Performing actions for a political advantage is the very definition of a weak-willed politician.
Gosh, 12 whole Republicans. Yeah, that’s a rebuttal, all right.
Actually this topic is often discussed (as you may image) on Daily Kos and the like - the reality is that since filibuster changes in 1975 (I think), there would be no reading of phone books or dictionaries or speechs or other such ‘telegenic’ action - all is needed is one opposed senator (in this case Republican) on the floor to object that there is no quorum
And to answer the original OP, the answer is 100 Senate and 435 Representive - this way, you can have balanced debates between Progresseive Dems, Centralist Dems, and ConservaDems, while avoiding the extreme inanity of the Tea-baggers and the remaining current crop of Republicans who’d embarass Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower (and probably even Reagan - he’d use his “There you go again” line on them all the time)
As opposed to Dems, who bomb and invade other countries for the lulz.
The crazy thing about the “spineless Dem” meme you see on Dem blogs is that their politicians emphatically, demonstrably do not believe what these liberal bloggers believe or hope they do. At all. Neither today or in some past distant fictionalized golden age. Then they make fun of people on the right who vote against their own interests. It’s too much.
The Democrats have to maintain a quorum while the filibuster is taking place. That means all the Repubs can go home, but 50 Democrats have to stay in the chamber at all times, until the filibuster fails. That isn’t easy 24/7. It is as hard on the filibustees as it is on the filibusters.
Except that the Democrats won’t push for positions that are popular, either, if the Republicans oppose them. We saw that during the health care debate; the majority of Americans supported some kind of single payer system, but the Democrats went against the desires of the American public to suck up to the Republicans and the medical industry. The Democrats clearly either don’t care what their own constituency wants, or are too weak to stand up to the Republicans for it; in either case, it isn’t the opposition of the American public that’s stopping them.
Do I think that these career politicians “know how the game is played much better than we do”? No. I see them as weak and corrupt to the point of sabotaging themselves. And the fact that so many look at them as weak because of their actions (or lack thereof) underlines that; people don’t want to vote for weaklings, so they are electorally sabotaging themselves regardless of if they are really weak or not.
It’s not just not easy, it’s nigh unto impossible because unless a vote is scheduled (and a crucial, close one at that) there’s almost always someone absent. They may be on a CoDel, they may be back at home in their state, they may be sick, they may be at their weekly diapering session with a fetish prostitute, but they ain’t in the Senate chamber. That’s why the threat of filibuster was so potent during the last days of Sens. Byrd and Kennedy, they couldn’t drag them from their hospital beds to be there.
DerTrihs, while polling numbers said that some form of single payer was supported by a(n often small) majority, there were plenty of constituents of every senator, on both sides of the aisle, who were quite vocally opposing not just single payer, but any reform whatsoever. When the phone calls and faxes were running counter to the polls (which they were, because the antis were whipped into a frenzy, remember the town halls?) how do you suggest that the senators were to consider that voting for a single payer plan would’ve been a “popular” thing to do?
The polls of course. How else?
And I really doubt it would be less popular than what really passed, which didn’t solve much of anything and is unpopular with pretty much everyone but the insurance companies as far as I know. And the morons and scum* who were freaking out against the terrifying possibility of a single payer plan, still freaked out over what actually passed. So if trying to placate them was the goal, it failed utterly.
- And yes, I do think the opposition was and is driven by little more than a combination of stupidity, malice and greed.
I’d say about 70% in House and Senate would be needed to get roughly the same raw power the Republicans would have with 52%.
Just pull the old Jimmy Stewart trick. Have the Sergeant at Arms compel the attendance of absent members. Let a handful of Senators take naps in the cloakroom, and make sure that 51 are on the floor at all times. Each time that a minority party makes a quorum call, demand the attendance of absent members. As far and Kennedy and Byrd, no disrespect, but when you are unable to physically do your job, it’s time to step aside and let someone else in who can.
Technically, the Dems would need 51 Senators. The filibuster is not in the constitution. Rather the founding document says that the Senate makes its rules when the session opens. The Dems could break with 100+ years of tradition in January and simply eliminate the filibuster (as well as the recently abused practice of Senate holds).
This is unlikely, but not impossible. Though if the Republicans win a majority in the Senate, I predict that inconvenient rules will be reformed forthwith.
To add to this. The Democrats are a catch-all party. The progressives don’t have 50 members. There are Democrats to the right of some Republicans.
When both parties were catch-all non-ideological parties, this was seen as not a big deal. Post-Gingrich, it is a big deal.
Well, with 60, and then 59 Senators they managed to pass a large stimulus, the largest social policy bill since LBJ, and financial reform. That’s at least as much legislation (and I’d argue more) than the GOP passed when they last had control of Congress. As I recall the largest bills passed (Medicare Part D and NCLB) were co-sponsered with Democrats. I don’t recall Bush getting his SS reform through, for example.
So the answer is pretty much 60 in the Senate and a majority (excluding Blue Dogs) in the House.
Could more be done with a less obstructionist GOP? Sure. But that goes both way (as the GOP is about to find out if they take one or both houses in Nov). It’s not like an Obamacare repeal is in the cards even if the GOP has a clean sweep this fall. Hell, even if they rout in 2012 as well it’s unlikely they can overcome a Dem filibuster then, much less a veto (if they don’t take POTUS).
They don’t even need to get rid of the traditional filibuster, just the new-fangled “procedural” filibuster.
I think it’s worthwhile for the minority to have a way to say “we consider this matter so important that we’ll STOP the government over it”. But the inherent painfulness of the old-fashioned “talk all night, all other business comes to a standstill” type of filibuster meant that it was used sparingly. There are only so many times a party can take a dramatic stand before it becomes annoying showboating. The current practice of allowing the minority to painlessly stop a bill simply by announcing an intent to filibuster (rather than actually doing it) means that essentially you have to have a supermajority to accomplish anything.
Correction: Franken wasn’t seated until July 2009; the Dems had 59 Senators most of the time. You are correct however that this Congressional session has easily been the most productive since WWII, with the possible exception of the one that passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s. The accomplishments of Reid and Pelosi are truly extraordinary.
Apparently the filibuster that we learned about in high school never existed. The old style filibuster conducted by Strom Thurman was a matter of Senatorial courtesy, not filibuster. But even most political junkies weren’t aware of this until ~2009.
I suppose the filibuster rule could be rewritten to match the legendary profile. But that, I think, would be a mistake. The nonPresidential party has every incentive to send the economy down the well, as the President will take the blame. Filibusters give them the power to do just that. Divided government only works when there is a degree of constructiveness in both parties. If it is absent in 1 of them, the theory falls apart. The original stimulus was too small: this was known by economists as it was constructed. Republicans made it still smaller. And they will reap the rewards of a weak economy of their own construction on November 2nd.
Not in the Sentate. In the House, there’s Cao (R) of Louisiana. But him aside, all Dems are to the left of all Republicans, at least within each legislative chamber. This is a relatively recent development: it certainly was not the case in the 1980s. (Corrections and counter-arguments are welcome.)
So are you saying they actually have power over the gop senators, but just not when it comes to doing anything about passing bills to improve the economy? Obama blames them, so surely they must have some sort of magical pull there at least.
I am saying that this Congress has been among the top 2 most muscular sessions since WWII. It has also experienced the most partisan obstructionism. So, objectively speaking, Reid and Pelosi are fairly awesome.
Starting this session, the GOP decided that you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. The media typically passed over this change without comment. Yes, Republican obstructionism had been rising over time, but a key threshold was passed in 2009.
What of the economy? Obama inherited the worst financial crisis since 1930-33. Without any stimulus package, we would have entered a second Great Depression. That said, the package was not large enough to pull us out of recession and it was understood to be lacking at the time of its passage. But the Republicans decided to fillibuster everything, breaking with two centuries of Senate tradition, so Olympia Snowe got to call the shots. She took a package that was too small to begin with and then removed its most effective components. Accordingly, the Republican party will reap the rewards of a weak economy this fall, just as high unemployment will help them in 2012.