# Common Cause Takes a Stand on the Filibuster! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 7, 2011, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549 "2011-02-07T18:15:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/101 "2011-02-08T15:22:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Poor childhood nutrition? This discussion is personal enough already. Please refrain from any more comments like this one. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/102 "2011-02-08T15:28:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not entertaining any additional discussions of this topic. Translation, you got nothing. Republicans, such as yourself voted and rooted for a torturing lying hypocrite. Further it’s good when you tu quoque, but bad when others do it. This isn’t the very hypocrisy you’re rallying against how? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/103 "2011-02-08T16:05:01Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Translation, you got nothing. > > Republicans, such as yourself voted and rooted for a torturing lying hypocrite. > > Further it’s good when you tu quoque, but bad when others do it. This isn’t the very hypocrisy you’re rallying against how? Weren’t you warned about this shit once already? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/104 "2011-02-08T16:10:01Z")
> [@rooostra](#): > > Furthermore, this change was originally proposed by Democrats while they were in the minority. It is being championed while they are in the majority. I think this fact somewhat innoculates the proposal from the accusation of partisanship. It [was?](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.RES.416:) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/105 "2011-02-08T16:11:01Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Translation, you got nothing. > > Republicans, such as yourself voted and rooted for a torturing lying hypocrite. > > Further it’s good when you tu quoque, but bad when others do it. This isn’t the very hypocrisy you’re rallying against how? Not entertaining any additional discussions of this topic. ---
**Author:** ![rooostra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@rooostra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rooostra)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/106 "2011-02-08T16:28:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It [was?](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.RES.416:) Sorry if I was unclear, this particular bill was obviously introduced while the Democrats control the Senate, but Harkin introduced similar legislation when the Democrats were in the minority in the past. This misses the larger point that Common Cause was commenting on two very different proposals to change the filibuster. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/107 "2011-02-08T16:41:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Huh? > > I grant he merely said that there was too much demonizing of hypocrisy, but then he provided two quotes from literary luminaries that certainly praise the self-contradictory. Perhaps the quotes were meant to mean something other than “I approve of these sentiments,” but that’s a fair initial read. Hardly. He said concerns about hypocrisy are overblown. The two quotes also say it’s no big deal. Nobody was praising hypocrisy - merely dismissing those who choose to dwell on it. As for the filibuster (in its current form of the mere _threat_ of filibuster), I’d say it’s evolved into a mechanism both parties find useful at the same time. The majority party can claim to be stymied (thus avoiding the responsibility of passing controversial legislation) and heap blame on the minority party. Similarly, the minority party can proudly claim to have stymied the majority party, and no individual need be singled out for praise or scorn by being the one standing there for 18 hours in a row reciting lists of recipes or other irrelevancies, as the filibuster _used_ to entail. It may have too far, in the sense the _all_ legislation can now be blocked, but if the American people are okay with that, I guess more power to 'em. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/108 "2011-02-08T16:46:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Uh… who are Common Cause, and why should anyone care what they think of filibusters? A non-partisan ‘good government’ group founded by a Republican. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/109 "2011-02-08T16:54:55Z")
> [@rooostra](#): > > Sorry if I was unclear, this particular bill was obviously introduced while the Democrats control the Senate, but Harkin introduced similar legislation when the Democrats were in the minority in the past. If he did, I can’t find it using [thomas.loc.gov](http://thomas.loc.gov) and any search terms I can think of. Can you help me? What exactly did he introduce, and when? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/110 "2011-02-08T16:58:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t think they did. [Here is a (PDF) paper](http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/HistoryofFilibusters.pdf) from Common Cause analyzing the filibuster and concluding its existence is a “historical accident.” > > Now… didn’t all that history they’re offering up now exist in 2005? That paper’s not a reaction to post 2008 use, is it? > > Nice try, though. I’m not especially interested in this common cause or what they think or whether or not they’re hypocritical. I’m mostly addressing the idea that if you approved of fillibusters then, and don’t now, you’re a hypocrite. Now you can do your rules lawyering thing and say the debate is specifically and only about common cause (even though it’s obvious you’re trying to imply a more general conclusion), but more generally I think the assumption you’re trying to push across has been demonstrated to be flawed. One can oppose procedural fillibusters used for anything and everything while still supporting the notion of being able to occasionally yank out a real fillibuster on a critical issue without being hypocritical or partisan. Incidentally, I skimmed over the linked PDF and it doesn’t seem to necesarily be drawing a stand, but examining the history. There’s no “therefore it should be abolished” type statement. Which isn’t to say that’s what they’re going for, but I don’t think the PDF alone makes that case. ---
**Author:** ![rooostra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@rooostra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rooostra)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/111 "2011-02-08T16:59:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If he did, I can’t find it using [thomas.loc.gov](http://thomas.loc.gov) and any search terms I can think of. > > Can you help me? What exactly did he introduce, and when? I’ve got my hands full with a four month old, so I’m not at my research best, but this article references it being in 1995 > **[Homepage](https://www.iowaindependent.com/)** > > Stay updated with The Iowa Independent: breaking news, US and world news, expert insights, and engaging videos. Your trusted source for real-time updates I’ll try to find a better reference later ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/112 "2011-02-08T17:01:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not entertaining any additional discussions of this topic. That is totally cool! Can anyone do that? Say, if they’re getting their ass handed to them, they can just say “Not entertaining any additional discussions of this topic.”? So then it becomes a draw, or do you automatically win? Maybe Roberto Duran should have done that, instead of saying something wimpy like “No mas. No mas.”, he could have said “Not entertaining any additional kicking of my ass.” Or how about Custer? “Not entertaining any additional arrows lodged into my ignorant white hide! (SSSsssssss-thunk!) Damn, that hurts, motherfuck!..(SSSsssssss-thunk!)…hey, cut it out, I just called ‘Not entertaining any additional arrows’, don’t you guys know the rules?..” Or the Black Knight? “No, my arms not chopped off, its just a scratch, and besides, I’m not entertaining any observations about alleged amputations…” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/113 "2011-02-08T17:18:12Z")
> [@rooostra](#): > > I’ve got my hands full with a four month old, so I’m not at my research best, but this article references it being in 1995 > > [The Iowa Independent – Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos](http://iowaindependent.com/50192/harkin-renews-push-for-filibuster-reform) > > I’ll try to find a better reference later I just searched on the word “cloture” in Senate Bills from 1993-1997, and found nothing from Harkin. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/114 "2011-02-08T17:19:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > That is totally cool! Can anyone do that? Say, if they’re getting their ass handed to them, they can just say “Not entertaining any additional discussions of this topic.”? So then it becomes a draw, or do you automatically win? Anyone is entitled to ignore hijacks and stick to the thread topic, yes. And I automatically win. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/115 "2011-02-08T17:34:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t think they did. [Here is a (PDF) paper](http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/HistoryofFilibusters.pdf) from Common Cause analyzing the filibuster and concluding its existence is a “historical accident.” > > Now… didn’t all that history they’re offering up now exist in 2005? That paper’s not a reaction to post 2008 use, is it? > > Nice try, though. I want to clarify something: Are you conceding that there is a valid argument that one can support the use of a fillibuster in one manner (sparingly, and for important stuff, as it has generally been used in the past) and also oppose it being used as a method of requiring every bill to get 60 votes? Without being hypocritical? If so, is your further argument simply that while it’s possible to hold this case, Common Cause does not, and their motivations are strictly partisan? And if so - would you grant that your gotcha-ya only extends specifically to the position of Common Cause, and isn’t an attempt to paint anyone holding the aforementioned non-hypocritical stance on the fillibuster more generally in a negative light? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/116 "2011-02-08T17:49:16Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I want to clarify something: > > Are you conceding that there is a valid argument that one can support the use of a fillibuster in one manner (sparingly, and for important stuff, as it has generally been used in the past) and also oppose it being used as a method of requiring every bill to get 60 votes? Without being hypocritical? Absolutely. > [@](#): > > If so, is your further argument simply that while it’s possible to hold this case, Common Cause does not, and their motivations are strictly partisan? Not my further argument, but my initial, from the get-go argument. Yes. > [@](#): > > And if so - would you grant that your gotcha-ya only extends specifically to the position of Common Cause, and isn’t an attempt to paint anyone holding the aforementioned non-hypocritical stance on the fillibuster more generally in a negative light? Yes, and I don’t see what I typed above could support any conclusion OTHER than this. ---
**Author:** ![rooostra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@rooostra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rooostra)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/117 "2011-02-08T17:58:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I just searched on the word “cloture” in Senate Bills from 1993-1997, and found nothing from Harkin. > **[U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 104th Congress - 1st Session](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1041/vote_104_1_00001.htm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00001)** > > roll\_call\_vote.xml ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/118 "2011-02-08T18:25:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Absolutely. > > Not my further argument, but my initial, from the get-go argument. Yes. > > Yes, and I don’t see what I typed above could support any conclusion OTHER than this. Great. Then we’re back to either “here’s the explanation for Common Cause’s position that you neglected to mention, therefore their view is consistent” or “Who the hell cares about Common Cause?” - whichever you prefer. I’d like to reiterate that I don’t know, nor particularly care, about that organization. They may be purely and blindly partisan and hypocritical for all I know, although their explanation for the change of heart sounds reasonable. I’m only in here to argue that you were missing a key point - that you can have differing opinions on the use of the fillibuster if it’s used significantly differently by either party without being blindly partisan. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/119 "2011-02-08T18:32:20Z")
I do kind of wonder what the purpose of this thread is, actually. \*Assuming \*they’re completely hypocritical… uh, so what? Most of us have never heard of this organization, and it doesn’t really speak for us. Are we supposed to decry hypocrisy any time it rears its ugly head, no matter how minor or inconsequential the source? Is the existence of one hypocritical organization supposed to imply that the entire side is hypocritical? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/120 "2011-02-08T18:36:32Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Are we supposed to decry hypocrisy any time it rears its ugly head, no matter how minor or inconsequential the source? Yes, because there is a direct line equivalency between the hypocrisy of every nominally progressive group anf the hypocrisy of Republican office holders and nominees. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549.md?page=7)