Let Them Talk ....and then Drop.

Here's an interesting article from the L.A. Times by Janet Hook about the filibuster procedure in the Senate - the supposedly last-option scenario that, lately, has become closer to an upfront option.

"Some Democrats want to rein in the filibuster" via the L.A. Times.

Democrats want to rein the in the filibuster, and for good reason. Although nothing is written in stone, and getting health care off the docket as soon as possible will be good for the Dems game plan in 2010, things are not looking up. Instead of a gain/hold of seats this year, Democrats are probably looking towards at least moderate losses. If the jobs picture does not improve dramatically by summer, you can bet on massive losses by incumbents - the majority of whom happen to be Democrats at the moment. Republicans will pin every bad piece of economic news to the Dems, paint every legislative victory in a negative light (i.e., health care, stimulus, infrastructure), and will highlight every legislative failure as further evidence that the Democrats aren't interested in reaching across the aisle. And, make no mistake about it, the Christmas non-bombing and Al Qaeda will find its way into election ads for partisan races from Senate on down to local dog catcher. If a candidate seems desperate enough, he or she may even be craven enough to use the Fort Hood shootings as ad fodder to attack Democrats on security.

And with the exception of the Fort Hood shooting (let's hope we don't reach a new "Willie Horton" low point in American politics), there is absolutely no reason for Republicans (or any challenger to the incumbent regardless of party) NOT to go on the attack. We haven't had great change in either direction, as Obama promised. This is why we have losses for the White House party in the first midterm after taking office - change takes time, and there is often little evident except partisan bickering and chest beating for the WH-holding party to run on. This is not evidence of failure by Obama; it's also not evidence of success. It's otherwise just dead-space; a vacuum. And that vaccuum gets filled with loud, noisy campaign ads by clever speech-giving pols. It has to get filled with such claptrap, because that's the kind of thing that gets people to turn out in midterms - not political speeches and policy papers. That's the kind of thing that gets people elected when there hasn't been change in either direction. Even if it's total manufactured BS, it works - and there isn't a reason in the world not to use it if you think it can get you elected. After all, your candidate would be better in office regardless of how he got there, right? Moral and ethical questions can be addressed later when he's the incumbent and that godless, nameless, bastard liberal/conservative is out. HA.

Hence why Republicans love the filibuster right now. It allows them to, at least, prevent any major legislative victories without a solid 60-vote supermajority - which for a big-tent party like the Democrats is difficult to hold. At the very least, the filibuster and like procedures lows down the policy production of the Congress to a slow drip, limiting the amount of legislation that gets out. And the Republicans have become very good at claiming that all they want is a seat at the table, for real input on bills, and that if the President and his party would only compromise on the details, we could have a bipartisan love-fest on Capitol Hill again. This forces the President and the Democrats into a position where Republicans can say their hands are clean on national problems like jobs, and that they are the victim of political bullying. And nobody likes a bully. And nobody likes gridlock. And, certainly, nobody has a very high opinion of Congress right now - it's in the dumps. And the latest polls show that, as a result of all this, Republicans have closed the popularity gap with once-highly regarded Democrats. (Yep, the G.W. Bush era is closed, peoples). All this from the quiet threat of constant filibusters.

Democrats know two things right now. One, if they want to get any legislation done to hang their hat on before November, they have to find a way to rein in the filibuster immediately.

Two is that even if they don't find a way to do it soon so the results show before November, they have to start hedging their bets that losses in November aren't as massive as one may think - and that they will have to govern somewhere between a simple majority and supermajority after. This means that legislation will need Republican support as well as conservative Democrat support in order to pass, but that the most extreme fringes of either party can thwart anything resembling sanity and bipartisanship with the threat of filibuster. Right now, at least some policy is getting out; if the Republicans continue to be grumpy after November, you could see even less unless Democrats start governing as Conservatives prefer (on abortion, jobs, taxes, welfare, environment, etc). In other words, a "Democrat" Congress in name only, churning out Democrat bills on the surface but substantively conservative underneath.

And good government people know one thing: none of this is good for policy or the nation. Truth to tell, Congress and the federal government are giants that are not meant to move fast anyway. Only in times of national crisis or emergencies do we see Congress move swiftly on anything - only the executive branch can rally that kind of force. But government does rely on Congress (especially its upper house, the Senate) to move legislation down the pipeline to address long-term issues and ideas, deliberate, argue in committee to kill or move it forward, and then eventually vote. That's, along with its oversight powers, are all Congress are really there for. If Congress isn't doing that, then issues aren't getting addressed in an already slow-moving body - and that means trouble in a few years when far-reaching problems with infrastructure or security come to roost which should have been addressed by fore-thinking pols today. (This is why we have committees and "expert" Senators and Congressmen, btw - though they are windbags, if you spend enough time in committee, you see what the future of an issue is).

But I propose this: after health care (which should just be passed, as it has been watered down to the point of near nothingness because of the threat of filibuster), Democrats should pick another hot button issue. Not the environment (that's not bread-and-butter enough for Mr. and Ms. America to get their none-too-sharp minds around). Something economic, with a populist bent.

If you can wrangle in seniors, even better, because once they get cranky, they start banging on pols doors in Washington with their walkers and oxygen tanks - and they vote their self-interests regardless. But often times issues which are important to seniors are diametrically different than those populist image-driving issues, and seniors are quiet in their opposition. You'd be surprised how many seniors AREN'T for better schools because they pay property taxes but don't have children attending; how many don't care about taxes for infrastructure, because they don't commute to work anymore; and how many aren't for new entitlements beyond an expansion of Medicare and Social Security. In the end, for the fixed-income set, it's really about keeping taxes low until they die, and making sure their entitlements are secure regardless of how its accomplished. But boy, seniors do know how to make a stink and they back it up with the threat of a vote!

Back in the 90's, there was a similar showdown between Bill, Newt and the new conservative Congress who were becoming horrible government boors (sound familiar?). Of course, they didn't threaten constant filibuster back then - they were just shoving a ton of bad government bills towards the executive to sign. No, the situation has devolved from that point, with Repubs becoming very sore losers with a sense of entitlement to power in the White House and Congress and the idea that they should always get their way. That compromise when they are in office means "All Conservative" proposals, all the time; and when the Democrats are in office means "Mostly Conservative/Little Liberal," or there is no support. This is what they filibuster over - and doesn't it seem a little unfair? Doesn't it sound like a child throwing a tantrum on the playground?

Bill's response? A government shutdown. When people starting having the services that the federal government provides delayed or stopped, you better believe that public opinion quickly turned away from "principle" to "where's my social security check?" Support for the Republican's dropped out, who suddenly to be heartless and willing to sacrifice the country for principle. Support for Bill rose to the point that he was re-elected in '96 easily and was able to weather the Lewinsky affair, because he looked like he was "one of the people." The Republicans became a very effective foil, because of that shutdown.

So, what should we do today? Another shutdown. A government shutdown over some kind of spending bill which affects medicare and social security payments getting out on time (there's your senior angle); which affects medicaid and other entitlements (your populist angle); and affects state aid (which should piss off the rest of the public). Tack some kind of entitlement, environmental regulation, expansion of government to a budget item which the government requires, and then watch the Republicans freak out. Then allow them to filibuster.

And here's where the beauty of it begins. The current record for filibuster is held by Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who in 1957 spoke with limited interruption for 24 hours and 18 minutes on a civil rights bill. However, this was accomplished with some minor rules infractions and help from his Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle and from the North - collegiality you would be hard pressed to find today. Thurmond committed some rules breaches to keep the floor; senators were allowed to ask him questions during his speech to help rest his voice; he was even allowed to quickly take a moment to eat a sandwich in the cloakroom thanks to procedural maneuvering. I posit that, had these infractions not been allowed to take place, Thurmond probably wouldn't have made it to 24 hours before he became ill. Even with the breaches, I doubt he could have continued another 24 hours.

The average age of the U.S. Senate is 60 years. There are 40 Republican Senators. Using Thurmond's record of 24 hours, if all the Republican's filibustered, the country would be looking at around 40 days of Republican babbling while the government was shutdown. If the Democrats offered no collegial assistance (no sandwich in the cloakroom, please) and objected to every infraction, 24 hours is the most you would get out of each senator before he or she started to fade.

Even the younger and healthier ones - the 40 year olds and such - may last a couple days, but eventually they would start to fade as well. Standing and talking for hours on end is stressful and will have a health toll, even on a young senator. So, allowing for 48 hours of talking from the rare young whippersnapper? You're probably looking at 60 days of Republican babbling. And while Republicans bring the "USA Today" and "War and Peace" to read aloud from the Senate floors, the public will watch on C-Span while they desperately wait for entitlement checks for themselves and aid payments to their local and state governments.

And then, magically, three things will happen. First, like in the 90's shutdown, the Republican's will be shone for what they are once again - a party hostage to principle, unwilling to budge for pragmatic concerns and human decency, and unable to "govern" but more than willing to "preach."

Second, modern Senators and politicians will be reminded of something that should snap a little true bipartisanship, collegiality, and compromise back into place. That the threat of filibuster actually requires you to do it, and there is a great physical toll. That talking of filibuster may actually get you called out to do it, unlike talk of sending troops into battle when you have never done military service - which senators and other pols regularly experience. In this case, they may actually HAVE to speak for 48 hours on end for these principles they hold so dear. Suddenly, after hour 18, reality sets in and things probably will be put back into perspective - that when you are in the minority, compromise means picking your battles and finding ways to work with the majority in their governing philosophy. And that elections matter, and that if you want to govern with a heavy hand, you have to win them - or be forced to speak for 48 hours straight if you want to belly ache over everything.

And, finally, and most deliciously - senators will begin to drop like flies. Ol' Strom was a summabitch, but he knew how to hold on. The hearty senator lived for 100 years. But not every senator is built like that; Strom and senators like Bob Byrd are the exception, not the rule. Despite the availability of a Capitol gym, health services, and the like, the rigors of the Senate and the life on the campaign trail takes its toll. Waist lines expand. Stamina diminishes. Many of them have diseases unknown to us; more than a few have (sadly) publicly battled cancer. These are not always the healthiest people, folks. Some of them are kept under some type of observation by doctors, nurses, and other caretakers; more than a few have (quietly) spent many a night in the hospital rather than at home for simple colds and minor aches and ailments.

The oldest current Republican senator is Jim Bunning of Kentucky at 78 and, in fact, a good chunk of those over 65 in the Senate happen to be Republican. So, you do the math just on those over 65, folks. That's 20 Republican Senators; half the current Republican class. Can half of them, over 65, talk for days on end to prop up the threat of filibuster? Odds are they can't.

So, I say: let them try. Instead of reining in the filibuster, pick an issue, Democrats. Let the obstinate and childish Republican senators filibuster. When stomach pains kick in and their stomachs begin to growl, and nausea sets in on their aged bodies, they will learn. Allow them water, but do not allow them food on the floor of our venerable Senate. But even if they find a sneaky way to eat or even suck on Mentos and M&M's to get through the speech, human processes will come calling eventually. That's when live video is shot of blowhard Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell being forced poop and pee in a bucket at the Senate podium. You see, with no rules infractions allowed, there will be no bathroom breaks or the filibuster will be broken to yield the floor. When that video is broadcast on C-Span and You Tube, they will learn. And, if that doesn't do it, when John McCain or Joe Lieberman or the like are standing up there for hours on end, without water or substantive food, forced to speak consistently for 24 hours or more - they will faint, and fall to the floor ill. And that's when they will not only learn the final lesson, but also shown for what they really are. Not tantrum-throwing children, but sick old fools. And then, the filibuster will be put in real context - a useless tool for anybody, but certainly for the country's older legislative body.

So, the lessons these old men and women will learn is one that they may have forgotten, but one good ol' Mom and Dad taught me from my earliest days. "No job is worth your health, son." And with the exception of military, security, and emergency service personnel, I'm sure Mom and Dad would say a the job of a senator isn't worth dropping dead over a filibuster.