I think TPM Reader MW has a pretty good read on the lay of the political landscape:
Something that strikes me about the Republican use of filibusters is that they have no effect on actual outcome. That is, everything that the Republicans have filibustered would have been vetoed by Bush anyway. So, filibuster or not, the end result is the same. This is in striking contrast to the Democrat’s use in the last term, where the filibuster was the only thing standing between a law or an appointment going through.
So, why do they do it? I think they are engaging in obstructionism because most people don’t pay much attention to legislative details. All they know is that Democrats have not passed a bill. A veto, on the other hand, makes more news and sets up the Democrats as being in opposition to Bush. Republicans are well aware that people dislike congress because congress has not done enough to oppose Bush. So, I think their use of the filibuster is intended to portray Democrats as being ineffective.
This explains Warner’s vote on troop dwell time. Whether he voted for it or not, it wasn’t going to be enacted. So, being a Republican not up for reelection (and I think most Democrats would do the same) he chose to stick it to the opposing party rather than cast a vote that has no effect in the end.
In any case Republican claims that “Democrats did it last term” are
laughable, since Bush was then and still is president.
Lots of readers have written in to urge that Democrats actually force the Republicans to filibuster, not merely cave at the threat. The prospect of a presidential veto is, in part, what makes that a pointless exercise for the Democrats. So for all the frustration about not being able to achieve a 60 vote majority, remember that 67 votes is the real bar to overcome.
