The argument for actual filibusters

Apparently many House Democrats want to bring back old-school filibusters:

Mr. Yarmuth said that he and many other House Democrats wanted their Senate colleagues to force Republicans to spend hours filibustering various bills, to illustrate for constituents why legislation is stalling.

I've never understood this argument, which is popular among many liberals:

(a) After the first filibuster, I'm not sure the media or the public would care.
(b) It would slow down work in the Senate to a crawl.
(c) To the extent it draws attention to an issue, it does so by giving a platform to the other side.
(d) The potential for being dragged into a mutually destructive cycle of retribution is obvious (in five or ten years, Democrats would be in the same position).

So what's the rationale? Are Americans supposed to turn on C-SPAN, see a filibuster of an Iraq spending bill with a withdrawal deadline, and rise up as one? This strikes me as, um, a bit implausible.

Comments

[Rob]

I think bringing back old-style filibustering is a great idea, and no one's accused me of being a liberal in many a moon.

The Framers never intended for the Senate to require a 60-vote super-majority to pass legislation. But that's been the consequence of the "modern" version of filibustering, where the party leader simply declares a filibuster, after which voting on a bill requires cloture.

Being forced to stay up all night reading nonsense and being subject to quorum calls at any hour would make filibusters rare, if not for seantors' fear of looking ridiculous, then simply because they're too damned lazy to do it except in extraordinary circumstances. And here's the beauty part: Robert Byrd could advise his colleagues on the basis of personal experience, drawing on that proud episode when he spent fourteen hours filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Seth]

I couldn't agree more. You want your filibuster? In the words of RuPaul (not to be confused with Ron Paul), you better work.

And as for grinding the Senate business to a halt, from what I've been looking at for the last dozen years or so, I can't say that I would wholly object.