More than a few readers strenuously disagree with my assessment that making Senate Republicans actually go through with filibusters would be a pointless exercise for Democrats, in part because they lack 67 votes to override a veto.
TPM Reader JE:
I have to disagree here. It may be a pointless exercise in terms of passing legislation, but it is anything but pointless in terms of the making clear to the voters where the problem lies. . . .
For that very reason, the Democrats should make them filibuster, and use the term “filibuster” whenever they describe what the Republicans have done, not idiotic characterizations like “we don’t have the votes.” The only way to counteract Republican falsely blaming the Democrats for being “do-nothing” is to make it abundantly clear that Republicans are being obstructionist. *Make* them filibuster. Make it a true filibuster, which stops all other business until a cloture vote occurs. If anyone complains, or if anyone in the media doesn’t get it, tell them that all you want is an up-or-down vote, but a minority of Republicans is preventing the business of the country from getting done, not to keep the bill from passing, but just so their president doesn’t have to *bother* to veto it.
That’s a heck of a lot less pointless than going through the motions of introducing bills you know won’t pass because you “don’t have the votes.”
TPM Reader JC:
Hardly! The whole point is forcing Republican to defend their opposition to popular bills by obstructing the work of Congress with a filibuster. By meekly stepping aside after a failed cloture vote, Democrats basically allow the Republicans to make Democrats look like they are ineffective, and it’s working.
And when the Republicans tire of their filibuster or fail to follow through, it then forces the president to veto a popular bill, thus making things worse for him.
The point is that it isn’t the Democrat’s pointless exercise. All they have to do is step back and let the Republicans hang themselves with filibusters and vetoes. Whose skin are they saving here?
TPM Reader AC:
Politics is the art of the possible. And when nothing concrete is possible, that leaves theater. I am baffled at Democrats’ continual willingness to concede the stage. Veto or no veto, making the GOP filibuster a bill like Webb’s is not pointless. It puts vulnerable GOP moderates on the hot seat, it puts the blame for obstruction on the minority where it belongs, and it may force a series of unpopular high-profile vetoes from Bush.
TPM Reader RT:
One reason why filibusters are popular is because they protect the President. Yes, the result may be the same as a veto and there may be no difference practically between the 60 and 67 vote threshold – but there is a huge image difference.
The headline on a filibuster is “Senate Fails to Pass XYZ.” The headline on a veto is “Bush Kills Stem Cell Research” or “Bush Rejects End to War.”
Republicans filibuster to prevent Bush from having these headlines. Keep it muddled and it all looks like a mess. A veto would provide clarity. Republicans don’t want clarity on these issues.
TPM Reader NB:
[Q]uite frankly, I gotta call B.S. on the statement that the forced filibuster is a futile exercise. Yeah, the law would get vetoed, but a LOT of hay could be made by forcing the F-word and then HAMMERING the point that the GOP will go this far to NOT support troops. Done half-assed, this tactic could backfire in a big way, but if you think about all of the ABSOLUTE LIES that have become conventional wisdom through sheer repetition over the last few years, a forced filibuster along with a blitzkrieg PR campaign could actually force the 67. Especially with public sentiment the way it is, and a CRAPLOAD of presidential candidates.
