End the filibuster?

[Patooka]

It is. Just one you are not willing to accept. But that's okay.

The reason it is not an answer is because it doesn't address the question. Telling me "because birds have feathers" doesn't answer when I say "when the Senate changes hands, and the filibuster that currently impedes the Democrats is no longer available to help the Democrats".

Everybody else seems to comprehend it. I guess you're just special. I'll repeat - because Republicans are so hell bent on gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement, the next time they win the senate the idea of a filibuster will be irrelevant.

Same answer, reworded a little differently for you to understand.

 

[laughing dog]

The "For the People Act", which is the bill whose passage I was calling for and which may be defeated by filibuster, will help prevent cheating in ALL elections, including elections for the House of Reps and for state legislatures. Were you under the impression that the Senate is or should be only concerned with elections to the Senate?

You miss an essential point. Eliminating the filibuster (actual or virtual) is not about getting support for legislation- it is about reducing obstruction. The virtual filibuster requires no effort which is why its use has mushroomed.

Keeping the actual filibuster while eliminating the virtual one allows those who promised to keep the filibuster to agree to a compromise.

YOU miss MY point. I've enlarged it and colored it red for you.

I did not miss your irrelevant point because as I as wrote “Eliminating the filibuster (actual or virtual) is not about getting support for legislation- it is about reducing obstruction.” That means regardless of the views of Mr Cruz, he has one less method of obstruction to use.

 

[lpetrich]

Joe Manchin Call With Billionaire Donors Offers Rare Glimpse of Dealmaking

"Manchin urged big-money donors with No Labels to talk to Sen. Roy Blunt about flipping his vote on the commission in order to save the filibuster."

The meeting was hosted by the group No Labels, a big money operation co-founded by former Sen. Joe Lieberman that funnels high-net-worth donor money to conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans. Among the gathering’s newsworthy revelations: Manchin described an openness to filibuster reform at odds with his most recent position that will buoy some Democrats’ hopes for enacting their agenda.

The call included several billionaire investors and corporate executives ... Also present was a roster of heavy-hitting political influencers, including Republican consultant Ron Christie and Lieberman, who serves as a representative of No Labels and now advises corporate interests.

The meeting was led by Nancy Jacobson, the co-founder of No Labels.

The wide-ranging conversation went into depth on the fate of the filibuster, infrastructure negotiations, and the failed effort to create a bipartisan commission to explore the January 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol, and offers a frank glimpse into the thinking of the conservative Democrat who holds the party’s fate in his hands.

Manchin told the assembled donors that he needed help flipping a handful of Republicans from no to yes on the January 6 commission in order to strip the “far left” of their best argument against the filibuster. The filibuster is a critical priority for the donors on the call, as it bottles up progressive legislation that would hit their bottom lines.

About Roy Blunt R-MO, who voted against establishing a 1/6 Commission, TM said:

Roy Blunt is a great, just a good friend of mine, a great guy. Roy is retiring. If some of you all who might be working with Roy in his next life could tell him, that’d be nice and it’d help our country. That would be very good to get him to change his vote. And we’re going to have another vote on this thing. That’ll give me one more shot at it.

In other words, offer him a nice job in exchange for voting yes.

 

[lpetrich]

The commission got 56 votes, not enough to meet the 60 cloture threshold.

TM noted that Pat Toomey R-PA would likely have voted for the commission if he had been present, and said

What I’m asking for, I need to go back, I need to find three more Republican, good Republican senators that will vote for the commission. So at least we can tamp down where people say, ‘Well, Republicans won’t even do the simple lift, common sense of basically voting to do a commission that was truly bipartisan.’ It just really emboldens the far left saying, ‘I told you, how’s that bipartisan working for you now, Joe?’

Yes indeed.

I'll now take a closer look at that PAC. From that article,

The Intercept has previously reported on No Labels’ sprawling network of PACs, used to elect allied lawmakers and congressional candidates, that go by names such as Patriotic Americans, No Labels Action, Govern or Go Home, Progress Tomorrow, United Together, United for Progress, and Citizens for a Strong America. The combined campaign funds helped secure the victory of No Labels-backed candidates across the country in recent election cycles.

From that PAC's homepage, No Labels | A New Politics of Problem Solving "There is no group in America doing what No Labels does. We’ve created a rebellious but constructive third force in American government that is finally poised to break the gridlock and dysfunction that is destroying our democracy."

But nothing on that PAC's big donors.

 

[lpetrich]

From late in 2018, Billionaire Republican Donors Helped Elect Rising Centrist Democrats - "A host of GOP donors, as well as an owner of Fox News, are funding the effort to strip a Democratic House speaker of power."

No Labels, Lots of Cash

The newly empowered centrist Democrats rode a wave of big money into office.

Federal Election Commission records show that much of the centrist bloc has been financed by eight Super PACs associated with group No Labels, a centrist group that created the Problem Solvers Caucus.

Despite the litany of PACs, the donors remain largely the same group of about 13 wealthy businessmen, most of whom have a history of financing Republican campaigns.

'No Labels' Needs A Warning Label | HuffPost by Rep. Mark Pocan

I was duped.

...
At the program, one of the presentations was from a group named No Labels. The organization put forward a proposal for governing that meant working across the aisle to solve problems and stopping the gridlock in Washington. I was excited!

...
However, things quickly went south. I attended a few meetings at the outset, but the rhetoric wasn’t about finding ways to get things done and breaking gridlock ― rather it was more about finding more centrist, more corporate and more special interest-focused things to do. Soon thereafter, No Labels became involved in elections with a closely contested U.S. Senate race in Colorado, backing Republican Cory Gardner over Democrat Mark Udall.

That didn’t seem right. A group that wasn’t supposed to pick labels was doing exactly that: picking a label. When asked to join the Problem Solvers Caucus, members were never told that this would be part of the program.

Then he tried to find out about NL's funding.

First, the organization spent almost twice as much helping re-elect Republicans as it spent helping Democrats. Second, reporters reviewed email correspondence that showed No Labels contemplating a plan to attack Pelosi and use her leadership as a wedge to divide congressional Democrats. And third, it’s clear that No Labels never had any meaningful ultimatums or demands on rules for leadership during eight years of a Republican-led House, or over the last four years of a Republican-led Senate. No Labels only has challenges for Democratic leadership in the House, specifically, for our next speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

That sure seems like a label to me.

 

[lpetrich]

More from late 2018.
When Bipartisanship Is Just a Cover for Conservatives - "Far from remaining aloof from politics, No Labels has been swooping down into the fray in recent years on behalf of Republicans and conservative Democrats."

Since 2010, a group called No Labels has embodied a particular approach to politics and policy in Washington, D.C.; it’s one that insists the real problems are partisanship, divisiveness, and incivility, and that if only sensible centrists from both parties could be brought together under the right conditions, the halcyon days of the past will return.

Yet curiously, the sensible solutions so often proposed by No Labels and its ilk have an uncanny likelihood of benefiting one particular element of our nation’s political economy: the superrich, or more precisely, the finance industry.

A new report on Monday from the Daily Beast adds a sweeping array of details to what many long knew or suspected about this movement, which allegedly wants to remain above the fray: It’s funded by the barons of hedge funds and private equity.

How No Labels Went From Preaching Unity to Practicing the Dark Arts

In a tweet that March, written under Penn’s direction, No Labels took the unconventional position that Democrats were to blame for not being more willing to work with Republicans in the destruction of their party’s signature piece of modern legislation.

The blowback was harsh both inside and outside the organization, so much so that the tweet was subsequently deleted and Penn was taken off the handle. Asked about this episode this past week, Melanie Sloan, a spokesperson for No Labels, initially said that Penn had never been given effective control of the group’s account. But Jacobson later confirmed it.

Back to The Intercept. "Selectively tying the hands of Democratic leadership in the wake of a Democratic rout in the midterms isn’t balanced governance, it simply helps the right."

 

[Swammerdami]

(If anyone else is confused, I think the "TM" Ipetrich refers to in #83 and #84 is Joe Manchin.)

 

[lpetrich]

Joe Lieberman formally registers as lobbyist for Chinese telecom giant ZTE • OpenSecrets - 2019 Jan 2

He also is on the take, it seems.


Stop glorifying ‘centrism’. It is an insidious bias favoring an unjust status quo | Rebecca Solnit | The Guardian
"The idea that all bias is some deviation from an unbiased center is itself a bias that prevents pundits, journalists, politicians and plenty of others from recognizing some of the most ugly and impactful prejudices and assumptions of our times."

 

[lpetrich]

I like this:
Jamaal Bowman on Twitter: "Joe Manchin is the new Mitch McConnell.

His obstruction of President Biden’s agenda doesn’t serve the American people, Republican or Democrat. It serves corporate interests. (link)" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

Opinion | Kyrsten Sinema: We have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster - The Washington Post

After stating that she wants "lasting results",

Lasting results — rather than temporary victories, destined to be reversed, undermining the certainty that America’s families and employers depend on.

The best way to achieve durable, lasting results? Bipartisan cooperation.

She didn't address the issue of Sen. Mitch McConnell's obstructionism.

 

[Swammerdami]

Today there's a big vote in the Senate, I guess. One side wants fair and free elections. The other side wants to rig elections so that R's will win even if D voters outnumber R voters 60-40.

And now we're looking for 10 R Senators who will compromise! 10 fair-minded Rs who will give elections to the Ds when they have 60% of the vote, but want the R's declared victorious when the Ds get only 59%. Compromise! Pundits are hoping ten such "pro-democracy" Repugnanticans show up. What a dismal joke!

Then there's Joe Manchin who probably wants his grandchildren to think he's an honorable man ... but Koch money is just too sweet to pass up.

If billionaires like Soros or Bloomberg really want to save America, why not just call up the fucktard D Senators, Manchin and Sinema, and ask about the price. I imagine $20 million should be more than enough. Manchin imagines himself higher-class than a cheap skid row streetwalker, but not much higher.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Opinion | Kyrsten Sinema: We have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster - The Washington Post

After stating that she wants "lasting results",

Lasting results — rather than temporary victories, destined to be reversed, undermining the certainty that America’s families and employers depend on.

The best way to achieve durable, lasting results? Bipartisan cooperation.

She didn't address the issue of Sen. Mitch McConnell's obstructionism.

Then compromise with a filibuster reform! It is tiring reading we can't get rid of it so our hands are tied. We can keep it, while making it less useful as a partisan obstruction tool.

The other argument is that maybe, just maybe it is time to let the majority hold the keys. And it becomes an issue of who controls both Houses. Civility is dead in the Senate. McConnell strangled it to death.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is. Just one you are not willing to accept. But that's okay.

The reason it is not an answer is because it doesn't address the question. Telling me "because birds have feathers" doesn't answer when I say "when the Senate changes hands, and the filibuster that currently impedes the Democrats is no longer available to help the Democrats".

Everybody else seems to comprehend it. I guess you're just special. I'll repeat - because Republicans are so hell bent on gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement, the next time they win the senate the idea of a filibuster will be irrelevant.

Same answer, reworded a little differently for you to understand.

"It benefits my side in this exact millisecond. Anyone who thinks beyond the millisecond obviously supports the other side."

Every single time someone advocated removing some impediment to government abusing the people, I advised them to think "what will you say when the other side gets that power." Every single time I was told that because I thought beyond the immediate and into the future I was advocating for the other side. Then sides changed hands, which is what they do. And those who said "I want this impediment removed" start saying "Oh shit the other side has that power now, they're going to abuse it."

Every single fucking time, and nobody ever learns.

So when you say "end the filibuster" you are saying "end the filibuster when the Republicans are back in power." You don't know it, you'll never know it, but it is what you are saying.

That makes you the one advocating for the other side, if you look beyond the millisecond.

 

[Swammerdami]

Everybody else seems to comprehend it. I guess you're just special. I'll repeat - because Republicans are so hell bent on gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement, the next time they win the senate the idea of a filibuster will be irrelevant.

Same answer, reworded a little differently for you to understand.

"It benefits my side in this exact millisecond. Anyone who thinks beyond the millisecond obviously supports the other side."

Every single time someone advocated removing some impediment to government abusing the people, I advised them to think "what will you say when the other side gets that power." Every single time I was told that because I thought beyond the immediate and into the future I was advocating for the other side. Then sides changed hands, which is what they do. And those who said "I want this impediment removed" start saying "Oh shit the other side has that power now, they're going to abuse it."

Every single fucking time, and nobody ever learns.

So when you say "end the filibuster" you are saying "end the filibuster when the Republicans are back in power." You don't know it, you'll never know it, but it is what you are saying.

That makes you the one advocating for the other side, if you look beyond the millisecond.

You seem unaware of present-day political realities in U.S.A. Two points:

(1) The federal government is divided more often than not these days. Yes the Rs are likely to have a Senate majority sooner rather than later, but it will do them minimal good with or without D filibustering unless the GOP also has BOTH the White House AND the House of Reps. Divided government is fine for the GOP, who are happy to let the federal government go to shit while the country is run by state governments and big corporations.

(2) The GOP has shown time and time again that they "play hardball." Do you really imagine for one minute that the Rs would NOT override a filibuster if they needed to, when they next have Senate control? They've already done so selectively.

True, they've let the Ds filibuster a tiny number of bills under Trump. I think these were mostly cases where the GOP was happy to let the bill fail, e.g. because it was Trumpism too irrational even for them. They could vote 'Yea' to appease the Orange Clown and his base while the bill failed. Similarly they let their moves to repeal Obamacare fail due to filibuster — they were smart enough to know that repeal would cause chaos.

Data point: For a long while the Senate was divided 50-50 under Trump. Pence cast a record number of tie-breaking votes. You need to go back to the 19th century to find a V.P. who broke more Senate tie-votes than Pence did. Every single one of those 50-50 votes was one where the Senate and its parliamentarian dictated that the Ds could not filibuster.

TL;DR. The claim that the Rs will take advantage of a no-filibuster rule is TRUE. We know this because they've already done it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

(2) The GOP has shown time and time again that they "play hardball." Do you really imagine for one minute that the Rs would NOT override a filibuster if they needed to, when they next have Senate control? They've already done so selectively.

Exactly. If they care they'll remove the filibuster anyway. It's not meaningful.

 

[Patooka]

(2) The GOP has shown time and time again that they "play hardball." Do you really imagine for one minute that the Rs would NOT override a filibuster if they needed to, when they next have Senate control? They've already done so selectively.

Exactly. If they care they'll remove the filibuster anyway. It's not meaningful.

Looks like I don't need to explain to Jason after all. I'd also point out the best way to predict future actions is to look at patterns of past actions and extrapolate. The appointment of Amy Coney Barret and how they acted during Trump's impeachment(s) is proof that Republicans don't give a flying fuck about rules or guidelines even they themselves lay out. And this is not a both sides issue either. No one in American politics is more diametrically opposed to their previous selves than the likes of Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz or Mitch McConnell. So the belief that Republicans would even entertain the idea of a filibuster when they are in power is a bullshit bad faith argument.

 

[Elixir]

(2) The GOP has shown time and time again that they "play hardball." Do you really imagine for one minute that the Rs would NOT override a filibuster if they needed to, when they next have Senate control? They've already done so selectively.

Exactly. If they care they'll remove the filibuster anyway. It's not meaningful.

Looks like I don't need to explain to Jason after all. I'd also point out the best way to predict future actions is to look at patterns of past actions and extrapolate. The appointment of Amy Coney Barret and how they acted during Trump's impeachment(s) is proof that Republicans don't give a flying fuck about rules or guidelines even they themselves lay out. And this is not a both sides issue either. No one in American politics is more diametrically opposed to their previous selves than the likes of Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz or Mitch McConnell. So the belief that Republicans would even entertain the idea of a filibuster when they are in power is a bullshit bad faith argument.

...and there you (we) are, trying to get someone who argues in bad faith to recognize the bad faith in those he argues for.
Go figure.

 

[Rhea]

(1) The federal government is divided more often than not these days. Yes the Rs are likely to have a Senate majority sooner rather than later, but it will do them minimal good with or without D filibustering unless the GOP also has BOTH the White House AND the House of Reps. Divided government is fine for the GOP, who are happy to let the federal government go to shit while the country is run by state governments and big corporations.

(2) The GOP has shown time and time again that they "play hardball." Do you really imagine for one minute that the Rs would NOT override a filibuster if they needed to, when they next have Senate control? They've already done so selectively.

True, they've let the Ds filibuster a tiny number of bills under Trump. I think these were mostly cases where the GOP was happy to let the bill fail, e.g. because it was Trumpism too irrational even for them. They could vote 'Yea' to appease the Orange Clown and his base while the bill failed. Similarly they let their moves to repeal Obamacare fail due to filibuster — they were smart enough to know that repeal would cause chaos.

Data point: For a long while the Senate was divided 50-50 under Trump. Pence cast a record number of tie-breaking votes. You need to go back to the 19th century to find a V.P. who broke more Senate tie-votes than Pence did. Every single one of those 50-50 votes was one where the Senate and its parliamentarian dictated that the Ds could not filibuster.

TL;DR. The claim that the Rs will take advantage of a no-filibuster rule is TRUE. We know this because they've already done it.

They don’t even hide it. They say it straight up. GOP will never let the filibuster stand in their way. It’s true that they need the house to an extent, but not for judges; and they are rapidly doing their best to destroy our rule of law.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The GOP has shown time and time again that they "play hardball."

Well duh, it's called politics. If you're not playing hardball you're not in Congress in the first place.

It was the Dems who removed some of the filibuster actions last time, specifically on court appointments, and that is why Trump was able to push through three SCOTUS appointments.

But it was beneficial for the millisecond it passed back then. Who cares that Trump used that power later. Saying a Republican might play the exact same hardball looks beyond the millisecond and means my cautions means I supported the hated other side.

 

[Jayjay]

I think this is purely academic because the dems don't have the votes to end the filibuster anyway. But when the pendulum swings back, the republicans might be able to do it.