Matthews: Abolish Filibuster, Let Majority Rule (VIDEO)

The filibuster. Why is it that it has continued to bedevil the Senate's majority party, even though you hardly see these croaky-throated old men staggering around the well of the Senate, reading The Last Of The Mohicans anymore? That was the issue taken up by Chris Matthews Monday night. Matthews -- who one imagines would spend his entire term filibustering if he was ever elected to the Senate -- was joined by former Senators Trent Lott and John Breaux to discuss this topic.

Matthews' main bone of contention: Why has everyone accepted the premise that a 60-vote supermajority is deemed the necessary means of enacting legislation? Why can't there be speechifying, and most importantly "cots." Lott pointed out that there's all sorts of ancient Parliamentary trickeries at the ready that can be used to drag out bills even before you get to the filibuster. Which is neat, but doesn't go to the issue.

"If you need sixty, you get nothing done," Matthews said. "When are we going to trust, and say, okay, now it's time to let the majority rule so we can get health care, so we can get energy, so we can get a better education system?" Breaux pointed out that the current state of play in the Senate has allowed the mere threat of a filibuster to sideline bills. "Make them show they won't vote for it, make them get on the floor," said Breaux.

Lott insisted that the GOP will not filibuster every issue. "Will the Republicans go to the mat and filibuster an education bill?" he asked.

None of that impressed Matthews, who, on top of suggesting that the constant threat of filibustering is ruining our democracy, zinged Lott on the way out the door with this exchange:

LOTT: If you don't have the delays, you have a stimulus bill that nobody read, nobody knew what was in it, raising spending, it's going to raise taxes, it's going to wind up cutting defense. This is good?

MATTHEWS: Well, it is better than what your crowd left us with. Thank you, Trent Lott, thank you, John Breaux. We have a Dow dropping down to 6000 based upon the economic policies of the past eight years. I wouldn't brag, with great respect, sir.

[WATCH.]

Comments

[rabiddog6708]

Remove the filibuster and take away the Repubs last trump card. They would totally powerless.

[Amerigucci]

Jason Linkins flubs it again.

Matthews made the case for forcing Republicans (or whichever party is in the minority) to actually filibuster and not merely threaten to filibuster, not abolishing the filibuster.

I don't know why I continue to be surprised by the absence of intellect in the Congress of the US, but surprised again I was by former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's inability to defend his argument, or make any sense at all. Why Matthews and MSNBC are giving him a platform (thereby helping him in his lobbying career) is a mystery. Among the many examples of Lott's s.t. up. id. ity was from the floor of the Senate, when trying to prevent money going to help subsidize seniors' and poor citizens' paying their energy bills (air conditioning in the summer), "Nobody ever died from hot weather".

[Cunningham]

The Myth Of The Filibuster: Dems Can't Make Republicans Talk All Night

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

[matt18e]

After 2010 we won't have to worry about this filibuster BS any longer... the Republicans will be history.

[revhatchell]

"well, it's better than what your crowd left us with."

it's amazing these idiots have the nards to obstruct an attempt to recover from the disasters that they brought this country.

in a little over a month they hate this president with the same passion it took to rightly hate bush over 8 years.

me think they protest too much.

[sixx]

Matthews confuses the issue with his call to abolish the filibuster. Since the Constitution affirms majority rule, he should say, support the Constitution that you swore to uphold. The Constitution enumerates the cases where super majorities are necessary, filibuster is NOT one. Harry get a pair.

[mh01]

Ahh delicious irony. A loud mouthed windbag makes the case to shut other people up?

[chocolatecity]

Do you folks even remember that the republicans killed Bill Clinton's stimulus package with a filibuster? They can and will kill legislation. To think that they can be shamed by making them actually filibuster a bill doesn't square with me. Bill Clinton actually suffered because he was seen as not being an effective leader by allowing republicans to kill his legislation.

[MajorKong]

I think it's a bad idea now and it was a bad idea back when the GOP wanted to do it.

[bygollymissmolly]

Why?

[MaryanneAZ]

I think a bigger argument can and should be made for senate term limits. How do we have 90 year olds still on the job after decades of service? Few industries have such open-ended terms of employment. We have senators "working" who are not physically fit for their jobs (sorry, Teddy). It is absurd that we allow these folks to dig in and form the alliances and corrupt practices that they get away with year after year. My civics is rusty but I'd be curious to find out how term limits can be enacted. And while we're at it, age limits on presidential candidates are a good idea too. The founders never envisioned people living past 70 and running for office.

[bygollymissmolly]

I would like to see the House terms be for 4 years (two is way too short and is consumed with running for the next election) and for both the Senate and the House be term limited at 12 years. That is really the only solution.

[shel3364]

Chris sometimes lets his mouth get ahead of his brain, but he's a smart man and takes no crap.

I enjoy his show, whether I agree with him or not. When he speaks, its from the heart.

[coliwabl]

Great idea!

[kurtlockwood]

Thanks to Chris Matthews for reminding everyone that Obama inherited this economic crisis from the failed "cut taxes for the coporations and the rich and watch it trickle down to China" policies of W. There is only one goal of the GOP now and that is to make sure that Obama does indeed "fail," because if he succeeds, and gasp, the country that they profess to love so profusely, does well, it means Obama will probably get re-elected. Once again the GOP has disdainfulyy put party before country all while wrapping themeselves in their In "Limbarff We Trust" stealthy-sheep's-clothing-American-flags. We're in a real crises and this type of selfish display is disgustingly and dangerously obstructionst.

[InLosAngeles]

I like Obama, I like Matthews (USUALLY), but he is plain wrong why the dow just went to 6700. The dow fell under George Bush for his aggressive spending programs, the mkt fell from 9600 (nov.3) to where we are now as the new administration prepared, stimulus plan was rolled and studied & implemented. We all knew that the mkt was at risk of a major fall if Obama's plan was enacted. Where we hope it is main street friendly, we know it is not mkt friendly, or at least equity friendly. 100% of us knew that. I don't get why we need to try and pretend that the last 3000 points are republicans, they own the 14k down to 9600k. They own plenty of failed policies. We own the recent move, and any recovery will be under our stewardship.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

Nonsense. The collapse of the dow is simply a classic asset bubble collapse. Stock prices had been run up to unsustainable levels just like housing prices and we are seeing prices resetting to their normal growth trendline which is exactly what happened in other historic asset bubbles.
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/

[InLosAngeles]

Bubbles do not self create. You don't get an internet bubble or a real estate bubble without cheap money looking to beat riskfree returns. When riskfree returns drop to a level where you generate negative real returns, cheap money starts to look for opportunity. Cheap money is driven by policy.

If you loved those last two bubbles, you're going to love the new treasury bubble.

[BLinCincinnati]

I can't view the video so I can't say if he's wrong or not.

But I can tell you that YOU are definately wrong on why the market has fallen. The market didn't fall under Bush because of his spending programs. It fell because banks had cooked their books as well as leveraged way too much, so when they crashed it sent shockwaves of doubt through out the financial sector of who would fail next so investors fled. Then with credit tightening up many companies couldn't get enough credit to meet their needs. Companies started running the risk of defaulting on debts because of the slow down leading to doubt in their companies, driving their stock price down. Then you have the panicky and lemming mentallity of the average person who has been yanking their money out of the market over the last year driving prices down even farther.

Other than the Government moving to common shares of Citigroup, much of the loss in stock prices is due to things outside of "agressive spending programs" and more to do with deregulation, over leveraging, bad loans, and fear among investors on how stable some companies really are.

[InLosAngeles]

You are right the extension of credit was a huge chunk. One led to the other. That model fueled unGodly amounts of spending, and zero fiscal responsibility. The gov't made assumptions and spent like drunken sailors, based on the model of cheap credit.

[timm0]

Please stop. The main reason the economy is in free fall is because massive amounts of wealth, which were previously somewhat guarded by regulatory oversight, was moved from the economy and into the pockets of the already extremely wealthy.

Trying to assign which points from the dow to attribute to one act or another has almost always been flat-out silly - even the trite, daily, "the dow inched downward today on fears that greenspan had intestinal discomfort" have always sounded foolish. To start attributing thousands of points to one policy or another is nonsense. Billions have been systematically sucked out of the economy while bush kept everyone distracted.

Laying any of this at Obama's feet due to the stimulus plan is a farce. You can blame him for not doing enough to expose the situation when he was originally elected to the Senate, but not for the plan. I recall seeing that he had recognized the problem and wrote about the bubble....

[InLosAngeles]

You have to be kidding. Any legislation, whether Republican or Democrat, moves markets. 90% of the time negatively. If you even hint at capital gains hikes, mkts adjust risk models. It is much like a seesaw. If you increase govt debt and money supply, mkts adjust risk models. It is a math equation. These are not positive adjustments. I am not saying we should not try to help main street, but when we pretend that there are not adjustments to risk, then you are fooling yourself or trying to mislead people.

[MaryanneAZ]

The DOW is not reacting to Obama or his policies. It is reacting to news from the financial industries. Yesterday it reacted to the AIG hemorrhage of more funds and need for further bailout money. If you listen to the news reports, then you'll hear the caveats plainly, "Wall Street fell on news that AIG will need $30 billion more to stay afloat...." It is absurd to point to a program that has just been announced, passed and in the beginning of implementation as the reason why the DOW sold off more shares yesterday. I also note that on the days when the market rallies briefly these same people are not out there saying this rally is due to Obama's newly enacted recovery plan. The good news is amazingly never attributed to the President.

[bygollymissmolly]

It is also reacting to the markets all around the world. And what those markets are doing has absolutely nothing to do with Obama and what he is trying to do to stop the hemorrhaging of our economy.

[sixx]

Obama policies have nothing to do with the current state of the economy. We do not own the 'recent move' because Dow averages are not rational over short periods. Drawing the Dow/Bush line at 9600 is sophistry. If GW Bush had broken every bone in Laura's body would it be her fault if she couldn't walk when he stopped?

[sixx]

Stop the deliberate confusion. Constitution calls for majority rule except in a few cases (see below). Senate rule calls for 60 votes. Constitution wins, our officials have sworn to uphold it.

A. The specific instances in which the US Constitution requires a super-majority are limited to:
* Convicting an Impeachment (2/3 majority in the Senate - Article 1, Section 3)
* Expulsion of a member of one house of Congress (2/3 vote of the house in question - Article 1, Section 5)
* Override a Presidential Veto (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - Article 1, Section 7)
* Ratify a treaty (2/3 majority in the Senate - Article 2, Section 2)
* Passing of a Constitutional Amendment by Congress (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - Article 5)
* Calling for a Constitutional Convention (2/3 of the state legislatures - Article 5)
* Ratifying a Constitutional Amendment (3/4 of the states - Article 5)
* Restore the ability of certain rebels to serve in the government (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - 14th Amendment)
* Approval of removal of the President from his position after the Vice President and the Cabinet approve such removal and after the President contests the removal (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate 25th Amendment)

[bygollymissmolly]

Agreed. The filibuster is a made up rule of the Senate and can easily be unmade. As a matter of fact, I do believe that the original filibuster rule called for a much larger number than 60.

[treetracker]

You are correct - it was 65 - now reduced to 60 and it should be eliminated per the constitution. With the exceptions provided for in the constitution, majority rules. Period. Although I really would like to see a good filibuster so the GOPers could really show their true stripes to the public. They won't risk it. They will look more obstructionist than they already look (if that's possible). As long as Harry lets them get away with the threat, they'll use it. Like any other bully, you have to call their bluff. Come on Harry, grow some!

[jsarets]

Seems to me that we should fix the wildly disproportionate representation of small states in the Senate before we worry about the filibuster. While we're at it, we should probably make sure that district minorities receive at least some representation in Congress even if they fall short of a plurality. How we get away with calling our form of government a democratic republic is beyond me.

[bygollymissmolly]

I agree. It is totally ridiculous for states like Wyoming to have two Senators and the state of California has two Senators.

I believe all states should have one Senator and getting a second one should be based either on population or financial investment in the Federal government. In other words, all the red states that take more money from the Federal government than they give could not have a second Senator.

[southwindow]

that is against the whole premise of the senate. You'd have to amend the constitution to get that done- which would need most of those small states... the point is moot.