Quote:

---

The political posturing, and theater, related to the fiscal cliff continued Thursday as Senate leaders squared off over whether to make it harder for Congress to block future increases in the debt ceiling.

At issue was a move by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and meant to put Democrats in a tough spot, that backfired. McConnell pushed for a vote on an idea he first proposed last year as part of the debt ceiling standoff.

The legislation would allow the president to increase the debt ceiling without congressional approval, though Congress could block the move if a two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate voted to disapprove it. Democrats want the change because raising the limit has become increasingly contentious, as Republicans have demanded spending cuts and other reforms to go along with it. Another debt limit increase is needed early next year.

McConnell now opposes the change he once advanced because it was intended as a one-time solution to the deadlock over the debt last year. Nevertheless, he pushed for a vote on it because he wanted to show that even some Democrats oppose giving the president that much authority, and he knew there was no way Democrats could garner the 60 votes typically needed for major legislation to pass the Senate.

But in the back-and-forth legislative chess match that often plays out on the Senate floor, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid instead moved to pass the measure with a 51-vote threshold, confident that he had at least that many votes to give Democrats a victory.

Recognizing that, McConnell objected to voting at the lower threshold, meaning he was filibustering the bill he had just pushed for a vote.More at http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/07/politics/fiscal-cliff-senate-maneuvering
/index.html?hpt=hp_t3]
If you watch the video, it's funnier than hell:

(Catch the "whiplash" remark...and Durbin pointing out it may be the first time in history this has happened))

They really are having some problems keeping it together, aren't they? One is almost tempted to pity them...almost...

Quote:

---

In recent years, Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Tom Udall, D-N.M., have promoted a reform plan that would achieve that balance. It would require senators to actually be on the Senate floor if they seek to block legislation. Their bill would require that filibuster petitions be filed by at least 10 senators and that members would have to speak continuously on the floor to keep a filibuster going.

The latter appealing provision harkens to the era of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” the 1939 film classic in which an exhausted, rasping senator played by Jimmy Stewart used the filibuster to block special interests. But the “Mr. Smith” image appeals to Americans for good reason — if an issue is important enough to block, then senators should roll up their sleeves and work for it by explaining themselves to their colleagues and the public. And when they’re out of words and energy, they should sit down, shut up and let the Senate proceed with business.

The Merkley-Udall proposal also would limit filibusters to actual votes to pass bills on the Senate floor (current practice allows filibusters at every step of the legislative process).

Reid and his fellow Democrats are considering enacting these reforms through what some have called the “nuclear option” since the Republicans first proposed it seven years ago. The procedure would allow filibuster rules to be changed through a simple majority of senators, but it could only be accomplished on the first day of the session. (Republicans have argued the tactic would wipe out bipartisan cooperation in the Senate, but that’s like saying it would threaten the extinction of dinosaurs.)
[i/\]More at http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/29134579-47/filibuster-senate
-reform-democrats-filibusters.html.csp

---

Quote:

---

Sen. Tom Udall’s push to change Senate rules and blunt the impact of the filibuster appeared to get a big boost last week when Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed to make it happen in the next Congress.

---