The solution to the Republicans' abuse of the filibuster to stop every single bill with which they disagree is very simple. It is the way these things worked all through U.S. history. A "yes" vote on cloture is a vote to cut off debate on a bill and allow a vote on it. A "no" vote is a vote to continue debating. Historically, when cloture vote fails to receive the necessary super-majority (currently 60 votes) this means precisely what it says it means. Debate continues on the bill in question until cloture is called again.
If Republicans want to use the filibuster for every single bill they are welcome to try. But it is political suicide for Democrats to accede to it by simply saying "OK, you win, we don't have the 60 votes, we'll be nice and move on to the next bill." They don't have to move on to the next bill and they must not move on to the next bill.
The filibuster is an important tool for minority parties to act in extraordinary situations to protect their values on matters of the utmost importance to them. But in the entire history of the United States no minority party has ever attempted to use it on everything as Republicans are currently doing.
[More below the fold.]
Amazingly, the mainstream media and even Senate Democratic leaders have played right along with them, referring to the "60 votes necessary" to pass a bill. This is outrageous and it has to stop. This is literally unprecedented in the history of this country.
Senate Democrats need to move immediately to change the rules of engagement with the Republicans. They Republicans have this morning blocked votes on two tremendously important bills -- the restoration of habeas corpus and (still in process) Jim Webb's bill to ensure that troops returning from Iraq have a reasonable period of rest before they are redeployed. Both of these bills have clear majority support in the Senate.
Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats need to take the results of the cloture votes right to the Republicans at face value -- continue the debate on these bills for as long as it takes. Don't allow anything else -- including War funding, the Attorney General confirmation, and whatever else is up -- to come up for a vote until they allow a vote on these bills.
Enough is enough!
P.S. I would like to note with appreciation the six Republicans who voted "yes" on cloture for habeas restoration according to firedoglake: Hagel, Snowe, Lugar, Specter, Smith and Sununu. I would like to note with pure disgust the "no" vote of the despicable Joe Lieberman. If only one of those principled Republicans would switch parties the party could be rid of him for good.
**********************************************************************
UPDATE: Thanks to everyone for all the comments and recommendations! It's heartening to see that I'm not the only one out there who is at the end of my rope about this stuff!
UPDATE II: I'm going to read every single comment; I'm sorry it's taking me so long, but I have a day job and kids. This is my first recommended diary -- thanks again!
UPDATE III:
The votes are now in on the Webb Amendment filibuster and it's nearly identical. Lieberman (big surprise) voted once again with Bush and against the troops; four of the six Republicans who voted for sanity on Habeas also voted for sanity on this one -- all except Lugar and Specter -- and Susan Collins made it five total Republican votes.
****************************************************************
(Now back to the rest of UPDATE I:)
I'm a political scientist with a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan and am currently at a research job at a research university. My specialization is American Politics -- parties, elections, media and politics. I just never cease to be amazed by how much basic ignorance there is among our party leaders and our political media about the most basic elements of "how a bill becomes a law." I mean, you would know more after watching Schoolhouse Rock than after watching several hours of political coverage in America's current mass media environment.
In addition to the mass confusion about how many votes are needed to pass a bill, there is an equally huge amount of confusion about when one needs to pass a bill vs. when doing nothing and allowing the status quo to continue is sufficient. For example, with War funding, it's true that they would need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and 66 to override a veto. But what everyone is forgetting is if they don't pass a bill, there is no money for the war at all!!. This puts them in a tremendous position of power. It is not the case that keeping the status quo legislation in place funds the war. The last appropriation of funds for the war will run out when it runs out and when it does, Bush needs more money for the war. That means that Democrats can say things like: fine, you'll get your funding, but this much, not that much, and with these strings attached. If he vetoes it, he gets no funding at all. That's how it works. This is not rocket science. It is absolutely maddening that they were unwilling to do that during the last round after the Bush veto.
Similarly, if Democrats want to revise the horrible FISA updates that they passed recently, they will have ample opportunity when the 6-month sunset provision in the law they passed comes up. At that point, if the Dems don't pass a new bill (or re-pass the one they already passed) FISA reverts to its pre-2007 state. That means the Democrats in Congress can say, "look, we're willing to give you this, but not that." If Bush says "no way" then the law reverts back to its previous state, which is worse for Bush than for the Democrats. This was also the case prior to previous amendments to FISA -- the status quo was closer to the Democrats' position, so Democrats would have won by blocking a bill. Yet they insisted on giving Bush pretty much everything he wanted. The one thing they did right was including the short 6-month sunset provision; that gives them an opportunity to either do it right in the Spring or not do it at all!
Habeas corpus is another matter. The Democrats really blew it by not using the filibuster themselves back in 2006. (That really would have been a time to do it.) Now the no-habeas provision is part of standing law. That means they have to actively pass a new law to change it, and that of course means Bush can and will veto it and the Democrats would never get 66 votes to override the veto. But it is worth doing anyway, because it puts Bush and his party on record as being against a basic human right enshrined in our Constitution (the only basic civil liberty in the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution, it was considered so important) and considered a basic human right in a free society since the Magna Carta. This is worth doing even if it's just so Bush can veto it. We should be sending plenty of bills up to Bush for him to veto, as the Republicans did to Clinton in the 1990s. It shows the voters where we stand (for liberty) and where they stand (for authoritarianism).
In conclusion:
Democrats need to stop passing onerous bills (including war funding) just because Bush tells them they have to; they don't have to!
Republicans have the right to filibuster, but Democrats have the right to make them put up or shut up. There is no way they could keep up these countless filibusters if the Democrats made them actually continue the debates that they are voting to continue.