No, no, that actually is pretty exciting. In a lame proceduralist liberal kinda way.
It rocks so hard. It won't pass the amendment, but it will make people stand up and talk. Let them be overt and obvious in their support for the war, about blocking an up-or-down vote, about all of this.
Yeah, fuck this gentleman's agreement shit.
Let's be fair: even Hollywood thinks (real) filibusters are dramatic.
I'm very curious how it will play, but it can't be bad. It just might not be as great as we all hope.
[As great as we all hope involves someone - possibly Lindsay Graham or Trent Lott - soiling himself from exhaustion right there in the well of the Senate.]
Ooh, maybe Trent will have a heart attack!
I'm all in favor of the causal gentleman's-agreement way of going much of the time, but the filibustering has been getting out of hand, and this is important.
I'm all in favor of the causal gentleman's-agreement
Labs is an anti-semite.
Dammit. "Casual" not "causal." I'm a realist about agreements!
Labs belongs to the hard-rockin' WASP white-shoes firm of Stover, Merriwell, and Thorp, where they all wear Hickey Freeman and never speak of people whose names begin, or end, with O. Of course he's an anti-Semite -- though it's not personal, you understand.
More seriously, the title of the post is awesome and so is this idea. Lame procedural liberalism is the bestest kind there is.
In the old days, you had to get to know someone before you could filibust them, but in practice people of a certain class did so anyway, knowing that unspoken journalistic rules would prevent their indiscretions from being reported.
And now we will be treated to the delightful spectacle of the Republicans arguing that debate is worthless, while consistently voting against ending debate. And it goes without saying that this argument will be regarded as common sense.
I think the difference is that this is debate on an amendment rather than a bill. It has to be on an amendment because it they had a straight-up withdrawal bill it would be vetoed, but this is an amendment to the defense appropriation, which Bush can't veto if he wants money for the DOD.
I'm still not clear why it ends after 30 hours still needing 60 votes- the whole principle of a filibuster is that the minority 41 want more time to debate, so after 30 hours it seems like you should either be able to force them to keep debating or say, "Ok, debate done," and pass it with a majority.
Bravo Mr. Reid. I just wish he had done this on the Webb Amendment, the merits of which would have been obvious to all but the most subservient Bush lickspittles.
Knecht, you shouldn't talk about Fred Hiatt and Joe Lieberman that way. It's uncivil.
whose names begin, or end, with O.
You mean Unkrainians?
"I'm pumped up about the filibuster rules. Please kill me."
No mercy for liberal proceduralists. Not anymore.
"Some theorists, like Giovanni Arrighi, believe that the US is the means by which capitalism is attempting to consummate centuries of expansion from nation states (the Dutch) to continents (the British) to the entire world. Interestingly, Arrighi is dubious that the US possesses the resources to achieve it. But this question, while an important one, is not the one that interests me. Rather, I am curious as to whether it is impossible for the US to exist at all without engaging in the use of economic coercion and extreme militaristic violence, resulting in the loss of life on a scale just below the genocidal, to assert dominance over others.
To put it another way, can the US be reformed in such a way so as to substantially reduce the violence engendered by its interaction with many of the peoples of the world? Or, will it require the destruction of the American political system by means of international resistance, conceivably resulting in a global conflict involving both nation states and non-governmental groups? Liberalism no doubt opts for the reformist alternative, but it has been singularly incapable of achieving a single success in restraining American violence. With a news report today that Cheney is pressuring Bush to attack Iran before the end of his term, such questions are not idle ones."
No domestic comity at the expense of millions of brown victims overseas. I no longer care about my closer neighbors. At least 85 people died in Kirkuk today. If people have to die, it definitely should not be Iraqis.
Whoopee, filibuster.
Isn't this the same procedural technique as that judicial nominee slumber party, & not the same as forcing an actual filibuster? I'm confused.
Wait, why the props to Reid? My understanding is that instead of forcing the Rs to actually follow-through and filibuster, forcing the news cameras on them, he's just "punishing" them by making them stay up all night. How is this not the maneuver of someone who is horribly, shamefully lacking in sense? And balls.
I've also wondered why not force the actual filibuster. The only thing I can come up with is a fear of the sort of backlash that accompanied the Gingrich congressional shutdown of the '90s, i.e., Republicans and media decrying the Democrats for standing in the way of government business. I think the analogy band serves us well on this comparison, and I agree with the spirit of the post.
Also, this, which is apt if only for the "filibuster vigilantly" lyric. Or something.
I don't follow you, Stanley. It would be the Republicans filibustering, and slowing down government, not the Democrats. Thus, as per your analogy I think, bad for them.
I'm a bit confused about US senate procedure, but how would this not be a filibuster? From what I understand, filibustering involves, essentially, not shutting up since you can talk as long as you feel the need to - and Reid is saying he'll make 'em stay up all night to do so if they insist on being annoying. Seems like an interesting technique to make them show how dedicated they are.
21: I meant the Republicans filibustering saying, "Look at these silly Democrats not letting us get to the real business at-hand. So silly, they." I suspect this would be the GOP line of argument, and I was (lazily) putting forth a counter-argument that it wouldn't hold, but that Dems might be afraid, based on what happened when Gingrich shut down the Congress. Does that make sense? I'm arguing sloppily here and should probably cite something or call someone stupid, but I'm tired.
parodie brings up another consideration. Will people be confused about what the hell is actually going on and assume it's the Democrats who are filibustering?
This could turn out to be a super-boneheaded move. Still, maybe Reid has some ninjitsu up his sleeve I'm not seeing, but of course I'm doubtful.
Stanley, you mean the Dems might be afraid that the Republicans would come on talk shows and argue "well, we had this gentleman's agreement, but now we're forced to actually filibuster, so really it's our Democratic colleagues who have stopped any movement in the Senate!"?
'Super-boneheaded' is a unlikely.
It's a short burst of theater, and the Dems are hoping to get soundbites on the air, and to make the Republicans do the same. There are a lot of seats at stake in the next election, way more red than blue, and the war is under 50% in plenty of those places. That is, I don't think this one is as much about Washington (and God knows nothing can be said that will change the President's mind about the whole thing).
22: I think the idea is that in an actual filibuster, the Republicans have to talk not just all night, but indefinitely, & if they shut up the vote happens.
I've readthat it's actually harder for the side wanting cloture to maintain a quorum (the Senate can technically be adjoured if there are less than 51 Senators on the floor) than the side opposing it to have one guy talking. But I don't think that started lately, and they eventually passed the Civil Rights Act, right? And in the case of the Iraq war, I don't think the GOP actually wants to take turns making speeches in favor.
They don't have to make speeches in favor, do they? They can just say "yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak yak" while their spokesmen explain that this would never have happened if the Democrats had their act together.
Of course since the Republicans will use mendacious nonsense to characterize the Democrats' moves no matter how logical said moves are, I have no problem with this strategy.
25: yes, the talk shows, and on the Senate floor, that's what I mean. And what Ned says in 28.
I could see them making that argument, Stan, but I don't see it working. Too complicated.
Anyways, off to bed!
And it appears to be all for naught anyhow.
Huh. The comments in the linked thread are ambiguous, and the identified problem is simple enough that I don't think Reid would have walked into it.
Damn, I wish I had a better handle on Senate procedure. I can't quite follow this, mostly because the people explaining it can't quite follow it either.
And people say the British parliament follows arcane rules...
