Despite all the blame and finger-pointing from Democrats in the Senate aimed at Republicans and their misuse and overuse of the filibuster, when an opportunity arises to actually do something about it, other than run off at the mouth, what do the Democrats do? Head for the exits faster than Mel Gibson at Anger Management counseling.
"Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate are pushing for filibuster reform at the start of the new Congress next year.
Five Senate Democrats have said they will not support a lowering of the 60-vote bar necessary to pass legislation. Another four lawmakers say they are wary about such a change and would be hesitant to support it."
The nine are: Daniel Akaka, Diane Feinstein, Mark Pryor, Jon Tester, Ben Nelson (shocking, huh), Mary Landrieu (another shocker), Max Baucus (shock number three), Jay Rockefeller, and Russ Feingold.
"A 10th Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said he would support changing the rule on filibusters of motions to begin debate on legislation, but not necessarily the 60-vote threshold needed to bring up a final vote on bills."
This time they don't even have the excuse of not being able to get 60 votes to fall back on:
"Democrats pushing filibuster reform argue the rules could be changed at the beginning of the 112th Congress through a ruling of the presiding chair that would then be ratified by a simple majority vote.
Democratic lawmakers say there are precedents since World War II when the Senate minority agreed to change the chamber's rules after the majority threatened to use this procedure.
Under such a scenario, the chamber's presiding officer, presumably the Senate president, Vice President Joe Biden, would recognize a motion to adopt new rules for the 112th Congress. Republicans would object, but Biden would overrule them and his ruling would be sustained by a majority vote."
But without the 10 brave souls mentioned above, and with Democrats expected to lose seats in the Senate in November, they can't even get to 51. Nice.
The most ridiculous reason for not wanting to change the rule comes from Hawaii Senator Akaka:
"I think we should retain the same policies that we have instead of lowering it. I think it has been working," he said."
Show of hands. Who agrees with Sen. Akaka that the Senate "has been working?" Anybody? That's what I thought.
Desperado,
I predict a strong push for change when the next congress convenes.
From the HuffPost yesterday: (http://www.shorturllink.com/598)
"You need 67 votes. It's part of the filibuster. You just can't change it.' And people don't say that anymore," said (Tom) Udall.
"They don't say that anymore because it's not true and Udall, along with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), has effectively made the case to his colleagues that it is entirely constitutional to change the rules.
The Constitution gives the vice president the power to break ties - not break 60-40 splits. Why would such a vote matter if the institution was not designed to be run by a majority?"