Maybe we'll see a real filibuster on the health care bill:You know, with Senators reading from telephone books, standing for hours next to a lectern as aides bring glasses of water. While the outcome of a filibuster would be indeterminate, it may trigger a public response, much like Gingrich's shut down of Washington many years ago. And who knows what would happen then?
Given the dicey-ness of the 60 vote threshold being reached, it could end up being a procedural morass, which may not be as terrible as people fear.
posted by Quiddity at 10/28/2009 02:40:00 PM
It is unfortunate that Harry Reid will never force the Republicans to actually filibuster. To do so would be impolite, I guess. So the GOP will get to screw the entire country and never be held to account. Instead, the Dems will take the fall because they're nominally in control of all three branches of government.
Way to lose, Harry! Way to lose.
Filibusters are actually harder on the majority party. They need to keep a quorum present in/near the chamber, while the party filibustering just needs to keep one speaker on the floor at a time. If a quorum fails to be present, the minority can adjourn and send everyone home instead of continuing to talk.
We are really getting screwed out of getting real health insurance reform. Kucinich had a great speech asking Is this the best we can do? (video)
i vaguely remember the filibuster democrats held during the bush regime was ineffective and mostly kabuki.
filibusters don't scare me.
