Who's Afraid of a Filibuster? by Joe Conason

[Demeter]

http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/whos-afraid-filibuster



Getty Images


While the ultimate occupants of three 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 insures 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 Mr. 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 reelection two years hence in states that went for Mr. Obama: Judd Gregg (R-NH), Arlen Specter (R- PA), George Voinovich (R-OH), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Chuck Grassley (R- IA), and Richard Burr (R-NC). 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 Mr. Gregg watched his New Hampshire colleague John Sununu drop this year as their state turned deep blue. Mr. Martinez won his seat in 2004 by a single point and is widely considered vulnerable. So are Mr. Specter, nearing his 80th birthday, and Mr. Voinovich, now 72...Several other Republican incumbents may confront difficult reelection races in 2010 too, including Kit Bond (R-MO), whose state went for John McCain by a miniscule margin (many votes fewer than the number who voted for Ralph Nader). Nor should we forget Jim Bunning (R-KY), 77 years old and aging badly, who was nearly taken out in 2004 by an underfunded, little-known Democrat. Recent polls show him sinking.

And finally there is Mr. 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 grassroots 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...

[Demeter]

1. AN OPPOSING VIEW: The Myth of the Democratic Filibuster Proof Senate

Submitted by mark karlin

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/143

The corporate media and even progressive Internet sites are holding out the possibility that the Democrats, with three undecided senate races, may still reach the magical number of 60 Dems in the Senate to attain a "filibuster proof" majority.

There's only one problem with this universally-held assumption that 60 Democratic votes would give them the power to stop obstructive and destructive Republican filibusters: it's wrong.

Sometimes math triumphs common sense and this is one case that illustrates this. Yes, technically with 60 votes, the Democrats could prevent ongoing GOP filibusters to prevent America from progressing forward. But there is a difference between a technical threshold and the reality of how Democratic senators vote.

Take the infamous Benedict Arnold Joe Lieberman. He's included in that 60 threshold, and whether he remains in or out of the Democratic caucus, he is not going to vote the party line depending upon his whim. And then you have the Ben Nelsons of Nebraska, Max Baucuses of Montana, Evan Bayhs of Indiana, and Blanche Lincolns of Arkansas, for example, who often desert the majority of Democrats on key votes where they want to be aligned with the mythical "center."

If you recall, seven Democratic senators and seven Republican senators teamed up to prevent former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist from implementing an effort to eliminate the filibuster by exercising the so-called "nuclear option." These seven Democratic senators basically agreed with seven Republican counterparts that they would vote for Bush appointments to the federal bench unless they were proven child molesters or murderers, but wouldn't take their partisanship or bigotry into account. In short, the seven Dems gave Bush a pass to continue packing the federal bench with GOP hacks. The ad hoc bi-partisan coalition to enable Bush judicial appointments was known as the "Gang of 14."

Which Democratic Senators were in the Gang of 14? Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (officially an Independent), Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ken Salazar of Colorado. Guess what, all seven will be in the Senate in 2009.

And there are other Democratic senators who frequently defect on party line votes, in large part because Harry Reid doesn't punish Democrats who stray from the caucus position. On the Republican side, you feel the heat and retribution if you betray the party leadership. But none of that among the lenient Dems.

What that means, in essence, is that Harry Reid is unlikely to corral 60 Dems into voting to defeat a GOP filibuster, even if the Dems should miraculously win the three outstanding senate races. Oh, it could happen occasionally -- particularly if one or two Republicans defect -- but don't count on it as a regular occurrence.

Reid just doesn't enforce party discipline, and the Dems in the Senate from red states are concerned about preserving their "centrist" credentials.

So just remember that if the Dems somehow get to 60 votes, it doesn't by any means indicate that they will regularly stop Republican filibusters aimed at making the new administration's legislative agenda dysfunctional.

For that, the Dems would have to grow a spine and replace Reid with a leader who could instill party discipline...

[Demeter]

2. kick for importance

[yurbud]

3. Dems need super-majority for an unpleasant reason: not all Democrats are Democrats

some are DLC, corporate owned little better than the GOP without the religious pretense.