Thirty-nine of the 41 Republicans in the Senate -- plus freelance highwayman Ben Nelson -- have voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of the Wall Street reform bill.
What does that mean? That means they've demanded extended debate... on the question of whether or not they should begin debating the bill.
Wow! That's a lot of debate those guys want to have! You can see them lining up to take the floor here, because that's how serious they are about needing that extra debate time!
(screen capture courtesy of Karoli)
See 'em all down there?
Remember, they're not about obstruction. They just want more time to talk things out and find "bipartisan compromise."
You can tell by the way they're all having to be restrained from rushing to the floor to discuss their Very Serious proposals for reform.
In fact, not long after the Republicans insisted there had to be yet more debate on the question of whether or not to begin debate, but then disappeared from the floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid called for a "live quorum call," during which the Sergeant at Arms is instructed to require the physical presence of every Senator on the floor. That really shook things up for the GOP, and I just have to share with you the very important points they added to the extended debate they demanded yesterday evening:
That's a full transcript of every word uttered on the Senate floor by a Republican following their demand for extended debate.
Zip. Zero. Not a word.
I'm pleased to see that most traditional media outlets were able to correctly decipher what was going on procedurally, and have mostly called the Republicans out on it. But this is an aspect most of them are still missing: the filibuster is supposedly defined as "extended debate," not just a way of saying "stop doing stuff because I say so." So I think people have every right to ask, "Where's the damn debate?"
So, what happens next? Well, as you know, Harry Reid is entitled to ask (once) for reconsideration of yesterday's cloture vote, which he's expected to do today. In addition, he filed another motion for cloture yesterday, which becomes "ripe" for a vote one hour into tomorrow's session. That one, too, can be reconsidered later if there still aren't 60 votes to start the debate that Republicans were so eager to have more of. And then another cloture motion and another and another, each with the opportunity to reconsider, can be filed. The game can go on as long as they like. Or, as you're only too well aware, someone can opt to cave.
Doesn't that all seem a little silly, though? Republicans are demanding extended debate on whether or not to start debate, and then they won't even show up to debate. But we mustn't change the filibuster rule, we are admonished, because that would prevent the minority from being able to protect their right to... the extended debate they're refusing to have.
That, by the way, is good reason to make the motion to proceed a non-debatable issue, so that you can't filibuster the debate on whether or not to begin debate. That just doesn't make any sense if you really insist on defending the filibuster as a minority's right to demand more debate. It's worth noting, then, that Sen. Michael Bennet's (D-CO) proposal for filibuster reform contains just such a provision.
But in the meantime, we're stuck here in the absurd position of having Republicans demanding more debate on whether or not to begin debate, without actually showing up to debate it. And they're aided in this absurdity by Ben Nelson (D-NE) who insists with equal absurdity that he can't vote for cloture because:
"We don’t have a final bill, and I’d hate to vote for cloture on a motion to proceed when I don’t know what the ultimate bill is going to be."
That, as I already pointed out in Today in Congress, is prime Senatorial Steak Sauce, meant to cover the taste of the bad meat underlying it. Bills go through this little thing they call "floor consideration," which often includes debate and voting on "amendments," which means that the "ultimate bill" isn't decided until it's time to vote on final passage. Nelson knows this, and knows you know this, but doesn't care, because filibustering has become so detached from its underlying purposes that nobody can even keep it straight anymore.
So if it wasn't enough for you to want to see the filibuster reformed or eliminated due to Republican abuse (up to and including this move of demanding more debate on whether or not to debate, but never actually debating), then maybe you'll be convinced by the fact that doofuses like Nelson are able to use it to demand more debate (which they'll also not participate in) on whether or not to begin the process of formulating a "final bill," so that he can finally make an informed decision about whether or not to allow his colleagues to debate it. Or something.
Gotta protect that venerable institution of the filibuster that the founders designed! Except they didn't actually design it at all, which is a story for another day.