Rangel calls for real filibusters

Add Charlie Rangel to the list of House Democrats calling on their Senate colleagues to force real filibusters:

[A]s Congress struggles to adjourn for Christmas, relations between House Democrats and their colleagues in the Senate have devolved into finger-pointing.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) accuses Senate Democratic leaders of developing "Stockholm syndrome," showing sympathy to their Republican captors by caving in on legislation to provide middle-class tax cuts paid for with tax increases on the super-rich, tying war funding to troop withdrawal timelines, and mandating renewable energy quotas. If Republicans want to filibuster a bill, Rangel said, Reid should keep the bill on the Senate floor and force the Republicans to talk it to death.

Reid, in turn, has taken to the Senate floor to criticize what he called the speaker's "iron hand" style of governance.

Democrats in each chamber are now blaming their colleagues in the other for the mess in which they find themselves. The predicament caused the majority party yesterday surrender to President Bush on domestic spending levels, drop a cherished renewable-energy mandate and move toward leaving a raft of high-profile legislation, from addressing the mortgage crisis to providing middle-class tax relief, undone or incomplete.

"If there's going to be a filibuster, let's hear the damn filibuster," Rangel fumed. "Let's fight this damned thing out."

As I said before, I don't understand what Rangel and the other House Dems think real filibusters would accomplish.

PS Every time there's a change in party control in the Senate we go through this process of recrimination when the majority runs up against the filibuster. Did the House Democrats think the filibuster magically went away in 2006? What were they expecting?

PPS "Stockholm syndrome"? Wow!

Comments

[jme]

You've commented several times something to the effect of

- Everyone fillibusters to impede the Senate, why are the Dems so wound up about this, and

- Forcing real filibusters wouldn't accomplish anything

I'm confused. It's true that both parties, when in the minority, have used (and abused) the filibuster. But shouldn't you acknowledge the truly record setting levels that the Rep party is taking things to? If the level of filibustering were on par with previous terms, I'd agree with you, but doesn't the Rep's use of the filibuster this term represent a significant departure from previous terms?

If that's the case, isn't it reasonable for the majority party to be a bit, well, peeved?

Additionally, you seem to think that requiring real filibusters would backfire on the Dems. While I agree that's possible from a political standpoint, I don't see how it could make the Senate _less_ capable of getting work done. Requiring the Rep's to actually stand there and talk w/out stopping would make it _harder_ to filibuster.

Your previous post listed a curious set of reasons. Your (a) and (c) seem to conflict. The opposing party gets a prominent platform on _one_ bill, but then you claim the media would ignore future filibusters, hence (c) is a problem only once.

(b) - Are you saying that the Senate could actually get _less_ done? Can you convince me that a reduction in the rate of bills passed from the currently glacial pace is significant? Otherwise, this seems unimportant.

(d) - True. But can't you argue that retroactively, too? Specifically that the Dems should have struck a bargain on filibustering back with the Supreme Court nominees, because then they'd be much better off now?

[Seth]

Check this out: 42 cloture votes by July. Compare that to 52 over TWO YEARS!
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/18218.html