It does not matter that every single Democratic Senator returning for the 112th Congress signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking that something be done to stop the abuse of the filibuster. When it got down to changing the filibuster rule, the best the
Democratic leadership could do was a handshake deal between Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN). Progressive senators such as
Jeff Merkley, Tom Harkin and
Tom Udall,
[photo] were once again undermined by their own timid leadership, frightened by potential consequences if the Democrats are in the minority after 2012. That position is logically equivalent to being against democracy expressed in the results of free, fair elections. The sellout deal is changing the rules cutting the length of time individual senators can place "holds" on legislation or nominations, barring the reading aloud of amendments to consume time, and exempting hundreds of executive branch appointments from Senate confirmation votes. But the filibuster part of the deal is the weakest tea of all: Democrats will agree to consider more Republican amendments in return for a promise not to filibuster as often. If Senator Udall and his allies succumb to Washington's default mode of more business as usual, the Senate will be reduced to an echo chamber until another election in two years changes the balance of power. The senators who want real reform
should demand a vote on changing the filibuster rule with or without support from obstructionists. At the very minimum, the Senate should not allow filibusters to be 'virtual'--not requiring expenditure of any significant effort to justify a small minority's opposition to bills having enough votes to pass under regular order. Filibuster by declaration has rendered our democracy a virtual one.
