Are the Republicans even going to lose the filibuster?

[ckn]

Link to The Independent

Republicans fear the loss of their only weapon left: the filibuster

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Monday, 27 October 2008

It is the about the last, the most overblown but perhaps the most potent argument John McCain has left. Elect me, he tells voters, or watch the Democrats gain a hammerlock on Congress and plunge the country into socialism.

A week tomorrow, not one but 471 elections of national importance are held in the US. Americans are choosing not only a president but also all 435 members of the House of Representatives and 35 of the 100 senators. And the factors sweeping Barack Obama towards victory may also put the Democrats in a more powerful position on Capitol Hill than any party in a generation.

If he wins, not only would they control the White House, but also both houses of Congress, and by expanded margins. Most important, in the Senate they might reach the magic number of 60 seats required to override a filibuster and thus deprive Republicans of their one remaining weapon, their ability to talk to death legislation they oppose.

Democrats would then be able to do exactly as they please, Mr McCain warns his audiences, is that what you want? "But that is exactly what's going to happen if our opponents have total control of Washington. We can't let that happen.

"Are you ready for Obama, Pelosi and Reid?" he asks, invoking the spectres of a president who had the most liberal voting record of any senator, of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, product of arch-liberal San Francisco, and of Harry Reid, who has been a highly partisan leader of the Senate during the past two years, when Democrats have had only a threadbare 51-49 majority. Mr McCain may be exaggerating the ideological threat to the American way of life, but the threat to the Republicans on Capitol Hill could not be more real. Most analysts now predict that, in the House alone, Democrats could pick up between 15 and 25 seats – in some cases because of the predicted surge in black turnout because of Mr Obama – reinforcing their solid, existing majority of 236 to 199.

But in practice, that will not make much difference, given the strict procedural rules that tie a minority's hand. In the Senate, it is a different story. It is the Republicans' bad luck in 2008 to have to defend 23 of the 35 seats up for grabs in the toughest climate for the party since Watergate. The Republican brand has been discredited by a desperately unpopular President, and now by the worst economic crisis since the 1930s.

Of those Republican-held seats, three – in Virginia, New Mexico and Colorado – seem all but certain to change hands. In four more, including Minnesota where the author and comedian Al Franken is challenging the incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, the Democratic candidate is ahead. Even in reliably Republican Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, has suddenly found himself in a dogfight (although the odds are Mr McConnell will survive). If the Democrats are to get to 60 (or even 59 which in practice might be enough) everything hinges on three other races that are statistical dead heats, according to the polls: in Georgia, Mississippi and Alaska.

Washington DC famously does not have a vote in Congress. But in the next day or so, 12 good citizens of the District could conceivably reshape the face of national politics, as a federal jury here considers its verdict in the trial of Alaska's Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate.

The 83-year-old Stevens, lord of his state's politics for decades, is seeking a seventh six-year term next Tuesday. If he is acquitted on corruption charges, he will surely be re-elected. But his conviction probably would cost the Republicans the seat, and with it their hopes of being able to mount a filibuster.

Even without Mr Steven's legal predicament, everything was favouring the Democrats. Under any circumstances, this would be a horrendously difficult year for Republicans. But in addition, thanks to Mr Obama's protracted primary battle with Hillary Clinton, he has strong ground organisations in states across the country. These can help local Democrats running for Congress. His campaign has registered hundreds of thousands of new voters, and is flush with money.

So Mr McCain is largely pinning his hopes on the argument that Democrats should not be allowed to sweep all before them, gambling on the historical fondness of American voters for divided government, and their reluctance to hand unchecked power to one party.

That reluctance is understandable. Invariably, a party that has controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue has over-reached, even without a filibuster-proof Senate majority, which last happened between 1977 and 1979, the first two years of Jimmy Carter's unhappy presidency. In the early 1990s, during the first Clinton administration, Democrats controlled White House and Congress, only to come a cropper in the mid-term elections of 1994. For most of the first six years of George W Bush, Republicans were in the same position. But they too over-reached, and nemesis duly arrived at the November 2006 midterms.

The problem, for Mr McCain is that, in this moment of real crisis, strong unified government may be what Americans want. A Washington Post poll found that, by a 50-30 margin, voters would now prefer one party (ie, the Democrats) to control both the executive and legislative branches.

And as America, by its standards, moves to the left, maybe "socialism" is exactly what they are looking for: a more activist government, higher taxes for the rich and a stronger social safety net for the poor, more regulations on financial markets and something that approximates to universal health care.

Art of the filibuster: Talking legislation to death

*A filibuster, which comes from a Dutch word meaning "pirate", allows a senator to prevent a vote on the floor by speaking for as long as he or she wishes on a topic of his or her choosing. Politicians have been known to recite Shakespeare or read out recipes to pass the time.

In 1917, senators adopted Rule 22 to override a filibuster. Debate on proposed legislation would move to vote with the backing of two-thirds of the chamber, a device known as "cloture". The first outing for the new rule came in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles.

The record for the longest filibuster has been held for more than half a century. In 1957, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina talked for 24 hours and 18 minutes, helping to successfully block the Civil Rights Act.

In 1975, the number of votes required to break the filibuster was cut from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the 100 senators. If the Democrats do as well as some project, they could have those 60 votes within their own ranks and deprive the Republicans of their one remaining weapon, talking to death legislation they oppose.

Up for grabs: The battlegrounds

*House of Representatives

Democrats 236 seats

Republicans 199 seats

All 435 seats are up for grabs and the Democrats are expected to increase their majority by between 15 and 25 seats

*Senate

Democrats 51 seats

Republicans 49 seats

Votes will be cast for 35 of the 100 seats on 4 November. The Republicans are defending 23 of those and at least three seem certain to change hands. If the Democrats can get to 60, then they could stop any Republican attempt at a filibuster.

10 Days to go

Obama 50.4%

McCain 42.6%

[wil]

Yes this will happen.

[tidalwave]

I'm not sure if it will happen, but there's a definite possibility if the American sheeple are so fervent in their disapproval of the past 8 years. IMO, turning such un-checked power to a single party is not a good thing. If you think that the Democrats are any less 'in the pocket' of big money than Republicans, then you world view is severely flawed. Those big money interests will be at the helm even more than during the Bush administration. Halliburton may not be in as much control, but it might just become the AFL-CIO. Choose your poison.

Of course, this will likely mean a 1 term president and a hard swing back toward the right in 4 years. I'm not running for the hills in fear, but I don't see a net positive outcome from such a dramatic imbalance of power.