Why getting rid of the Senate filibuster may happen

[Ted King]

Basically, the idea is that Democrats may get rid of the filibuster because there isn't much more the Republicans can do in the Senate to hurt chances of Democrats getting things done that they'd like to see get done:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...ezra-klein&clsrd

Filibuster reform needs to come with big gains in order to be worth such high costs. And so, historically, the Senate only considers major changes when the minority is obstructing something the majority really, really cares about. In 1917, it was a law that was a prelude to entering World War I. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, it was civil rights.

What’s so odd and interesting about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s threats to eliminate the filibuster on executive-branch nominees is that the impetus is the exact opposite: The majority is considering rules changes precisely because there’s nothing more the minority can obstruct that they really, really care about.

These aren’t usual times in the Senate. So far as Reid is concerned, Republicans have already killed pretty much everything else the Democrats might want to do. When he’s been confronted with the argument that Republicans might bring everything to a stop if Democrats change the rules, I’m told Reid’s reply is sharp: “And that would be different how?”

Consider the record. Republicans abandoned a budget deal in favor of the mess that is sequestration. Gun control failed. Student loan rates doubled. Republicans are promising another debt-ceiling showdown. And now immigration looks unlikely to make it through the House.

What exactly is left that Democrats want to get done and Republicans are likely to work with them to finish?

I think this analysis is pretty solid. I would add to this that I suspect that a lot of Democrats are also convinced that the next time the Republicans take over the Senate with a Republican president in office (or the Republicans take over both the House and the Senate) that they will can kill the filibuster in a heartbeat, so not killing the filibuster now just helps the Republicans immensely without making a difference to the filibuster's ultimate demise.

[cbelt3]

I think getting 'rid' of the filibuster is a bad idea. Changing the rules so that a filibuster has to be an ACTUAL filibuster.. standing in place, no bathroom breaks, pink tennis shoes acceptable.... That would be OK by me. We need a bit more physical theater in our politics, stuff that takes place right in front of the voters rather in the back rooms.

[hal]

cbelt3 wrote:
I think getting 'rid' of the filibuster is a bad idea. Changing the rules so that a filibuster has to be an ACTUAL filibuster.. standing in place, no bathroom breaks, pink tennis shoes acceptable.... That would be OK by me. We need a bit more physical theater in our politics, stuff that takes place right in front of the voters rather in the back rooms.

I don't understand why a single person who decides to hold their urine for an absurd period while rambling endlessly should be granted the ability to thwart the majority. How is this reasonable? Perhaps it made sense to me when I watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington years ago (and LOVED it), but I've since forgotten.