We've had some debate about WHY the Senate Democrats failed ONCE AGAIN to gain a 50 vote majority (with Joe Biden) for filibuster reform -- even MINOR filibuster reform!
The Quiet Death of Filibuster Reform
It won't be official until a Senate Democratic Caucus meeting this afternoon, but it's abundantly clear that the hopes raised during the inter-session break of Democrats lining up behind a package of serious filibuster reforms have been dashed.
Aside from the fact that there are less than 50 Democratic votes for major changes in the threshold for cutting off debate, there aren't 50 Democratic votes for the proposition that a simple majority can set the rules for the Senate in each Congress, which was the premise of this whole "reform" exercise.
In this diary I argue that given political realities this is a GOOD thing and the best possible outcome we could have expected from the ongoing fiasco!
Ultimately, HERE's Why we NEED the filibuster in the near run:
While unanimous Republican opposition to real filibuster reform is the ultimate problem, it's important to acknowledge that progressive ambivalence on the subject had a lot to do with this very disappointing outcome. Some Democrats are clearly looking ahead to the possibility of a GOP takeover of the Senate in 2012 (a real possibility even in a good Democratic year because of the Senate landscape). And they're more concerned about their ability to defend the programmatic and policy objects of conservative wrath than to enact good legislation.
But, there isn't going to BE any "good legislation" coming out of Congress over the next 2 years because Republicans control the House until 2012, so NOTHING GOOD can come out of Congress until January 2013 at the earliest. Rather than blocking progressive Democratic legislation, the Senate will be trying to prevent House sponsored bills on HCR repeal or pressuring the House to modify their spending bills not to totally de-fund the government or block all womens' access to abortion or requiring all people accused of "looking Hispanic" to prove their citizenship to local vigilante groups.
In short, the House bills will only grow more and more insane and we need to block it all for the next two years!
It's even worse than that. Since Obama remains insanely eager to help his enemies to destroy him and the Democratic party by his endless craven "compromising" on everything, we may need to lobby like mad just to block some "bipartisan" effort by the President and Congressional Republicans together with "moderate" Democrats to roll back the Social Security age to 69 years -- or something equally horrible.
We may have some HARD lobbying to do just to round up 41 votes to block some "bi-partisan" compromise that will gut Medicare or Social Security. Given Obama's continual drift rightward that's likely.
THE FUTILITY OF "COMPROMISE"
Next, the proposed "reform" package was barely going to make a DENT in the filibuster. Senate Democrats were terrified of the "Constitutional Option" -- going to straight majority rule. Republicans as always are 100% opposed to everything, so you needed first to propose replacing the 60 vote threshold with a simple majority and then secure 50 votes to do it.
Sen. Durbin first proposed real reform. First, that the Senate can modify its own rules with 50 votes that would NOT be subject to filibuster (this was first ruled Constitutional by VP Nixon): but this requires a caucus with the guts to ram it through over any tantrums thrown by the minority and a ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian that they have the power to do it, and then a vote by Senate President (Joe Biden) that the Senate CAN do it if the Parliamentarian refuses, followed by 51 votes (including Biden's) to enact the new rules.
The spineless Democrats never had the guts for all this given the howls of indignation they'd get from Republicans. And that's never going to change unless we elect 50 Progressive Democrats or create a powerful lobbying effort around this.
But neither of these things was going to happen:
Aside from the fact that there are less than 50 Democratic votes for major changes in the threshold for cutting off debate, there aren't [even] 50 Democratic votes for the proposition that a simple majority can set the rules for the Senate in each Congress, which was the premise of this whole "reform" exercise. Here's HuffPo's Sam Stein on this key point:
Some Democrats are wary of exercising the so-called "constitutional option" -- which would allow them to set the chamber rules with just 50 votes -- pushing instead to settle for a smaller package of reforms capable of garnering the 67 votes needed for a midsession rules change.
In short the same pathetic, endless craven effort to "compromise" with their enemies that has infected Obama & "moderate" Democrats for years now has blocked all meaningful reform. They'd rather have a "bi-partisan" effort that needs 67 votes -- even if that will never happen!
Now for the pathetic compromise that will never get any Republican votes anyway:
The Udall-Merkley approach, said one former Senate aide following the talks, was more or less dead because "the votes aren't there" for doing something via the constitutional option. And since that means Democrats need 14 Republican votes, the party was all but assured to settle on the low-hanging fruit.
The "low-hanging fruit" will at best involve reductions in the number of mid-level administration appointments requiring Senate confirmation, and changes in post-cloture debate and amendment procedures to make filibusters less attractive on relatively minor legislation.
In short, this worthless compromise does nothing to solve any of the problems. Its not a "step forward" it's rather a public relations effort to mollify critics and make it appear that the Senate is functional.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT:
It appears likely that Republicans will gain the 3 or 4 seats necessary to control the Senate in 2012 simply because there are far more Democrats up for reelection than Republicans. If that happens it's likely that Republicans will control Congress again since Democrats are unlikely to entirely reverse their losses in the House to regain the majority (they should pick up some seats, but it took over 5 elections to regain control after 1994).
Then Republicans will make ACTUAL FILIBUSTER REFORM a priority! They will suddenly discover that "It's an OUTRAGE that the minority (Democrats) is blocking the will of the majority!" And they will immediately move RUTHLESSLY to eliminate the power of the minority.
(Remember that the new Republican Congress will be more radical by FAR than the Bush Congress from 2002 through 2008). So, they'll have no problems doing the job right.
In fact the only hope I see for real movement on this front is either we elect about 10-15 Progressive Senators in the next 2 elections, (and Obama wins the Presidency), OR Republicans regain control of the Senate and move immediately to crush the minority by going to the "Nuclear Option."