If we do get the last two Senate seats at some point and clear the 60 vote barrier (or induce one or two Republicans to break ranks on key votes), then Republican filibuster threats will get a lot more empty.

And then Goold Old Harry Reid will find some other reason why the Senate can’t support - or even consider - any legislation that makes things better for real people. Bayh is already forming up a “centrist coalition” - with Harry’s blessing - to serve as a mouthpiece for wealthy individuals and large corporations. If the Republicans lose those vital two seats, you can bet that Bayh and his allies will gladly step up as the token obstructionists in Reid’s little pantomime.

Reid needs to go. Fortunately, his popularity in his home state is so low at this point that the Republicans might defeat him by accident. What a situation! The best way for progressives to get a voice in the Senate is for the Republicans to gain a seat!

Reid needs to go.

If Reid goes, he’ll just get replaced by some other centrist Dem.  Much as Reid replaced Tom Daschle when Daschle was knocked out by the Republicans.

The Democratic Party as represented by the Senate just isn’t that liberal.  There are some good liberal members, but there aren’t enough of them to put a liberal champion in as majority leader.  Which is why they end up with these compromise leaders who can scrounge together enough people who don’t actively hate them, but are fairly useless in the end.  If Reid goes, I doubt his replacement would be that much better.

Seriously - I want to hear names.  Who is realistically going to replace Harry Reid as majority leader if he were to get knocked out of his seat in the next election?  Who could do a better job?  And the snarky reply is “anybody”, so let’s get that out of the way first thing.  We’re not talking about replacing him with “anybody” - come up with someone that the Senate Dems might really put into that position who would do a better job than Reid has done.  I can’t think of one - in fact, I can think of a few who would be worse than Reid, but I can’t think of any who could get the job who would be much better.

NonyNony, I wonder if Dodd could’ve taken the position.  He lost the vote for minority leader to Daschle by one vote back in the 90s.  He’s retiring in 2010, I think, and I don’t know how big a kink that’d throw in things, but if it’s possible to be a 2-year majority leader he might’ve been a good one. 

Other name:
Durbin (might be too much power to concentrate in Illinois hands)
Schumer (did a good job at DSCC the last two rounds)
I have no idea if Ron Wyden would be a reasonable possibility, but given his record on health care, I’d be really happy for that

Egarwaen:  Are you from Nevada?  I really don’t think that Reid is in any danger of losing his seat (especially as the incumbent for the last 20 years and given the turning tide from this recent election which turned the state blue).

The problem is that outside of Clark County (which splits about 50/50), Nevada is a very red state and Reid knows that a progressive liberal or even moderate Democrat has little chance at winning a Senate seat.  He is, by nature and upbringing (he is a Mormon), a moderate to conservative Democrat.  I have felt very let down by him on some issues, but frankly, when compared to those he ran against he really was the ONLY choice. 

I can understand the Reid hate, but at the same time, knowing the context in which he behaves this way and seeing firsthand the constituency he represents, I also can see why Reid has assumed this posture as the conciliator.

I would be fairly surprised if eliminating the filibuster achieved even an outright majority—and, as I understand it, it is possible to filibuster a Senate rule change, which means it would have to meet the 60-vote threshold. Given that this isn’t a realistic option, and given that the current idea in vogue in the left blogosphere to force Republican Senators to talk forever doesn’t appear to be possible (per comments in this thread), the remaining option is to corral Republican Senators for key votes. As Nate has pointed out in other posts, that may be hard or easy, depending on the issue, especially when one takes into account conservative Democrats who may defect depending on the issue. In the end, it’s an issue of the Democratic leadership and the White House’s political acumen and their willingness to compromise. I expect plenty of compromise out of the Senate leadership, and a fair amount of compromise and a lot of acumen from the Obama White House. The President will get many of his legislative priorities enacted, but not in the exact form he’s proposing. The aggregate effect of all this on Democrats’ (and Obama’s) electoral fortunes is likely to have a great deal more to do with whether the policies enacted are perceived as effective than whether they are perceived as representing Obama’s true will or undiluted liberalism/progressivism. This will not particularly hold for priorities that are less salient for the public, such as union card check legislation and climate change (although the latter can be made salient by linking it with a jobs/public works program).

Boxer would be great, but I doubt she’d get the chance.

But Magis, if the filibuster went away, then Senate Democrats have no excuse to let Republicans continue to run the Senate.  I fail to see how “kill the filibuster” is laying off Reid.  Then how would he be a big weenie?

Well, he may still end up being a big weenie but if he does then he’s a weenie without an excuse….(true on several levels).

it’s an expression of political strength, and Pelosi decided—wisely, in my opinion—that if there was no chance of getting rid of Bush and Cheney, then there was no point in pursuing the matter.

Then why did the Republicans impeach Clinton, when there was similarly no chance of removal?

DISTRACTION, that’s why.

The US Army’s doctrine of attack uses the motto “Degrade, Disrupt, Deny, Destroy”, and that was the R. goal towards the Clinton administration.  It’s time we did the same to their continuing efforts to corrupt our nation.  Use their own tools on the fuckers.

Reid needs to go. Fortunately, his popularity in his home state is so low at this point that the Republicans might defeat him by accident. What a situation! The best way for progressives to get a voice in the Senate is for the Republicans to gain a seat!
Can’t he be defeated in a primary?  The Dems don’t have to run the asshole again.

Then why did the Republicans impeach Clinton, when there was similarly no chance of removal?

Because they were dumb.  The Republicans lost 5 House seats in the 1998 elections after attacking Clinton for Lewinsky stuff all year long.  Newt Gingrich was forced to resign the speakership after the elections because Republicans were pissed that he had led them badly.  This is not a model to follow. 

The reasons not to pursue impeachment were many.  Not only could Republicans easily muster the 34 Senators necessary to block an impeachment, but they could do so while letting Senators like Gordon Smith (Oregon) who needed to show independence from Bush vote for impeachment.  Jeff Merkley—probably the biggest progressive hero we elected to the Senate this year—would’ve had a hell of a challenge tying Smith to Bush if Smith voted for impeaching Bush. 

In the end, we won a bunch of House seats and 7 or 8 Senate seats.  That’s a sign that the House and Senate leadership didn’t fuck up.  We now have a genuine shot at passing all sorts of cool stuff.  I love Pelosi, and after reading mjb’s stuff above I find it hard to complain too much about Reid.

Amanda, I speak on behalf of everyone at Barefoot and Progressive and Ditch Mitch KY and everyone in the KY blogosphere when I say, Flying Spaghetti Monster Bless You. Amenz, and such.

This post reminded me to send in my weekly bitch about Reid to my two senators, Murray and Cantwell.  I wish Murray would bitch-slap him around the capitol building.

Can’t he be defeated in a primary?  The Dems don’t have to run the asshole again.

No, he really can’t be.  And yes, the Dems pretty much have to.  For all the reasons cited by history_mom, any hypothetical Nevada Democrat able to win a statewide election here would be no better than Reid as a conservative/centrist.  This is a deep red state with a couple of very large blue counties. 

Also, Reid is the 800lb gorilla in the Nevada Democratic party: anyone who could conceivably challenge him would be smart enough not to try it.  Nobody in the party would dare take him on, seriously.  He may look like a housecat in the Senate, but around here he’s known more as a pitbull.

Reid ain’t Lieberman, and Nevada ain’t Connecticut.

Any effort to remove him as SML would have to stay in the Senate.  He’s not going to be defeated in this state anytime soon- not by another dem, anyway.