The New Republic

This indeed is embarrassing. I have never thought of Lamar Alexander as a heavyweight legislator, and this episode does nothing to alter my view of him.

- liberal reformer

January 4, 2011 at 7:07pm

"Totally false" ? "Understanding of the issue is incorrect" ? "Embarrassing" ? Chait, this is how the GOP rolls now. Stupidity, lies, stupid lies. True? Dunno! False? So what! Sounds bad, right? Say it! You don't really think Lamar! would be embarrassed if someone shows him your blog post here or otherwise tries to correct him, do you? His job's done. Time to kick off the wingtips and fire up a Macanudo.

- W_Bombay

January 4, 2011 at 7:17pm

Is it possible to embarrass himself anymore than his 1996 Presidential campaign strategy of appearing in flannel to show his outsiderness?

- MikeB.

January 4, 2011 at 9:11pm

C'mon, give the guy a break. His point more or less repeats a standard line of those who defend the filibuster--that the cloture rule is the only thing standing between the Senate and House-style majoritarian rule. (And House-style majoritarianism is about to get less fashionable in the left-leaning set soon.) Alexander is also mouthing the current GOP talking point--that their use of filibusters was only a response to the Harry Reid's unprecedented use of "fill the tree" to avoid amendments. Get rid of cloture, and soon the minority won't have any right to affect legislation at all, and a more aggressive majority in the future will take to ramming through legislation in the middle of the night, etc. It may not be a convincing argument, but it is a serious one. Clearly, the purpose of Udall's reforms is to degrade the right of the minority to filibuster. He doesn't have the support to get rid of it altogether, but he, you, and most people seem to think that requiring talking filibusters will make them harder and less likely to use. (I actually disagree that it will, but another time...) Does anyone really think that the problem with the Senate right now is that there isn't enough talking? Furthermore, whether you call this the constitutional option or the nuclear one, and whether you agree with this pretend rule about it having to happen on the first day or not, there's no doubt that using it will make easier for another majority to come in and get rid of the filibuster, or theoretically set any rules it wants. So there is that concern.

- ulexamp

January 4, 2011 at 9:18pm

ulexamp - The problem with the Senate certainly is not that there isn't enough talking. The problem is this: There's a finite amount of talking in each Senate session, and if you want to get something done, you have to use up some of your finite amount of talking time. At the moment, the Republicans get to completely obstruct progress by using up just three words: "I'd filibuster that." With the Democrats then completely hosed, they can move on to demanding the rest of their agenda be enacted with the remaining time available to them. If the Republicans actually had to invest hours and days every single time they wanted to stop something, they'd have to give up time they'd otherwise spend actually working to advance their own agenda, and I'd like to think that would give them pause. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they're willing to spend 100% of their time completely screwing the American people. Even if that's true, the sight of them standing there and blathering like crazy people is itself useful. How many campaign ads could be made from Republicans standing there reading the phone book to block, say, a defense appropriations bill? "Our soldiers give their lives; all the Republicans have to give is reading the phone book." Further healthcare reform? "People are dying, but they're still just standing there talking." They basically write themselves. It's worth noting that the most famous filibuster in the history of filibusters, Strom Thurmond's against the 1957 Civil Rights Act, delayed passage of the bill by just one day. If you make them talk themselves hoarse instead of just taking their word for it that they would, things actually do get done. (And yes, I know that the actual procedural phrase is not "I'd filibuster that," but I don't know the exact wording. The point is that all they have to do right now is indicate that they'd go to the mat, rather than actually doing so. It's like the difference between a rap battle and an actual gang war.)

- janus

January 4, 2011 at 11:44pm

True, they passed the 1957 civil rights act, despite Thurmond's filibuster. They also passed the 1964 one, despite a filibuster--by filing cloture. Make no mistake--filibusters have always been a pain in the ass, although they used to be a lot more rare. A lot of people use post hoc, ergo proctor hoc thinking when it comes to this--because filibusters used to be less common, and people had to read from phone books, they must be related. I think it has a lot more to do with the rise of partisan politics in the Senate. And the other thing is that we're dealing with complex procedural stuff that most people don't (and really shouldn't have to) understand. "Make them talk" is a simple thing to rally people around. Ultimately, here's the way it would work, I think: 10 angry senators would vow to filibuster something. "We'll stay here as long as it takes," they say. Haul in the cots and speak in 4-hour shifts. After a while, Harry Reid would say, "Ok, you've made your point, I'm moving on to something else." That's not really all that different from today. The important thing is that the onus would be as much on Harry Reid to move on to something else, as it would be on the senator to stop talking. Since the senator can just enjoy the spotlight--but Reid has other crap he needs to get done--I think the filibusterer would win the staring contest 90% of the time. The one thing that it could cut down on is holds for picayune stuff. Make it more difficult for Sen. X to block an appointee just because the senator is having a bad day. It's hard to predict how that would play out in practice. But, to me, it's pretty clear that Republicans would have been happy to take to the Senate floor to oppose the financial reform bill, climate change legislation, and especially the health care bill. And I bet a few ultra-conservatives wouldn't have been bothered at all by doing the same to block James Cole.

- ulexamp

January 5, 2011 at 12:44am

Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that several Republican Senators would have stood up to filibuster financial reform, health reform, and action on climate change. Take on major issues, and you'll have a fight on your hands. That's just how it works. But if it actually was an effort, would they have gone against overwhelming public opinion to filibuster bills on extending unemployment benefits or healthcare for 9/11 first responders? How about last year's defense appropriations bill, which was filibustered, but passed 99-0 once the filibuster was broken? What about the purely mundane? Do you think they would have made the effort to filibuster the United States Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2009? The Travel Promotion Act of 2009? The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act? The nomination of Harold Hongju Koh to be Legal Advisor to the Department of State? The Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act? They did filibuster all of those things - and that's just from the list of things where Reid tried to invoke cloture rather than just giving up. It really does boggle the mind: http://senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/111.htm

- janus

January 5, 2011 at 12:06pm

I imagine that the unemployment benefits, 9/11 responders bill, defense approps, and Koh nomination all would have been filibustered old-school-style. Maybe it would have made Coburn look like a jackass to most people, but then again he already does. The point is it plays well for him at home. As I said before, it might cut down on filibusters of smaller, uncontroversial items. Or, I wouldn't be surprised if McConnell announced that all 47 GOP senators would initiate a standing filibuster of everything out of protest for the new rules. Senators would start to talk around the clock, and Reid would have to file cloture for everything. Might sound ridiculous to a Democrat, but for Republicans it's just a lot of free press time. It's not as ridiculous as it sounds--remember, when the GOP was looking at the constitutional option back in 2005, Harry Reid threatened to shut down the Senate, by objecting to all unanimous consent requests.

- ulexamp

January 5, 2011 at 12:32pm

"As I said before, it might cut down on filibusters of smaller, uncontroversial items." That's all the justification reform needs, in my opinion.

- frippo

January 5, 2011 at 4:37pm