7 ms·

This might be what you're looking for: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.

by Hario 12y ago

This might be what you're looking for: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-histor... Very briefly: In the mid years of Bush, the D Senate filibustered more than usual in regards to nominations of non-Supreme Court judges. In 2006, when Democrats took the Senate, the Republicans started filibustering up a storm. But no one in the press noticed because Bush would have veto'd anyway, so the balance of power didn't shift. As soon as Obama was elected, the Republican Senate had an internal meeting where they agreed to filibuster everything all the time -- legislation, judges, executive appointments, everything. Even legislation they supported, just to throw a wrench into the plans. It was a momentous change. The press failed to point it out or make an issue out of it. And here we are.

deciplex 12y ago
I wonder what the odds are that the Republicans will end the filibuster once they take back the Senate. Seems like the smart play would be to only do that if you have a veto-proof majority or a Republican President, but who knows.
- meepmorp 12y ago
  Not immediately. It's more useful as a "capitulate or else" weapon, at least for now. And immediately changing it upon winning has some petty, triumphalist optics to it. McConnell is a very shrewd politician.
- ericcumbee 12y ago
  Actually Harry Reid already ended the filibuster on Judicial Nominees http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limi...
techrat 12y ago
Politics of spite, not logic and reason.
- mikeash 12y ago
  I'd call it politics of self-interest rather than politics of national interest. These actions were perfectly logical and reasonable, if your goal is to improve the position of your party potentially at the expense of the nation.
  - orbifold 12y ago
    In a multiparty system such behaviour would be a sure fire way to a massive loss in the next election.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      That's nice. Not sure what the point of making that statement is.
      - orbifold 12y ago
        Well the point was that in a different political system such actions would not improve the position of your party. The idea that is does seemed odd to me and the only possible explanation I could come up with was that apparently enough people seem to dislike the Democrats so much that they would support such non constructive behaviour.
        mikeash 12y ago
        It's more that people just don't pay attention to the details and put far too much emphasis on the power of the President. President makes promises, fails to fulfill many of them, then the President and his party takes a hit. It doesn't matter that the reason they were blocked is because of action by the competing party.
graeme 12y ago
Thanks, that's the summary I was looking for. I remember that shift happened, and thinking "that's odd". Then I checked out of politics for a few years, and noticed the current language, which doesn't even reference filibusters. I am now curious to see if things will shift back once there's a Republican president. The Republicans seem far better at press management than the Democrats.
jules 12y ago
What the heck? How does such a party get elected that blatantly acts against the interests of its own country?
- disposition2 12y ago
  IMHO: FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), part apathetic electorate that chooses to not vote (period) because 'it doesn't matter', part uninformed electorate that votes based on a letter next to the name rather than positions (if the candidate even bothered to establish any positions / if the voter bothered to even look up the candidate's views) and a media that is so bent on presenting 'both sides' that they fail to call out the mountain of bullshit that we often hear (climate change isn't real, etc.). I feel like this is the worst excuse, there are usually many things to vote on other than a US rep, or Senator. For example, here in Arizona the exit polls showed that people felt education was the most important issue. In turn, we elected a governor that loathes the idea of public schools / supports vouchers; and a school superintendent that loathes common core (because, state rights) and __did not__ run a campaign (other than repeating 'nobama' & 'states rights'). The needs and results couldn't be further apart.

by Hario 12y ago

deciplex 12y ago

I wonder what the odds are that the Republicans will end the filibuster once they take back the Senate. Seems like the smart play would be to only do that if you have a veto-proof majority or a Republican President, but who knows.

meepmorp 12y ago
Not immediately. It's more useful as a "capitulate or else" weapon, at least for now. And immediately changing it upon winning has some petty, triumphalist optics to it. McConnell is a very shrewd politician.
ericcumbee 12y ago
Actually Harry Reid already ended the filibuster on Judicial Nominees http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limi...

techrat 12y ago

Politics of spite, not logic and reason.

mikeash 12y ago
I'd call it politics of self-interest rather than politics of national interest. These actions were perfectly logical and reasonable, if your goal is to improve the position of your party potentially at the expense of the nation.
- orbifold 12y ago
  In a multiparty system such behaviour would be a sure fire way to a massive loss in the next election.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    That's nice. Not sure what the point of making that statement is.
    - orbifold 12y ago
      Well the point was that in a different political system such actions would not improve the position of your party. The idea that is does seemed odd to me and the only possible explanation I could come up with was that apparently enough people seem to dislike the Democrats so much that they would support such non constructive behaviour.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        It's more that people just don't pay attention to the details and put far too much emphasis on the power of the President. President makes promises, fails to fulfill many of them, then the President and his party takes a hit. It doesn't matter that the reason they were blocked is because of action by the competing party.

graeme 12y ago

Thanks, that's the summary I was looking for. I remember that shift happened, and thinking "that's odd". Then I checked out of politics for a few years, and noticed the current language, which doesn't even reference filibusters. I am now curious to see if things will shift back once there's a Republican president. The Republicans seem far better at press management than the Democrats.

jules 12y ago

What the heck? How does such a party get elected that blatantly acts against the interests of its own country?

disposition2 12y ago
IMHO: FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), part apathetic electorate that chooses to not vote (period) because 'it doesn't matter', part uninformed electorate that votes based on a letter next to the name rather than positions (if the candidate even bothered to establish any positions / if the voter bothered to even look up the candidate's views) and a media that is so bent on presenting 'both sides' that they fail to call out the mountain of bullshit that we often hear (climate change isn't real, etc.). I feel like this is the worst excuse, there are usually many things to vote on other than a US rep, or Senator. For example, here in Arizona the exit polls showed that people felt education was the most important issue. In turn, we elected a governor that loathes the idea of public schools / supports vouchers; and a school superintendent that loathes common core (because, state rights) and __did not__ run a campaign (other than repeating 'nobama' & 'states rights'). The needs and results couldn't be further apart.