I don’t know where you get the idea that Congressional Republicans are progressives. Democrats and Republicans at the moment have quite stark ideological differences, and “moderate” Republicans are a dying breed under threat of being primaried out (see Specter, Arlen),

I don’t buy the argument that they’re all non ideological hacks – that certainly doesn’t explain why Judd Gregg would do what he did, or why Arlen Specter would do what he did, or why Ryan’s budget called for the privatization of Medicare and the freezing of non-discretionary spending for five years. I think the strongest your case would be is that Republican politicians are non ideological hacks who recognize that the primary voter base is so ideologically committed that they couldn’t get re-elected if they indulged their hackiness by taking bribes from the opposing party.

Wow, I feel so…dismissed. I suppose it’s fair enough, since what most commenters here call “progressive”, I call “bad”. But I’m still willing to pitch in if I can.

Look: most Republicans (by which I mean the elected ones, not the proles) are not exactly titans of intellect or integrity. In fact, the big-name Republicans are all “progressives” in principle (though obviously not “progressive” enough for some people). Just as important, they’re all politicians, which means they’re voluntarily disconnected from anything you or I would recognize as reality. For them, Politics The Game is everything. Suppose the Earth was on course to fall into a black hole; these people would think of nothing but what political advantage might be gained in the circumstances. (I hasten to add that I don’t quite believe this; but it would be foolish to quite disbelieve it either. The world of political ambition is a world without limits in law or psychology.)

Now, say you’re the president. In nominal opposition to your “progressive” agenda are some number of Republican senators, who understand little and stand for less. You need only persuade about one in five to support any given subset of your agenda, and you win the day. You have ample means to bribe, coerce or deceive them, and no scruples on either side. So it should be no more difficult than netting jellyfish.

If it still proves difficult or impossible, you must be a planet-sized, flashing-neon tragic loser. Even a lowest-quintile Republican senator (heck, even your fellow Democrats) can’t help but notice how your hubris and incompetence blot the sun from the sky, and threaten destruction to anyone foolish enough to align with you.

That’s about the only plausible explanation.

Wow, I feel so…dismissed. I suppose it’s fair enough, since what most commenters here call “progressive”, I call “bad”. But I’m still willing to pitch in if I can.

Look: most Republicans (by which I mean the elected ones, not the proles) are not exactly titans of intellect or integrity. In fact, the big-name Republicans are all “progressives” in principle (though obviously not “progressive” enough for some people). Just as important, they’re all politicians, which means they’re voluntarily disconnected from anything you or I would recognize as reality. For them, Politics The Game is everything. Suppose the Earth was on course to fall into a black hole; these people would think of nothing but what political advantage might be gained in the circumstances. (I hasten to add that I don’t quite believe this; but it would be foolish to quite disbelieve it either. The world of political ambition is a world without limits in law or psychology.)

Now, say you’re the president. In nominal opposition to your “progressive” agenda are some number of Republican senators, who understand little and stand for less. You need only persuade about one in five to support any given subset of your agenda, and you win the day. You have ample means to bribe, coerce or deceive them, and no scruples on either side. So it should be no more difficult than netting jellyfish.

If it still proves difficult or impossible, you must be a planet-sized, flashing-neon tragic loser. Even a lowest-quintile Republican senator (heck, even your fellow Democrats) can’t help but notice how your hubris and incompetence blot the sun from the sky, and threaten destruction to anyone foolish enough to align with you.

That’s about the only plausible explanation.

Confusion is understandable (and I mean that without any sarcasm). I highly recommend this link for a brief explanation of the differences.

That article even explains why Thurmond’s burst of protest is a bad example (his fellow Senators let him go on for awhile, it was all theatre to humor him, but it wasn’t a necessary component of a filibuster. It’s weird; I refer you to the linked article:

As both Reid’s memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, “I suggest the absence of a quorum.”
The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.

In particular, calling roll takes time. So, noting the absence of a quorum would be an occasional act, and would not be very strenuous. Furthermore, another Senator could step in and note the absence of a quorum. All in all, the procedure would be wearying to the party attempting to call a vote (because they need to keep calling roll whenever it is requested), not the opposition (who just needs to periodically request a roll call).

As for whether forcing this issue is a good idea, I leave you to read the description of a filibuster in that article, and think about how the news networks would cover it. Republicans Saving the Nation from Socialism, etc.

I’m confused. How is saying “I observe there is no quorum” umpteen thousand times different from reading the telephone book, in that it requires an actual investment of time and energy, around the clock? I’m think less of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington than Strom Thurmond’s Civil Rights Act filibuster (filibusters? I can’t remember anymore).

My point is actually less about the sheer physical difficulty of staying awake and active for so long (though that’s part of it) but that the way things are done now, if a cloture motion fails to get 60, the storyline is just “oh, well, that’s how things work in the Senate.” If people have to actually continue debate for a while, the storyline can become “Republicans are putting a vast amount of heroic effort into stopping x, y, and z good things.”

Filibusters haven’t been tested in the youtube era. It wouldn’t take many youtube successes to kill routine fillibusters if it was standing in the way of something important so long as you actually made the Senators do something to filibuster.

But seriously, I feel like I’ve heard of people successfully doing this in the past.

I don’t believe this is the real problem. I believe that the real problem is that there are many “moderate” Democrats – that is, Dems on the take from major corporate interests – who like the filibuster, because it makes them important. If you need only 51 Dems to get something passed, who cares what Ben Nelson wants? But if you need 60, then it’s crucial to please Ben and eight others who can extract big concessions for their paymasters.

So many alleged progressives here turn into Russell Kirk when discussing the filibuster, the electoral college, the Iowa Caucuses, etc.

To be clear, the filibuster as shown in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington is not the filibuster of the real world. As the rule stands, there’s no need for anyone to do any of this in order to maintain a filibuster. They can if they want, for dramatic effect. Or they can just say “I observe the absence of a quorum” umpteen thousand times.

So, to require an “actual” filibuster along what you describe would require a change in the rules. If we assume we do have the necessary Senators are ready and able and willing to change the rules, why bother with trivial change like “you must actually keep speaking” ?

No change of the rules required.

This is a false statement.

Historically speaking, the filibuster has really been a right-wing element; Democrats were lousy at maintaining filibusters from 2000-6, we didn’t prevent Bush from passing anything except Social Security privatiation, he got his 2 Supreme Court nominees and enough of his judicial nominees.

Amen. This can’t be said often enough. I have a hard time believing the filibuster is any kind of Potential Force for Awesome Good. The filibuster has a rich history of blocking progressive legislation, and no substantial history of blocking regressive or reactionary legislation.

In the 1940s and ‘50s (and later?) ending the filibuster was a major plank in the civil rights platform, because Southern Democrats used it to block antilynching (and other civil rights and progressive) legislation. But even then, one didn’t need 60 votes to get through any piece of legislation, because it was a pain in the ass to do it. Bring back that pain in the ass, and you’ve fixed the problem.

Moreover, the advantage to this solution is that it can be done instantly, since all it is is calling the Republicans’ bluff. No change of the rules required.