Since November, 2006, the Senate has been stymied several times due to its failure to achieve the 60 votes required for cloture. We've seen this most recently with the immigration bill, and of course with respect to the Senate's apparent inability to press forward on Iraq.
Here's my question: why are our Senators letting it all end at the cloture vote? Why are they so afraid of a filibuster?
The deadlock has been so severe, The Nation recently ran an Op-Ed piece wondering whether Democrats should invoke the nuclear option:
It was not so long ago that Republicans threatened to "nuke" the Senate if Democrats employed the filibuster to block President Bush's judicial nominees, particularly those to the Supreme Court (which in light of recent decisions, they clearly should have).
Fast forward two years later, with Democrats narrowly in control, and the Senate is in a state of permanent filibuster. It takes 60 votes to get "cloture" and pass just about anything.
The author cites many of the recent failures -- "the Employee Free Choice Act, a minimum wage increase without tax breaks for business, major investments in renewable energy and mandates for clean-energy sources, the importation of cheap prescription drugs from Canada, allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices under Medicare . . ." I'm sure Kossacks could add several more.
I understand that failure to get 60 votes for cloture means that a presidential veto would hold, too. But clearly, forcing (A) the President to veto a bill, and (B) Republican Senators to uphold that veto, has certain advantages. If nothing else, it underscores Bush's/Republicans' obstructionism far more than does a failed cloture vote.
So: why all this fear of the filibuster? Why talk "nuclear option" when the alternative is so transparently obvious: endure the filibuster?
I read up on the matter at Wikipedia. What's the worst they can do to you?
Strom Thurmond (D-SC) set a record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes, although the bill ultimately passed. Thurmond broke the previous record of 22 hours and 26 minutes set by Wayne Morse (I-OR) in 1953 protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation.
So, please, consider this my shout of frustration:
Filibusters are NOT KRYPTONITE.
Also from the Wiki:
A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else to the agenda. Strom Thurmond's attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.
Am I missing something here? Aren't the issues facing today's Senate -- particularly the Iraq debacle -- important enough to warrant this sort of showdown?
If nothing else, it would prove to the American people that the Democratic Senate is, indeed, trying everything possible to promote the will of the people.