Good Chart

Margaret Talev reports for McClatchey Newspapers on the GOP's unprecedentedly frequent use of the filibuster. This chart, though, kind of says it all:

It's really pretty surprising to see this kind of record being broken at the present time. Abstractly, you'd think that the most filibustering would happen at a time more like 2005-06 when 40-odd Senators might see their use of the filibuster as the only possible way to stop legislation. Alternatively, you might see a lot of filibusters aimed at preventing a first term president from needing to veto legislation, as Senators agree to take the hit in order to help their president secure re-election.

It seems, though, that the GOP has decided that if they use filibusters to obstruct congressional action that the press will keep reporting this in a "congress fails to do X" kind of way rather than a "GOP obstructionism" kind of way, which makes filibusters a win-win for Republicans. Be that as it may, the filibuster is a bad idea and should be done away with. Given how hard the Democratic caucus whined about the "nuclear option" just a couple of years ago, they couldn't do it without being called hypocrites, but that's just further evidence of what a bad idea the "Gang of 14" deal was.

Comments

Of course this was by McClatchy. Don't expect to see it picked up by any of the top papers.

The Republican tactic is working, and working well.

Posted by mq | July 22, 2007 11:23 PM

Looks like Harry Reid is being the least bi-partisan majority leader in history. The filibuster is there to protect minority rights. If minorty rights get abused by a majority leader who simply tries to ram through non-bipartisan legislation, what else do you expect?

Posted by Al | July 23, 2007 12:31 AM

I love how the chart points out that "the longest and most notorious filibusters were against bills on civil rights, voting rights, school busing." Without that valuable information, someone might walk away without thinking that Republicans are evil and racist. Can't have that.

[Doesn't busing seem like it should have 2 s's?]

Posted by Mario | July 23, 2007 1:35 AM

If minorty rights get abused by a majority leader who simply tries to ram through non-bipartisan legislation, what else do you expect?

Oh, Al is funny.

What's Kitty Killer Frist doing now, btw?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 23, 2007 1:48 AM

Mario,

Great point.

Pseudo:

"What's Kitty Killer Frist doing now, btw?"

Maybe performing free life-saving operations in Africa like he does every year? By the way, I hate to offend your sensibilities, but surgeons in America practice techniques in "the dog lab" every day.

Anyhow, you haven't seen the last of Frist politically. Most likely, he will run for Governor of TN at the next opportunity and then run for president down the road with a successful governorship under his belt.

Posted by Fred | July 23, 2007 2:00 AM

Bi partinship is another term for date rape.
Tom Delay (R under indictment)

Posted by merlallen | July 23, 2007 2:09 AM

Quite right, Fred. And if Dr. Bill DOESN'T decide upon such a triumphant political comeback, he can always make use of his proven psychic ability to diagnose people in detail on the basis of pre-edited long-range videotapes, and set up a faith-healing service.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | July 23, 2007 2:24 AM

I hate to offend your sensibilities, but surgeons in America practice techniques in "the dog lab" every day.

I'm fine with animal experimentation -- in fact, I support experimenting on Republicans, as they might provide valuable insight into human disorders -- but taking them from the pound under the auspices of providing them a home isn't the way to do it.

On topic, I have no problem with the different thresholds in the two chambers; it was the GOP that decided to run the Senate as if it were the House. In fact, I'd be glad to see Reid clear the calendar -- ideally through the recess period in August, to ensure there are no dubious presidential appointments -- and see if the GOP minority is prepared to read all seven Harry Potter books into the record to avoid a vote on Iraq.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 23, 2007 2:50 AM

"Doesn't busing seem like it should have 2 s's?"

Only if you're talking about kissing.

Congrats, you've boosted my opinion of the GOP caucus. The only thing I ever hoped for from them was obstruction, and it seems they're finally delivering.

Too bad the Democrats couldn't have been as obstructive while in the minority, we might have not gotten a lot of really worthless stuff done.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | July 23, 2007 7:00 AM

Let them be called hypocrites. All of the 20% of the public that bothers reading our news probably won't care any more than the 80% of us who have decided the news simply doesn't have anything to offer us but lies.

Posted by Soullite | July 23, 2007 7:20 AM

The different narratives in the media concerning filibusters make thema win-win-situation for Republicans: When Democrats do it, then that's an undemocratic obstruction of of the will of the majority by bad loosers. When Republicans do it, then Democrats fail to fulfill their campaingn promises. It's not so much that the press is on the side of the Republicans. It's because the Republicans have no shame when the condemn filibusters when they are the majority and use them when they are not, while Democrats show more restraint here. And since the press mostly does he-said-she-said, it doesn't call Republicans on their shit.

Posted by Patrick | July 23, 2007 8:24 AM

This graph is better info than what we've had. But what would be even more germane would be a graph showing rejected cloture motions - those that successfully prevented a vote from taking place.

And an improvement on that would be to break it down by party, where it's clear which party was primarily behind blocking the vote, which it almost always is.

For instance, so far this year, by my count, 21 cloture votes have been rejected. The GOP has been responsible for 17 of them, the Dems for 3, and one was unanimous. In 2006, by comparison, out of 34 cloture motions, 13 were rejected, with Dems blocking 10 and the GOP blocking 3.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | July 23, 2007 8:56 AM

I think the filibuster should remain, but the rules need to be changed to get rid of the cloture vote. I am fine with the filibuster if someone is truly impassioned enough to speak for hours and hours for their position. If they aren't then don't hold up the business of government and let bills pass on a straight up or down vote. This cloture BS is stupid. If you want to filibuster then filibuster and talk until you either collapse or until you or your party feels their point has been made and they move to allowing a vote on the bill.

To me the value of the filibuster has always been in the realm of political theater not as a procedural trick. I think an impassioned 10-hour speaking marathon shows more than the mindless cloture trick. Let the GOP have someone ramble on about Iraq funding. If someone wants to obstruct legislation let them bear it out, let the media report on their brave stand, and let the public decide if that stand is worthy after the fact.

Posted by Ricky | July 23, 2007 9:14 AM

The nuclear option is looking more platable everyday. This can not stand.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:13 AM

"The filibuster is there to protect minority rights. If minorty rights get abused by a majority leader who simply tries to ram through non-bipartisan legislation, what else do you expect?"

Oh, when did I hear this last?

Oh yea, when Republicans were ramming bi-partisan legislation through and threatened to eliminate the filibuster when Democrats brought it up.

Al, you remember that? I know you do.

Posted by Joshua | July 23, 2007 11:11 AM

The filibuster is there to protect minority rights. If minorty rights get abused by a majority leader who simply tries to ram through non-bipartisan legislation, what else do you expect?

I find particular irony in this statement given the "notorious uses of the filibuster" mentioned in the original graphic. Which minority rights was Strom Thurmond trying to protect when he engaged in history's longest filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1957?

The filibuster is a Constitutional aberration, and I have no particular attachment to it. Like most democratic institution, it has its pros and cons. But let's not create fictions about it, please.

Posted by Peter Twieg | July 23, 2007 11:49 AM

This is a handy reminder of Bob Dole's expansion of the filibuster when Clinton came into office - a virtual doubling of it. Granted it was in active use during the 80s, but Dole deserves blame for making it such a ubiquitous tool.

Posted by Tom | July 23, 2007 12:08 PM

Peter,

Thurmond was protecting the minoirty called "hard-core segregationists."

Posted by sm | July 23, 2007 12:15 PM

I do like that the note on the most notorious filibuster on civil rights and how it fails to note that it was *Democrats* who pulled that one off.

Posted by MIke | July 23, 2007 1:20 PM

I do like that the note on the most notorious filibuster on civil rights and how it fails to note that it was *Democrats* who pulled that one off.

Or, alternatively, they could note that it was future Republicans who pulled that off. While technically accurate, the past association of Democrats and segregationists is used so disingenuously (as you would have it) in modern times that it's really not worth mention at all.

Though I do concede that the mention of "notorious" filibuster cases adds an unnecessary bias to the graphic. However, two wrongs don't make a right.

Posted by Peter Twieg | July 23, 2007 1:42 PM

Maybe the Dems should start taking up the GOP on their threat. Let 'em talk. Let 'em talk for a whole freakin' month. Start now. Who needs a summer break?

Posted by BobN | July 23, 2007 3:27 PM

Whether or not the filibuster should go, the "nuclear option" is a pretty terrible way to go about getting rid of it. The Senate has a process for making rules changes.

Posted by Royko | July 23, 2007 3:58 PM

This graph is better info than what we've had. But what would be even more germane would be a graph showing rejected cloture motions - those that successfully prevented a vote from taking place.

And an improvement on that would be to break it down by party, where it's clear which party was primarily behind blocking the vote, which it almost always is.

For instance, so far this year, by my count, 21 cloture votes have been rejected. The GOP has been responsible for 17 of them, the Dems for 3, and one was unanimous. In 2006, by comparison, out of 34 cloture motions, 13 were rejected, with Dems blocking 10 and the GOP blocking 3.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | July 23, 2007 8:56 AM

************************************************

This information has always been available on the Senate's website here:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm

for anyone who tried.

I found this a couple of weeks ago when I got tired of listening to all the fact-free discussions about who had done more filibustering

Posted by Campesino | July 23, 2007 5:06 PM