Don't forget to vote in this poll.

Should Congress Do Away With The Filibuster

  • Yes 53.25% (720 votes)
  • No 36.76% (497 votes)
  • Not sure 3.85% (52 votes)
  • How do you 'fill a bus tour'? 6.14% (83 votes)

Comments

  1. Dave said on Feb 10 2010, 11:21 AM:

    The POINT is that the current filibuster is NOT a filibuster, it's a procedure rule. I have no problem with a filibuster, but they should be required to do it like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington...you have to stand there and talk you way through it. The POINT of that is the make it hard, to make it CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR who is doing it, and why. As it is now, someone just says they 'intend' to filibuster and they pretend it's been done and no one has to actually do it. It's a Senate procedural rule. Just nuts. Just like one Senator (Shelby of AL) being able to hold up 70 nominations because he's trying to blackmail the President into giving billions of Federal dollars to his state.

  2. Rick said on Feb 10 2010, 10:22 AM:

    While we're at it, let's also dump the electoral college.

  3. Rick said on Feb 10 2010, 09:24 AM:

    People talk about doing away with the filibuster --when their side is being hurt by it. That's the only honest thing that can be said about it. Were the Democrats in a minority in the Senate, do you think for one minute they would want to do away with it? Absolutely not. And that's why they would never vote to do away with it now, even if it is key in blocking their agenda. The fact of the matter is that there's no real hue and cry for the Senate to jump on the Democratic agenda and pass all of its initiatives. If there were, the GOP would have no recourse but to try and get their name(s) somewhere on the bills so they could claim some kind of credit. But the country --as a whole-- doesn't see it that way. The health care reform plan is an entire overreach, and since 85 percent of people are generally happy with their own health plan they are rightfully asking "what the hell is in this for ME???" Where I live, people are taxed and fee'd to death, and cannot keep supporting programs that have ZERO accountability. Politicians are in the business of bringing home bacon --aka PORK-- as a way to say "see, look what I've done for you!". There's no incentive whatsoever to keep spending in check. Some government and state employees where I am have incredible benefits packages. Their pensions are guaranteed, meaning if the markets dive, WE the taxpayers have to pony up to make sure their precious retirement accounts remain fully funded. Of course, no regular Joe/Jane in the private sector has that kind of perk. And where I am, these same workers get to take advantage of the "high three" rule, where both management and labor collude to allow these hourly employees to rack up tons of overtime in their last three years and that then becomes the basis of their pension benefit. It's absurd, and patently unfair to taxpayers who have to fund it. But hey, that's how the game is played. So no, keep the filibuster. It will haunt Republicans as well as Democrats going forward. And it will keep this country from becoming like a parliamentary nation whereby the party "in power" gets to do whatever it wants. Sorry...not here. We're still essentially a 50-50 nation, and most people ARE NOT ideologues. We want pragmatism, not ideology.

  4. Bret said on Feb 10 2010, 08:14 AM:

    Make 'em talk! The filibuster has a purpose, but with the current Senate rules, the Senators don't have to actually talk non-stop like they're supposed to, meaning they suffer NO downside to filibustering. The old rules, where they have to talk non-stop for days (i.e. read the phone book, the dictionary, etc.) would put some real pressure on the Senators to Man (or Woman)-up and really MEAN it when they filibuster.

  5. Scott said on Feb 10 2010, 07:38 AM:

    I direct you to this article by Paul Krugman, the filibuster is nothing more then a formality - http://nyti.ms/9OioZJ


Statistics

Votes: 1352
Views: 1781