Oh no, you're going to filibuster?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Barney Frank Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

What struck me about Frank’s response was how casually he explained that the bill in question needed 60 votes to pass. It’s shocking that this tactic, the filibuster, has shifted from desperation move to standard operating procedure with such little complaint. Obviously they only need 51 votes to pass the bill, according to that little thing called the Constitution, but Frank just accepts the idea that nothing can happen without 60.

This betrays the absolute wimpiness of the Democrats. As has been said on issue after issue, let the Republicans stall health care for children, environmental reforms, or economic legislation. Force them to read the phone book and make a spectacle of their attempt to thwart laws they disagree with (but most Americans support). Then when nothing gets done, there will be plenty of video of old white dudes making fools out of themselves to stall popular reform. You can see the campaign adds writing themselves. Of course, then Democrats couldn't blame Republicans for governmental failure, which may be the point.

Besides being an insidious sort of constitutional rewrite, the ascent of the filibuster bestows awesome power on those few senators who announce that they are willing to be swayed. Currently, these obnoxious senators are know as the “Gang of Six:” Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.), Maine Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and most loathsome of all, Independent Joe Lieberman (Conn.). Under the current senate mindset, some number of these senators must be convinced to join on a piece of legislation. This gives them an unfortunate amount of power, and this power only exists because they announce their availability for seduction.

They are to the senate as good-looking girls are to high school: everyone knows who they are and chases after them with uncontrolled lust. All of the attention gives them the false impression that they’re wanted for more than their looks (or vote). Thus they announce their likes and dislikes to fawning crowds. Outside the bounds of their confined universe most people find them annoying, but in their sphere, they reign supreme. And indeed, listening to a “serious” Joe Lieberman speech reminds of listening to a cheerleader talk about how her cats don't like the smell of her new nail polish. If only these senators would become undesirable after 20lbs. of beer and pizza binges in their first year of college.

It seems to be a matter of senatorial courtesy that the threat of a filibuster is sufficient. If the Democrats required Republicans to make a spectacle, when roles reverse, Democrats would have to humiliate themselves with the same dance. But what kind of sad bargaining tactic involves conceding the point before negotiations even begin? Republicans don’t even have to worry about the political ramifications of stalling popular legislation with circus stunts. If the Democrats had just let the Republicans throw a temper tantrum and filibuster the expansion of the SCHIP program, the fallout may have been severe enough to restrict the tactic to extreme situations.