|
|||
|
Who’s Afraid of a Filibuster?Posted on Nov 13, 2008By Joe Conason While the ultimate occupants of United States Senate seats are yet to be determined in Alaska, Georgia and Minnesota, chances seem small that Democrats will increase their new majority to 60 seats—the supermajority that ensures against a successful filibuster. So the same Republicans who once complained about the use of that legislative weapon by the opposition now brandish it in warning to President-elect Barack Obama. Nobody can doubt that the Republican remnant in the Senate will obstruct as soon as that seems politically safe. Right-wing pundits, from Rush Limbaugh to the Wall Street Journal editorial page are already egging them on furiously. But is there enough muscle behind that filibuster threat to block Obama’s mandate? The short answer is no—and the new president’s own political arsenal should enable him to call the Republican bluff. Let’s count the actual votes on the Republican side of the aisle, asking which senators would have both the inclination and the will to join a filibuster. Every issue calls forth different levels of resistance, of course, but in each instance the opposition would need at least 41 total. In the very worst case, should the Republicans pick up all the remaining seats, they will begin with three more than that. Six Senate Republicans will face re-election two years hence in states that went for Obama: Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.). Having seen their fellow incumbents fall in the last two elections, that half dozen may well consider themselves in varying degrees of political peril. Poor Gregg watched his New Hampshire colleague John Sununu drop this year as their state turned deep blue. Martinez won his seat in 2004 by a single point and is widely considered vulnerable. So are Specter, nearing his 80th birthday, and Voinovich, now 72. Advertisement And finally there is McCain himself, whose popularity in Arizona has diminished markedly this year. His term will expire in two years as well, and at least one poll shows that he would lose his seat to Janet Napolitano, the state’s popular Democratic governor. Perhaps that is why he returned home to campaign on the eve of the election. As the nation rebalances its politics away from the right, Senate Republicans may well ask whether they can maintain even their diminished numbers in the next cycle. How eager will any of these endangered incumbents be to participate in filibusters that will leave them open to the “obstructionist” label that Republicans used to slap on Democrats who fought the Bush administration? The matter of incumbents and filibusters seems highly relevant to another problem that the new president must solve. What will he do with the remarkable political machine created by the Obama campaign? Filibuster prevention would be a worthwhile and inspiring project for those idealistic millions. Early next year, the president-elect and his new Democratic Party chair can start to deploy those massive resources into sweetening the Senate. They can mobilize the grass roots and the netroots in the 2010 Senate states—and across the country—to keep pressure on Republican incumbents while building support for their potential challengers. Such a scenario presumes, of course, that the president-elect is determined to enact the promise of change rather than placate the opposition. So far there is no reason to presume otherwise—and that is why he must prepare for the worst. Joe Conason writes for The New York Observer. © 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc. Previous item: From Barracuda to Scapegoat Next item: With Iran, Obama Needs More Carrot, Less Stick CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By cyrena, November 15, 2008 at 10:51 pm Link to this comment
DJR writes:
“..Pesioila and Reid represent separate divisions in their own parties Republicans are redefining what they lost and the American voter is fickle . There are gun toting anti abortion Democrats in several numbers in congress. What the news media and congress don’t know or are unwilling to talk about is what the mob wants. What people will tolerate. What will cause civil unrest. Nope, many Democrats are moderate Republicans who ran against Republicans and many Republicans are moderate Democrats serving as Republicans. Defending ones party is not necessary, just let the tide rule to the extreme and the people will crash in on Government like a tidal wave. Obama should have no problem passing his agenda till it becomes the extreme…”
~~~
I agree wholeheartedly!!! This is pretty much the reality, and specifically in regard to defending one’s party. Times are different now, and the tide should rule. I don’t think Obama has an agenda for anything “extreme” though, but I guess that’s relative.
I’m thinking of the RADICAL EXTREMISM that we’ve lived with for the past eight years of ongoing State Terror!! Comparatively speaking, I’m looking to an Obama administration to bring us back from that extreme terror.
Report thisBy yours truly, November 13, 2008 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
What To Do With The Political Machine Created By The Obama Campaign?
“Set it free.”
“To do what?”
“Lead the way.”
“Based on?”
“One equals one.”
“Anything else?”
“Yes we can.”
Report thisBy Duane Campbell, November 13, 2008 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree with your analysis. The Democrats should force the Republicans to actually stand and talk for 2-3 days. they would cave.
Report thisAlso, I think for the key vote on taxes, all that has to happen is that the current temporary tax cuts are allowed to expire. It takes a majority vote to re pass them. This return to the pre Bush tax rate is the biggest part of the issue. It does not require a Filibuster proof majority > I think.
By Anarcissie, November 13, 2008 at 4:23 pm Link to this comment
To my recollection, Democratic presidents have had more trouble with their own party than with the Republicans.
Report thisBy DJR, November 13, 2008 at 12:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The idea of the great American filibuster is overly stated. The congress is divided even now into as many as 4 parties, maybe more. Pesioila and Reid represent separate divisions in their own parties Republicans are redefining what they lost and the American voter is fickle . There are gun toting anti abortion Democrats in several numbers in congress. What the news media and congress don’t know or are unwilling to talk about is what the mob wants. What people will tolerate. What will cause civil unrest. Nope, many Democrats are moderate Republicans who ran against Republicans and many Republicans are moderate Democrats serving as Republicans. Defending ones party is not necessary, just let the tide rule to the extreme and the people will crash in on Government like a tidal wave. Obama should have no problem passing his agenda till it becomes the extreme. Thats what new presidents get, for a moment. What we see constantly in our Government, media, and society is narcissism and no one can work with that! My way or the highway leads to division and failure!
Report thisBy Nightwatch, November 13, 2008 at 8:20 am Link to this comment
A few of us are old enough to remember when a filibustering senator stood at the podium for hours on end, reading recipes and hometown newspapers to a nearly-empty chamber, and yielding to another senator only long enough to run to the restroom.
The intent of a filibuster is to block legislation, of course. But the justification of it is to permit unlimited discussion and debate, hence the marathon monologues of days gone by.
If the TV viewing public were treated to frequent nightly soudbites of a real, old-fashioned filibuster, the resulting outrage would be enough to discourage the practice. A filibustering senator looks foolish, and looking foolish is detrimental to a political career.
But the old filibusters are gone. Today a senator can hold up legislation by merely asserting his right to filibuster. When he does that, the legislation that offends him disappears, to be seen no more. How did this happen?
Report thisBy P. T., November 13, 2008 at 7:44 am Link to this comment
“Every issue calls forth different levels of resistance, of course, but in each instance the opposition would need at least 41 total. In the very worst case, should the Republicans pick up all the remaining seats, they will begin with three more than that.”
Report thisShould the Republicans pick up all the remaining seats, they will begin with three more than 40, not three more than 41.
By middleamerican, November 13, 2008 at 5:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Let’s hope that at least a half dozen of these new Republicans are of a different breed. Traitor Jo the War Hawk might as well become a Republican. That’s one more vote for the Republican obrstructionists. Let’s hope there are a few Republicans that feel the shame of blindly following the Bush White House’s lead and are willing to allow votes on legislation that will finally start to reverse the devastation and destruction of the American way under the Corporate-Fascist, Neo-Con, Middle Class killing machine that is the Republican White House.
Report this