There was certainly a lot to hate about the abrupt capitulation by Harry Reid on the filibuster reform. Apparently, all the hot air he spouted about the system being "broken" was just to "pressure" McConnell to come to a "gentlemen's agreement."
More on his twisted reasoning below. But, there was something very interesting in all this:
“The only way we’ll get rid of the filibuster is if it continues to be abused,” he said. “Hopefully, what we’ll do here will stop some of the abuse, but what will happen if the minority continues to abuse the rules is we won’t get rid of the filibuster, but we’ll go to something like what [Sen. Tom] Harkin has pushed, where one vote is at 57, and then another vote is at 55.”
Since it's certain that it
will "continue to be abused" this sets the future frame of debate for 2015.
Obviously Republicans will block everything Obama and Senate Democrats want to do. Clearly Reid will never be convinced. But, more and more Democrats will be unhappy with the endless blockage.
This issue will come up again and again. And the reforms Reid talks about would be MUCH BETTER than the "talking filibuster" or even reversing the burden so that the filibusterers would have to continue to prove they have 41 votes.
Lowering the vote threshold to 57 or 55 Senators would make it much tougher to block legislation. Democrats had 60 Senators not long ago and easily could again after the 2016 election (when lots of Republicans who won in the 2010 wave election will be up for re-election in blue states during a Presidential year).
Why Did Reid Capitulate?
I was like everybody else, expecting that there would be a meaningful change, and that McConnell would never agree so Reid would be forced to at least go to the nuclear option and introduce reforms. What he did instead was capitulate. Here's why:
Last May, Reid shocked observers when he went to the Senate floor and apologized to Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Tom Udall (N.M.) for blocking their efforts to weaken the filibuster. “These two young, fine senators said it was time to change the rules of the Senate, and we didn’t,” Reid said then. “And they were right. The rest of us were wrong — or most of us, anyway. What a shame… If there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it’s the filibuster rule, because it’s been abused, abused and abused.”
Reformers think Reid changed his mind again in December, after a series of amendments to the Defense Authorization bill went awry and he began to worry that a talking filibuster, if not properly managed on the floor, could actually mean no filibuster at all in some cases. Reid said as much to me during our interview. When I asked him why he didn’t go for Merkley’s talking filibuster proposal, he said he’d concluded that it actually does get rid of the 60-vote threshold. He was, instead, pursuing a gentleman’s agreement with McConnell to encourage more talking filibusters.
He was terrified of success! He's flat opposed to eliminating the filibuster, and was scared that it might happen.
I. Why the "Talking Filibuster" Was Never Going To Work:
Personally, after reading the history of the Civil Rights struggle during the 50's and 60's to enact the voting rights act, I doubt the "talking filibuster" would accomplish anything significant.
During the 50's and 60's Senate Dixiecrats led by GA Sen. Richard Russell blocked every attempt at passing a civil rights bill by filibuster. What the majority found was that the majority and not the minority were worn down.
The majority were forced to have 50 votes ready to proceed to the floor every the filibusterers suggested a lack of a quorum, which meant the Southern racists could sleep at home comfortably, with only a couple of them on duty 24 hours a day in the Senate at a time. They operated in shifts of two, continually holding the floor, while the liberals had to camp out in their offices ready to rush to the floor in their night-shirts every time Russell called a vote.
After a few months of this, the majority was worn out and have to surrender and move on to new business. The Southern racists could continue for years like that if necessary. As long as their racist constituents supported them, they'd be fine.
That means the "talking filibuster" is basically worthless as a "reform." Just as in the 60's the GOP would talk in shifts about how wonderful and patriotic they are. There would be no requirement that they stay on topic either! Then the whole thing would be excerpted on nightly Fox News to heroic cheers from the right-wing.
Complete waste of time. Worthless reform.
II. That's why reversing the presumption -- forcing the minority to prove they have 41 votes to continue debate was so important.
However, as the liberals proved in the 60's even if they have to stay in their offices, if a significant block of senators feel strongly about something (and when have the tea-party crackpots been short of emotion) they can continue for months.
Thus, the ONLY thing that will work is to eliminate the filibuster altogether. And since Senate Democrats were too cowardly and stupid to do that this time, we will have to keep the pressure on, document how the GOP abuses the current rules and demand that we go to 55 or even 53 votes in 2015.
Just as in the Civil Rights era, we're eventually going to win on this one. The nation can't stand endless abuse of the system.