Senators Tom Udall, Jeff Merkley and Tom Harkin have announced that their proposal for reforming the Senate rules now has 26 co-sponsors, all Democrats. But they represent a healthy ideological cross-section of the entire caucus.
In addition to Udall, Harkin and Merkley, the resolution is currently co-sponsored by the following senators: Dick Durbin (IL), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Sherrod Brown (OH), Mark Begich (AK), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Michael Bennet (CO), Barbara Boxer (CA), Benjamin L. Cardin (MD), Bob Casey (PA), Christopher Coons (DE), Al Franken (MN), Kay Hagan (NC), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Joe Manchin (WV), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Jay Rockefeller (WV), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Jon Tester (MT), Mark Udall (CO), Mark Warner (VA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI).
Warner, Manchin, Tester and Hagan being aboard at this point is pretty solid. And there are others, like Frank Lautenberg, Ron Wyden, Claire McCaskill and others, who have their own rules bills with similar elements. The caucus seems united, although ideology is taking a back seat to seniority, or lack thereof, in this case.
Especially seeing that Ben Nelson’s spokesman seriously walked back his opposition today.
Thompson emails that in fact, Nelson is open to supporting Senator Tom Udall’s filibuster reform plan, which was introduced yesterday, as “a starting point.” He adds that Nelson recognizes that “clearly the Senate is dysfunctional and too often dilatory tactics are used to obstruct it from working for the American people.”
What’s more, Thompson says, Nelson isn’t completely ruling out supporting doing reform by a simple majority, which may be necessary if Dems can’t reach a deal with the GOP. When I asked whether this is something Nelson could support, Thompson told me: “Americans want Congress to work together, so the bipartisan work underway on filibuster reform won’t be helped by saying what he might do if it fails.” [...]
“He also strongly supports open debate and has a clear record voting against obstruction, delay and political gamesmanship,” Thompson continues.
You wouldn’t actually need Nelson for the Constitutional option if you had the rest of the caucus, but even he’s at least somewhat open to it. And there’s nobody in the caucus to his right, really.
I think there’s a general sense that the current Senate rules serve nobody, and that it behooves the majority to make things simpler on non-controversial legislation and nominees, while putting the burden on the minority to hold and sustain a filibuster. Al Franken’s tweak would help in that regard as well.





8 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
The question is how many of these senators will agree to the rules change if it has to be done on a partisan basis. I think a lot of people are free-riding here on the assumption (promise?) that it won’t happen that way, and knowing that 67 votes won’t happen.
The people who have been most opposed include Pryor, Conrad, Baucus and Feinstein. Reid, Durbin, and Schumer have been opposed in the past, though they seem to have had a change of heart. Landrieu also has uses regularly and is wary of any rules changes.
Hum…26 Senators for filibuster reform. Is that anything like 53 for the public option?
Yeah, I thought so.
Any word on what the Republicans think of this (or these) proposal(s)?
I think Manchin is probably to Nelson’s right, actually. But only time will tell.
I thought that it was only yesterday that the VP could declare the Senate as not a continuing body and make new rules by a simple majority. I understand that the Democratic caucus already caved and decided not to do that and instead is trying to do something with GOP cooperation that requires 67 votes. Am I right or wrong on that?
Prediction: By 2012 elections, at least several megabanks will be revealed as insolvent, but still slavering after the government till. Fannie and Freddie will be a huge political issue. Climate-related extreme weather events will continue to impact governments everywhere. As I write this, the Financial Times is reporting price spikes in commodity prices that are of great concern internationally (I expect this trend to continue sharply up, as some of the commodity issues are linked to climate instability). Wall Street still has vast power as of Jan 2011, but its days are numbered. The failure of health care reform to dismantle the ‘transactional, for-profit’ model will be politically toxic.
Assuming that even half my predictions prove correct, the pressure for government transparency will continue to build (particularly among the under-35 voters).
That’s part of the context within which I suspect the 2012 elections will occur. Any senator who has not worked diligently to reform the senate into a functioning body will be voted out.
Not even their corporate masters can save them; not even Citizens United will save them.
Any senator who has not actively worked to promote, implement, and protect transparency is going to have a snowball’s hope in hell of reelection in 2012.
Partly because there’s a whole younger group of voters who are not going to put up with sh*t that senators like Sen Richard Shelby keep dishing out to the nation (secret holds, silent filibusters).
Partly because in my social acquaintance, people who **never watched teevee news** in the past 30 years are tuning in to Olbermann, to Maddow. Maybe not every night, but enough nights each week that they feel reasonably informed. And these folks are either approaching retirement, or are retired.
Those who don’t watch MSNBC that I hear talk about contemporary issues read: Wall St Journal, NYT (religiously!), Financial Times, New Yorker, and other sources aimed at ‘professional’ readers. These people are avid seekers of information, because in one way or other their livlihoods have depended on knowledge: acquiring it, synthesizing it, acting on it.
I simply don’t see the ‘bourgeosie’ that I know: aging Boomers nearing retirement (or retired) sitting back while their pensions and 401(k) funds are looted, and the likes of Richard Shelby continue to pull bullshit like secret holds and filibusters.
If the Senate is so mind-bogglingly out-of-touch that they think the crap that’s been going on for years can continue in the era of C-SPAN, Twitter, Facebook, 24/7 cable, and tv screens on the elliptical machines at the health club, they are too pathetic for words.
It’s true that I’m only talking about two demographic segments:
1. the under-35 voters (huge college debts, bad economy)
2. aging Boomers looking at their retirement assets
in making this comment, but it’s these population subgroups are not used to rolling over and being treated like yesterday’s trash — while:
(a) bankers get obscene bonuses but they have incredible college debts, and/or
(b) their savings and pensions are looted and the senate can’t act because Tom Coburn or any of the other 99 senators decide to throw a hissy fit on any given day.
The senate is doomed if it doesn’t reform, and quickly.
It’s nearly irrelevant now.
Should have read:
It’s true that I’m only talking about two demographic segments:
1. the under-35 voters (huge college debts, bad economy)
2. aging Boomers looking at their retirement assets
in making this comment, but it’s these population subgroups are not used to rolling over and being treated like yesterday’s trash — while:
(a) bankers get obscene bonuses — but the under-35s who are bailing out these banks are still saddled with incredible college debts, and/or
(b) the Baby Boomers’ savings and pensions are looted — but meanwhile, the senate can’t act (on more FinReg or other new policies) because Tom Coburn or any of the other 99 senators decide to throw a hissy fit on any given day.
The senate is doomed if it doesn’t reform, and quickly.
It’s nearly irrelevant now.
I hate to wade in, knowing little, but I was half-listening to MSNBC and heard someone say that Harry Reid was about to do some procedural tweak, such as ‘suspending’ or ‘delaying’ some part of the rule, allowing for an extra two weeks to get it all together. I don’t even know which term you could google.
Man; knowing The Rules is enormously important! I discovered that decades ago in County Party politics. ;o)