User B.R. writes in:
In your discussion of the Bayh coalition today, you used the usual 60 vote marker as the line to break filibusters.B.R. raises several interesting points, but they ultimately point back to one thing: Harry Reid has been exceptionally ineffective as the Democrats' majority leader.
But why is that all that folks mention? I ask because everyone (media and blogs alike) are treating the filibuster as a far more commonplace occurrence than it should be. Part of the reason for this is that the GOP has learned to use the procedural filibuster (as allowed for them by Senate Rule 22 from 1975) for everything, and Reid gives in and calls for cloture.
Reid has the power as majority leader to require actual filibusters - you know, reading the phone book for 19 hours on the senate floor. It'd also make it clear to the media and the public who stopped a piece of legislation - meaning that the story line changes from "Reid unable to find 60 votes" to "McConnell reads phone book for 19 hours to stop vote."
Why does nobody talk about that option? Why doesn't Reid exercise that option? Everyone is so stuck on "60 votes" as if it means something, but 51 votes is all that matters to pass legislation.
The number of cloture votes skyrocketed in the 110th Congress following the Democratic takeover of the Senate and Reid's assumption of the majority leader position. The Senate voted on 112 cloture motions in the 110th, exactly double the number (56) of cloture votes in the 109th Congress, and two-and-a-half times as many as the average number of cloture votes (44) over the previous nine Congresses. Of these cloture motions, 51 were rejected (meaning that opponents of a bill succeeded in blocking an up-or-down vote) and 61 were passed.
Not all of these cloture motions, it should be noted, were necessitated by obstructionist Republicans. In some cases, such as on FISA and on certain resolutions related to the Iraq War, a minority of Democrats were seeking to prevent a vote. Undoubtedly, however, a majority of these cloture motions were in fact triggered by Republican floor action, and the vast majority of them were also procedural filibusters -- the actual filibuster, in which Mitch McConnell wets his pants while reading from the phone book for 19 hours, is now exceedingly rare.
There are basically two mechanisms that a majority leader can employ to limit filibusters: firstly, he can threaten to block votes on certain of the opposition party's legislation (or alternatively, present carrots to them for allowing a vote to proceed), and secondly, he can publicly shame them. Reid managed to do neither, and the Senate Republicans did fairly well for themselves considering that they were in a minority and were burdened by a President with negative political capital.
I don't imagine the culture of the Senate changing in the new Congress so long as it's under Reid's direction, and Reid is highly unlikely to be replaced. There is some chance, however, that Obama rather than Reid will dictate the tone, particularly if Joe Biden is dispatched to Capitol Hill fairly often.
It should also be noted that a senator is perfectly well allowed to vote for cloture (allowing a vote to proceed) and then vote against the underlying bill; this is not all that uncommon. The opposite also happens occasionally -- on a lot of ethics-type legislation, for instance, senators know that they'll face public scorn if they vote against a measure, so they'll try and prevent themselves from winding up in that position by voting against cloture preventing it from coming up for an up-or-down vote.
So long as Obama's approval ratings remain strong, it's somewhat likely that he will exact enough public pressure on moderate Republicans like Susan Collins to force a majority vote on broadly popular issues like health care, whether or not Collins ultimately votes 'aye' on the underlying measure. In those cases, the 60 vote threshold may be overrated. On other issues like the Employee Free Choice Act on which Democrats have been less effective at framing the public debate, the 60-vote threshold may be more tangible.
The bottom line, however, is that the Republicans are filibustering more and more often because they can get away with it. If Reid can't get them to pay a greater public price, then the Democrats ought to find somebody else who can.
128 comments
THANK YOU. Reid is majorly ineffective and so is Pelosi in my view. Both of them have been buffaloed repeatedly by the Republicans in the last congress, like when Pelosi refused to take a vote on drilling before recess--apparently she thought she "won", until the Republicans got publicity and credit for sticking around emphasizing the failure to vote.
It's like the two of them aren't even playing checkers vs. chess. The Republicans aren't THAT sharp, yet they can run circles around Reid and Pelosi.
Thank you! I recently got an email from a politician I donated to saying that Republicans would be going after Harry and to donate him. Because Harry doesn't represent me when he rolls over to whatever the Republicans want, I replied back that I would absolutely not support him.
We need a REAL fighter for Senate Majority Leader!
Why is no one talking of the "nuclear option" to overturn the filibuster? Back when Bush was appointing right-wing activist judges to the federal bench, and Democrats were attempting to block them through the use of the filibuster, Republicans threatened to do away with this procedural tactic. Though such a move is of dubious legitimacy, it does seem astounding that no left-wing pundits (or Senators) seem to be taking up the cause, now that the shoe is on the other foot. (For the political theorists out there, what ever happened to tit-for-tat enforcement in game theory?)
I sure hope the "leadership" in the democratic party makes a HUGE and fast change. Pelosi and Reid are not the right people for the new administration.
Maybe we could find someone - anyone with a spine?
Great piece!
Thanks
I hate Reid so much. He's the bane of the Democratic Party.
Whoa, Nate, I think your figures may be reversed on failed / successful cloture motions...
Oh shit, you fixed it while I was typing. Good job!
Good post Nate.
I agree, Reid has to go. The Dem leadership needs to bring transperancy to the Repubs tactics rather than their own lack of spine.
I'd like to suggest Russ Feingold for Senate Majority Leader
Your analysis leaves out one important fact - if the Democratically-controlled Senate really wanted to get something done in the past 2 years, it need *67* votes, not just 60, because of Bush's veto pen. So if there was no chance of getting to 67, it just didn't matter enough to make a whole lot of noise about.
With Obama in the big chair, now the Republicans *will* be obstructing change by filibustering bills Obama would sign. So maybe the Senate Democrats will have more incentive to grow a spine.
@Steve
That's an interesting argument I haven't seen before (not sure why it seems pretty obvious), but it makes a lot of sense. Here's hoping you're right and we're able to swiftly get this country back on the right track when the new congress in seated.
Hey, I just heard on the news that some journalist in Baghdad got arrested for throwing his shoes at Bush. Apparently, in Iraqi culture, show-throwing is like giving someone the finger. From what I heard on NPR and CBC, the American government has detained him and is 'interrogating' (read: torturing) him.
This has sparked some backlash across the country, where rioters are throwing shoes at American servicemen and women and chanting "Get out now".
I seem to remember Bush saying we'd leave just as soon as the Iraqis told us to..... that would be now. Unfortunately, I don't think Bush ever intended to keep that promise.
I think you're onto something with Reid being pushed around by the Obama administration.
Barack has spent four years in the Senate observing Reid's ineffective leadership, and we all know how great of a mind he has. It wouldn't surprise me if he, Biden, and Rahm have a plan to get anything they want through congress.
It seems almost certain that those three will not be content sitting in the West Wing watching Mitch McConnell push them around.
thank you, nate, for writing what a lot of us feel and have said. reid has been woefully ineffective and the democrats would do well to replace him.
steve, you make an interesting point, and i hope you're right, though i'd put my money against you.
Could someone explain to me (I honestly wish to know) WHY Reid allows the Republicans to insist on cloture votes? If he has the ability to prevent this, what is the reason to do it? "He's weak" doesn't explain enough, especially if he can just make the decision. The only reason I've seen above is Steve mentioning that there was less of a point if Bush was just going to veto it anyway.
So in an Obama administration, is there any reason Reid would have to let these votes happen?
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I'm sick of Dems using 60 votes as a crutch to avoid forcing Repubs to fillibuster. Make 'em do it. Because they know the threat is empty, we can't get anything done.
I agree Ried is an idiot, but Pelosi is an unsung hero. Look at the $700B bailout. She got exatly the number of votes she promised, yes she could have promised more, but she did the numbers and new what she needed to get to make it look Bipartisian, to cover her sides ass. That is how you play. She is a quiet little vote ninja, and I for one have fear in her tenancity not in her capabilities, she may be to smart and effective, if thats possible.
WV: resqui: to respectfully quit, as in I respectfully quit second guessing Obama because he continues to defy low expectations.
Anyone know when we'll know the official electoral results today?
The Democratic Congressional leadership is a joke. For all their swagger, they haven't accomplished anything and they continue to blame it on Republicans. It's not effective from a legislative standpoint and it's certainly not politically savvy. They're just lucky the Republicans are so corrupt.
@Linden -
We know already.
Don't roll over, make them do a full filibuster each time - I promise there will be fewer. These guys are there for the glory, and if you make them work too hard they will quickly find compromise...
This really has nothing to do with Reid or the GOP or anyone in the Democratic party, this is just how the U.S. Senate works. Keith Krehbiel wrote about this "pivotal politics" theory and pretty much it lays out how difficult it is to get laws passed. Who knows if the Founding Fathers intended for law making to be so difficult; but they had to have been aware that the U.S. Senate is not a simple majority.
While things in the Senate will change in a month or so in terms of the make up, the U.S. Senate will continue to be a super majority of 60 votes.
I think the rise in cloture votes is more because the U.S. Senate has become more and more partisan since 1994; we no longer see the GOP and Dems working together as much because of changes in the American electorate, mainly the death of the libertarian wing of the GOP AND the changes of members in the Democratic party.
Yet another reason that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, which I would categorize as "fine", is infinitely inferior to Hillary Clinton as Majority Leader. Besides which, she would have made an effective check and spin on Obama's power.
I think this move will go down in history as A) largely unremarkable and B) a mistake. It was the politics getting in its own way, and Barack continuing to attempt to transcend politics by managing it, instead of outright transcending it. Good post, though!
I'd like to offer a contrasting view to [most of] the comments above and Nate's original post. I am a former GOP Senate staffer and thus have a somewhat different perspective on how filibuster situations tend to function.
With respect to Nate's data on filibuster trends, the existence of divided government has a lot to do with the number of filibusters per year. The graph Nate included perfectly correlated with this hypothesis, at least in relative terms. Any time one party controlled the WH and another the Senate, the number of filibusters increased from the preceding year. Further, under divided government, the number of filibusters tends to increase in presidential election years as the parties seek to sharpen their differences and (1) embarrass the other party or (2) highlight to important interest groups that they are working hard on those groups' favored issues. There's some pretty good political science literature out there by Keith Krehbiel on this issue, if you're interested in further reading. I think these are all important background issues to keep in mind when considering the 110th Congress and the question of whether Harry Reid has been an effective majority leader.
Focusing on the 110th Congress, I don't see much evidence that Sen. Reid is to blame for any perceived lack of effectiveness. With only 51 votes in the Senate, Reid's options were severely limited -- yet Nate's post seems to make no allowance for this fact (relative, for instance, to the 55 seat majorities in the 109th, 106th and 105th Congresses where both the total number of filibusters and the number of failed filibusters was markedly lower). Whereas the offering of carrots and threatening with sticks may be effective when the majority party need only pick up four or five votes to attain cloture, that same approach intuitively seems much less useful when the majority needs nine or ten votes to cross the Rule XXII threshold. More than that, I can attest from firsthand experience that holding out is much easier if you aren't the last one needed for cloture. As evidence, look up Sen. Stevens' tirade after the failed ANWR vote in the 109th Congress. Stevens lost by one vote I think (Coleman promised to support Stevens but switched), and Stevens promised intense retribution on the Senate floor. My understanding is that Stevens followed through on his promise via DoD Approps.
Going beyond the numbers and to the substance of this idea that the majority leader can force Senators to read the phone book for hours on end, my suggestion is that people advocating this view fundamentally misunderstand the actual dynamics of the Senate floor. Bill Frist did absolutely everything he could to please the evangelical right during the judicial nomination wars, and only on one or two occasions did Frist actually employ this tactic (in both cases Frist ordered cots brought in, and had Fox News cover the event). On a third instance that I can think of Sen. Reid initiated a sort of counter-filibuster sua sponte, speaking for hours at length about his home town of Searchlight, NV. There's a great exchange in there between Reid and Sen. Roberts ("rock on!"), by the way. In none of these cases did the floor theatrics produce any meaningful change in cloture voting patterns -- though they may have caused southern Dems such as Pryor, Landrieu, Lincoln, and co. to hew a little closer to their states' conservative line.
When a majority leader decides to try and require a filibustering minority to speak at length, here's what actually happens procedurally. First, the leader makes a motion to proceed to the bill in question. The minority objects. So now the pending question is the motion to proceed, and debate on that question begins. Unless the majority leader files for cloture and gets 60 votes, or unless s/he convinces the minority to withdraw their objection, the leader is stuck. So the leader, embracing the strategy Nate now endorses (and which during my time on the Hill was embraced by the hard evangelical right), dispatches a deputy to the floor to continuously make the motion to proceed. As long as there is one R on the floor each time to object, the game is a stalemate. The R's DO NOT have to talk during this stalemate, they don't have to be on the Senate floor, and in fact, the Senate could spend most of the time in a quorum call. The only thing that matters under Rule XXII is that someone be there to object whenever the motion to proceed is made by the majority.
Assuming through some miracle the majority manages to win on the motion to proceed, then the same problem plays out on the actual merits of the bill, on naming conferees, and on the conference report if the bill gets that far. As long as the minority cares more about playing defense than enacting legislation, no amount of carrots or sticks can change this rock-solid reality. Since the 111th Congress GOP, like that in the 110th, seems fixated on this do nothing/re-brand/draw contrasts approach, I'd say Sen. Reid has little in the way of actual leverage through use of theatrics such as those described above.
All of the above is not to say there is no advantage to be had from anti-filibuster theatrics. Certainly the majority can score some press points and interest group points by doing what Nate seems to be suggesting be done. But in terms of actual vote outcomes, my argument is that such tactics will not produce any substantial dividends. I know this because I saw the same story unfold myself under Sen. Frist's tenure.
As Frist, Daschle, Lott, and Dole all found out in good time, the job of Senate majority leader is a very tough one, and one that is almost certain to earn one alienation from both the opposite party and one's own partisan base. The enormous gulf between public perception and reality with respect to floor mechanics/Rule XXII is a big part of that.
@ Steve
It's not The U.S. Electoral college vote.It's the Pennsylvania vote for its electors.
@EV-
Thanks, that comment was very educational.
I personally think the Republican obstructionism in the 110th Congress helped Democrats in November so I'm not sure I see much reason to go off on Reid for following the rules that allowed (and contnue to allow) them to hang themselves.
It's pretty clear that Obama and Biden are going to make an effort to tone down the ideological component wherever possible and to restore the balance between the Executive and the Legislative. I actually wonder if some of the increase in cloture votes in the 110th Congress isn't something of a holdover/hangover from the previous two (or three) Congresses, which to all appearances ended up doing the bidding of the Executive most of the time. This President will still end up vetoing fewer bills than any President who served two full-terms since Jackson or Monroe depending on your count even after the last two years.
Linden—
The Senate and House will convene on January 6th and there will be a joint session to count the Electoral College votes on January 8th.
This comment occurs every Senate, is offered by Republican and Democratic partisans alike and demonstrates a general misunderstanding of Senate procedure. It's easy to understand why -- Senate procedure is exceedingly complicated.
The short response for why Reid doesn't "force" the Republicans to the floor is because much of the physical costs of maintaining a filibuster is carried by the MAJORITY party -- not the minority. The majority has to respond to repeated quorum calls at all hours of the night, whereas the minority merely has to allocate three or four senators to watch the floor while the rest sleep (or do whatever business they desire). If the majority fails to respond to the quorum, the chamber adjourns.
It's also worth noting that McConnell is not going to read the phone book for 19 hours. He's going to talk about underlying issue for about 2 to 4 hours and then hand off the debate to somebody else. So basically, by "forcing" a manifest filibuster, Reid would be allowing the minority Republicans a monopoly of time to present their views on the issue. This isn't a major concern if you're sure public opinion decisively favors your side of the issue. But it's rare that public opinion decisively favors either side. Some folks may remember, but Bill Frist attempted this during the Democratic filibusters over a couple of Bush's judicial nominees a few years ago. Needless to say, the Democrats easily maintained the floor, nobody peed their pants and the Republicans came off looking silly.
Finally, it bears mentioning that forcing a manifest filibuster also steals precious legislative days. This time could often be better spent on less controversial legislation which often also has a major effect on public policy.
I can't tell you whether Reid has been an effective leader or not. Much of the majority leader's job is done behind closed doors working on unanimous consent agreements. I can tell you that his reluctance to "force" a filibuster likely tells us very little about his performance, however.
-Tony
P.S. If we're going to hold his refusal to force a filibuster against Reid, we should be equally -- if not moreso -- willing to compliment his "no recess" innovation. This was a clever procedural response to a potentially much bigger problem -- Bush recess appointees dominating every independent regulatory board or commission for nearly two years.
Okay, loner... I thought the results were made public before then, but that makes sense.
@ EV
Assuming through some miracle the majority manages to win on the motion to proceed
Why would it take a miracle?
Brilliant Post!
I sent the link to change.gov and added it to this DKos page:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/15/144037/46/922/673359
Please join me in contacting the Obama team about dealing with Reid's spinelesss performance.
Nate,
In your last sentence you say, "If Reid can't get [Republicans] to pay a greater public price, then the Democrats ought to find somebody else who can." I think it's important in this instance to differentiate between "can't" and "doesn't want." While it's possible to infer from the increase in cloture votes that Reid can't push a Democratic agenda, it's also possible to infer that he doesn't want to. At this point, why should we give Reid the benefit of the doubt by assuming he's ineffectual? Maybe he really is too conservative to be the majority leader.
Nate,
Your argument is generally quite good, but I think you miss a major point. The R's would be quite happy if the government does nothing, so requiring them to filibuster or threatening to hold up their legislation is a weak hand.
Is is Pres. Obama and the D's that have an aggressive agenda: a)overturn the atrocities of the Bush Era; and b) reform government. Letting the Republicans grind things to a halt will not help the situation.
-EV:
Thanks for the informative post, but the bottom line is that Harry "Give 'em Whatever They Want" Reid & his spineless cohorts have fought the Republicans in a variety of situations ranging from a democratic majority to a republican majority and in each case they've come away bloodied and bullied. If it's so hard for Reid to prevent filibusters, why was it so hard for him to USE a filibuster when everything was riding on it? (Mukasey, Alito, FISA, Iraq ...)
Reid & Co. always lose every battle. I don't think they want to win. I think they're tools who take a dive in whatever round their corporate masters tell them to.
The short response for why Reid doesn't "force" the Republicans to the floor is because much of the physical costs of maintaining a filibuster is carried by the MAJORITY party --
To quote Tony Soprano's mother: "Oh! Poor you!"
Give me a f***ing break. I don't care how late these stupid bastards have to stay up to get the job done. At least they HAVE a job.
The Wrotnowski v.Bysiewicz petition to stop the Electoral College vote (by claiming Obama was born in Kenya) was rejected by SCOTUS today.
Hopefully this will finally shut Donofrio up.
-EV said: When a majority leader decides to try and require a filibustering minority to speak at length, here's what actually happens procedurally. First, the leader makes a motion to proceed to the bill in question.
A question, -EV: why is such a motion necessary?
The bill in question was already on the floor, being debated, before the cloture motion. All the cloture motion does is limit debate; my understanding is that if the cloture motion fails, you're back to the status quo ante, and debate continues. Unless (as usually happens) the bill is pulled from the floor.
What part of this is wrong?
TonyJM,
So let me get this straight. The Dems shouldn't make the GOP filibuster because:
- it's hard work, being on call at all hours of the night
- they might not be on the right side of the issue, and this would come out during debate
- they'd lose legislative days due to the fact that the filibuster would cut in to the three days a week they're actually working.
All I can say is: if that's really how they feel they have no business in Congress.
The job is hard work, and they knew that going in. They can't take all those donations to get elected and then do nothing, and expect us to sit and take it.
They get more vacation than any working stiff, and free health care to boot. I'm fine with that, and all I ask in return is three simple words:
Do. your. job.
I realize this comes across as pretty sarcastic, but I'm not really attacking you per se because I can see how they might actually think that. That's bothers me even more.
Sir Nate said:
"...The bottom line, however, is that the Republicans are filibustering more and more often because they can get away with it. If Reid can't get them to pay a greater public price, then the Democrats ought to find somebody else who can..."
###########
May I dare to suggest that in order to make them to pay a pubblic price,Obama should throw His older shoes toward them,possibly centering their forehead ?
Yes He can !
Oh,and save a brogan for this Madoff one:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/2008-12-15-wall-street-europe_N.htm
bye
:)
I agree that I've been wanting to see Reid be much more aggressive in negotiating with the Rs, and I'd like to see someone in the majority leader's spot evidencing a little more fire in the belly - even if it's mostly for public consumption, recasting the perception of the rollover Ds.
However, I think it's important to note that one of the reasons for the majority party not to head down the road toward an actual filibuster is that it looks bad. People read about and see the Senate on TV reading from phonebooks and the like, and it's perfect fodder for "We send those bums to Washington, and for what?" Congress' approval ratings are generally abysmal no matter what; I imagine that filibusters only make them moreso. And that's gonna apply double for the party in charge.
What I'd like to see is a master political strategist in the job of majority leader. Remember Bill Clinton outmaneuvering Gingrich and getting the public to place the blame for the government shutdown squarely on the Rs' shoulders? I want someone coordinating gameplans like that, so that the Rs' obstructionism becomes nakedly obvious each time they go down that road, and they end up getting cowed and/or cajoled into going along.
oh,
I read that story from 2 post below about:
"**StandardbredHorse**
man,
I couldn't even imagine how hard is to be born as a mule...
What I'd like to see is a master political strategist in the job of majority leader. Remember Bill Clinton outmaneuvering Gingrich ...
I don't remember, but there's a kernel of optimism here in as much as Clinton wasn't in the Senate. Perhaps Obama can outmaneuver McConnell without help from Reid & Co. (because he's certainly not likely to get any).
On the other hand, what I DO recall from the Clinton Administration's tangles with Congress is
1) failed healthcare reform
2) setting the stage for sending my job to china
3) helms-burton act
4) massive corportate deregulation
Surf --
Thanks for the follow-up. I didn't take it personal in the least. This is a complicated issue.
At any rate, your "do your job" comment pretty much summarized the problem. This is a discussion about what parliamentary tactics are to be best utilized by Reid so that he can "do his job" most successfully and efficiently. I think forcing a manifest filibuster isn't likely to be one of them.
My post wasn't meant to imply that Reid should shy away from forcing a filibuster because Democrats might end up tired -- rather, merely to highlight the trade-offs associated with that approach (you sacrifice future legislative success for one or possibly two bills) and the uncertainties associated with it (it's tough to keep that quorum in D.C. -- you may end up getting nothing at all).
The bottom line is that the original post presented by Nate makes it seem like there's an easy solution to this problem: there isn't. Reid's job is highly complicated and to assess his performance based on his failure to turn Mitch McConnell into Jimmy Stewart's character from "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is an overt simplification that doesn't help anyone out.
-Tony
@obsessed
I don't know anything about point 3.
but for 1-2-4 looks like Clinton didn't make what is called a well done job...hope (i really hope)Obama would take a different road.
Judging on the people He chose for His cabinet,the beginning looks quite good.
Ok,I already talked too much.
bye
:)
@ TonyJM - agree w/r/t the physical costs of maintaining a "theatric filibuster" (which is what Nate seems to be advocating for, as opposed to an "on paper filibuster" in which there are no long speeches, etc.). Excellent points there. One other item to note is the requirement in Senate rules (forget which one) that speech on the pending matter be germane for the first few hours, and then thereafter can depart onto whatever topic the speaker chooses.
@ Opus - it would take a miracle because if a minority of 41+ Senators wants to block a motion to proceed to a bill, all they have to do is have one Senator on the floor anytime a motion to proceed is made by the majority. If the majority decides to get touch and file for cloture, then the 41 Senators just vote no, and debate is not cut off, leaving "debate" on the motion to proceed to continue. All of which is to say that a minority of 41+ Senators can ALWAYS stop a motion to proceed in the United States Senate if they want to.
@obsessed(3:43) - The Democratic minority filibustered all kinds of things in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses. You point out a few matters that they did not. But you neglect to note successful filibusters against numerous judicial nominations including M. Estrada and several other COA nominations (6th Cir. Michigan seats in particular). You also fail to note filibusters that stopped numerous substantive bills from becoming law, including radical changes to the law for medical malpractice lawsuits, legislation enacting associated health plans, drilling in ANWR, and several other items.
Your inclusion of AG Mukasey on that list betrays a sensibility I think you'd surely disown if it were applied by the current GOP minority to one of President-elect Obama's nominations. Imagine if Sen. DeMint and co. filibustered the new energy secretary nominee because they don't like Obama's policies. I'm assuming you'd be pretty mad about that. So why shouldn't Presidend Bush have been entitled to have his choice for the AG job, so long as that choice was minimally reasonable? The temptation to apply double standards is pretty strong (see, e.g., the calls for a nuclear option above, where the same left-of-center activists were vehemently fighting against the nuclear option in 2005... and rightly so in my view), but should be resisted.
low-tech cyclist said: The bill in question was already on the floor, being debated, before the cloture motion. All the cloture motion does is limit debate; my understanding is that if the cloture motion fails, you're back to the status quo ante, and debate continues. Unless (as usually happens) the bill is pulled from the floor.
What part of this is wrong?
The part about the bill already being on the floor is the part that is wrong. A brief hypothetical helps show why. Assume that on day 1 of the 111th Congress, Sen. Reid introduces S. 1, the CHANGE Act, which does everything Obama promised during the campaign. Later on day 1, after the prayer and other administrative b.s., Sen. Reid wants the Senate to consider S. 1.[FN1] His first move is to go to the Senate floor. Since he is majority leader, he has a right of first recognition. See Riddick's Senate Procedure at 1098; Senate Rule XIX.. So the presiding officer would recognize Sen. Reid assuming nobody else already had the floor. Once recognized, then Reid would make a motion to proceed to S. 1 -- i.e. to start debate on S. 1. Prior to that motion, no bill or matter is technically before the Senate. Reid's motion would take the following form: "I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. 1, the CHANGE Act of 2009."
Assuming that a Republican objects to Reid's UC (e.g. his motion to proceed), the presiding officer would state that "objection is heard." At that point, the pending question before the Senate is WHETHER TO BEGIN DEBATE ON S.1. The Senate isn't actually on S. 1 yet. It is on the motion to proceed to S. 1. That's an important distinction that most people don't understand.
In this state, where a motion to proceed has been made but not agreed to, the majority has several options. They can make another motion to proceed, which the minority can again object to, or they can file for cloture. If the majority files for cloture under Rule XXII and the cloture motion ultimately fails, then the Senate returns to ongoing "debate" on the question of whether it should proceed to S. 1. So you were right that the status quo ante returns. But you were not right about what that status quo ante was.
And of course if the majority did find a few R's to agree to cloture, then the majority has the same problem all over again on the merits of the bill, where the politics may be different. I think EFCA is a prime example of where Sen. Specter plus one or two other R's will permit the motion to proceed to be agreed to (likely via a cloture vote), and then buck the dems either on the merits or later on the conference report.
I hope that helps clarify what I meant above. I certainly admit that these are very interesting questions, and that voters who elected the new democratic majorities have good reason to expect that their leadership makes good faith efforts to pass legislation in line with their campaign promises. My premise from the start has been that while Sen. Reid may not have been perfect, there is little evidence that anyone else would've been more successful as a matter of voting outcomes on legislation and nominees.
[FN1] In this scenario, Reid has bypassed the committee process for S.1, which is possible, but would likely require the use of Senate Rule XIV.
Obsessed, you forgot
5) Gutting AFDC and replacing it with TANFF
6) DADT
and
7)DOMA
Clinton was an example of why Obama should disregard Pelosi's suggestion that he 'govern from the centre'.
Selling out your constituencies in favor of a compromise may earn you laurels for being 'bipartisan' from the GOP, but it does not make you a good President. Real spine is when you get someone like JFK, LBJ, FDR or 'Give em hell' Harry Truman. Someone that isn't going to screw the poor just because he want a photo op with the GOP Majority Leader to play on CNN
Congress' approval ratings are generally abysmal no matter what; I imagine that filibusters only make them moreso. AND THAT"S GONNA APPLY DOUBLE FOR THE PARTY IN CHARGE.
Not if the majority of the population favors the legislation being filibustered.In that case most,if not all,of the onus falls on the filibustering party.
Just another thought: I love the 538 blog, and have really benefitted from its coverage leading up to the election and of the MN recount following. The material and analysis here simply was not available anywhere else, largely due to Nate's strategic advantage in use and application of statistics. For that I am very thankful.
I noticed today, however, that the tagline of the site has changed from "Election Projections Done Right" to "Politics Done Right." That change seems to be mission creep outside of Nate's area of expertise. And that lack of subject-matter expertise shows very clearly in this post (TonyJM's latest remark goes to this point as well). I'm certainly not of the view that Nate should refrain from writing such posts, or that he ought not cover matters that don't involve statistics. Frankly, I'll keep reading regardless, since I think the discussion here is superb.
That said, I do think there are heightened dangers that come with ventures outside of one's area of training, and given 538's sterling reputation, it might be best to carefully assess when and how those ventures are undertaken.
EV: Your inclusion of AG Mukasey on that list betrays a sensibility I think you'd surely disown
Hell no! Mukasey is by far the worst thing the democrats did. Listen, EV, I hope you post here a lot because you're a veritable mountain of inside information and I appreciate your presence greatly. THAT SAID - the time you've spent on the inside carries with it the inherent downside danger of missing the forest for the trees.
The implications of Mukasey's stonewalling on every "sternly worded" letter he received are historic and tragic. We just sat back and watched the Constitution being shredded. Step back a few feet and look at the bigger picture. Reid & Co. violated their oaths and betrayed this country in the most cowardly, short-sighted, and selfish ways imaginable.
It's with great self control that I refrain from invoking the wrath of Godwin. I wish Reid had similar respect for the wrath of Jefferson and Franklin.
-EV said...
That said, I do think there are heightened dangers that come with ventures outside of one's area of training, and given 538's sterling reputation, it might be best to carefully assess when and how those ventures are undertaken.
December 15, 2008 4:33 PM
#########
you know what ?
without this Nate's post we couldn't get yours thoughtful and insightful observation,so,all in all,change the subjet it's fine.
and thanks you a lot.
;)
@ EV
When a majority leader decides to try and require a filibustering minority to speak at length, here's what actually happens procedurally. First, the leader makes a motion to proceed to the bill in question. The minority objects. So now the pending question is the motion to proceed, and debate on that question begins.
Isn't the debate on the motion to proceed something on which the Democrats can force the Republicans to filibuster?
And am I right in my belief that during a filibuster each of the the minority senators get a chance to speak only once and can be forced to speak until they do pee in their pants or drop?
The electoral reality is that most voters do not understand the vagaries involved in filibusters, cloture motions, or other aspects of Senate procedure, and they don't care.
Listen, if you had to take up all that space to explain this shit to Surf, what makes you think the average American, who rarely holds a thought in their head longer than the length of a TV commercial, is gonna listen to you, or care?
Fact is, we've got an election coming up in two years. If the Dems don't get some shit done, the voters will not care that they needed to pass this motion with that number majority or that they didn't sit through a filibuster because they didn't think they could get a quorum. Ask a random stranger on the street what the word quorum means. I'll bet you money that if you asked 100 random strangers from a non-political town (no state or national capitals) maybe 10-15 could tell you, and the rest would not know.
So, you know, whether itys tricky or complicated or hard to do, you're still gonna have to do it. If you want to win in 2010 that is.
And the American public isn't going to listen to your excuses if you don't.
@-EV
I think you don't understand the M.O. of Nate on this site. When he was mainly focusing on developing his forecasting model, his articles were always intended as subject to "review and comment" by his readers. He learned a lot from experts and nonexperts alike. He was not into imposing just one way of doing things on his readers.
Even in that pre-November 4 era, he often wrote interpretive essays on things political (though mainly on the campaign). And those, too, were subject to review by his panel of experts (us). Quite a few of the self-appointed experts were "real" experts, e.g., academics or practitioners. Some of us were "naive" observers who nonetheless provided what I regard as helpful commentary or advice.
That's the way you should read his posts on "Politics Done Right." It's not "mission creep" for Nate to be commenting on other things political, especially because as he has mentioned he is planning to make the analysis of legislative politics a major focus of his blog in between elections. It's up to us, his readers, to steer him right when he goes astray. And I think that's what he wants us to do -- offer constructive criticism.
So keep in mind that he's trying to do numbers-based political analysis in real time, and he doesn't claim infallibility. And we're invited to be participants and observers in this process -- in a sense "peer reviewers."
This is perhaps the single thing that distinguishes this blog from virtually all the other political blogs. Thus, IMO, the best advice to Nate is usually, "Pretty interesting (or boring) Nate, but here's another way to do it . . . or think about it."
wv: ronityl
@ Statler
"If the Dems don't get some shit done, the voters will not care that they needed to pass this motion with that number majority or that they didn't sit through a filibuster because they didn't think they could get a quorum."
#1. Great name.
#2. Again, this highlights the debate -- which procedural tactics are better suited for the Democrats to "get stuff done"? Ultimately, that's all this comes down to. Historically, the procedure better suited to getting stuff done isn't to force a manifest filibuster -- this is why you don't see many. Rather, it's to work with the minority party and schedule votes via unanimous consent. When parties have attempted to take the "forced" filibuster approach -- like the Republicans did during the judicial filibusters, they've generally taken up a bunch of time and ultimately failed.
This isn't meant to imply that the Democrats don't have the upperhand in negotiating: they clearly do. McConnell knows he faces a challenging electoral map in 2010, that public opinion is not in his favor and that he can't afford to block Obama's overly popular proposals. Just like the Democrats didn't block every one of Bush's judicial nominees, the Republicans won't block everything. They're going to pick their battles -- in the meantime, there's a great deal of legislation Reid is going to be able to pass.
-Tony
P.S. Also, Steve's point about the futility of forcing a filibuster during this Congress with the looming threat of a presidential veto is important. Even if you get 60 votes to overcome cloture, you'd need 67 to bypass Bush.
@ Juris / EV: Hear, hear! This site is always amazing, but this comment thread is one of the most informative I've seen on here in a while. It feels like I've crammed six years of civics / government classes into the four months I've been following 538, and I'm sure many of its readers have experienced the same. Keep it coming!
HERE HERE.
Get rid of Harry Reid; I've never seen a more ineffective majority than under his leadership. Time for the metaphorical guillotine! :-)
wv: nates, as in Nate Silver -- you may heard of him -- I think he's a math guy...
I'm generally of the same mind as Statler said and obsessed hinted at... which is that what goes on in the Senate during the first few days of Obama's administration is going to be of huge importance to what the following years look like. That being the case I foresee two different periods in the Senate during the upcoming Obama administration.
1-The Republicans will make a show, but they will be clasping their hands together in thanks for having the Obama steamroller cranking up on January 20th. They will be able to capitulate, and I would argue very willing to given that Bush has showed zero leadership, because there is so much public support for Obama. He is riding an incredible wave of public support, a solid electoral mandate, and (equally important for politicians) giant coattails and access to donors in 2/4 years time.
There will be fights, but by and large Obama should be able to get several key points of his agenda done (it would be too optimistic to suppose he gets even the majority of it though). Then we start coming up against part 2.
2) Midterm elections will start to show some people breaking away from Obama on both left and right in order to differentiate themselves, but towards the end of his term Obama can expect some very desperate and determined action by Republicans. But, how this struggle plays out depends on whether the ball that starts rolling during the first 100 days is showing any signs of success. If it looks like the skies are clearing in terms of the economy and Iraq, and Obama proves as shrewd a president as he was a campaigner, then he should shrug those efforts aside. If he starts tripping up then expect to hear crows of David toppling Goliath with each successful filibuster or Republican bill.
yes, Reid is utterly cojones-free and ineffectual, latest in a long line of timorous and wimpy Dem leaders, including the glorious Tom Daschle.
1. The point Steve makes is valid, that Democrats didn't want to spend time pushing a stone uphill against a probable Bush veto.
But, that in itself is infuriating because there's a POLITICAL PRICE that Republicans have to pay when Bush vetoed popular bills.
And if Reid didn't force a confrontation on them by attempting to pass them, even KNOWING that Bush would veto then, then Republicans pay no price!
2. As for LV' procedural points, they make interesting reading. Thanks!
But, again missing the point. While the Senate debates whether to move a bill for consideration before the full Senate, and the Republicans keep objecting, the debate continues.
And this debate is of course virtually indistinguishable from the REAL debate on the bill.
If there's trouble getting 60 votes to move to consideration of the bill and override the objection, then Obama and the Democrats need to get out and give constant press conferences blasting Republicans for "obstructionism."
The more they stand in the door and block up the hall, the more Democrats led by the President need to get out and pressure them. It might not make any difference on any particular bill, but Republicans CANNOT be seen by the public as attempting to block many pieces of legislation at the same time, if that legislation is popular.
The notion that there's NO political price to pay for blocking economic legislation is wrong. It's MUCH different than judicial nominees.
Obama has the bully-pulpit and he has to use it to put as much public pressure on Republicans to accept his policies as he can.
Bush LOST the bully-pulpit because he was so unpopular, and because his policies were so blatantly partisan to begin with.
The things Obama is trying to achieve simply aren't that far out that they can't be defended to the American people and get majority support every time.
Conclusion: The Republican party can only block so much. If they try and filibuster many different bills, they have to be made to pay as high a political price as possible for each time they use it! The higher the price, the more they have to pick and choose their fights.
@ obsessed
Fair enough. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as to principles governing confirmation of cabinet members. My view is that if there is blame to place, that blame lies at President Bush's feet and not with his nominees (who merely carry out his policies for the most part).
@ Opus
Part of what you said is right, but most of it is incorrect. Allow me to try & clarify by parsing the text of the relevant part of Rule XXII (the cloture rule) part by part:
"Notwithstanding ... any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate … is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer … shall at once state the motion to the Senate …. [O]ne hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one … the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: "Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?” And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn … then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
This means that if 16 Senators sign a cloture petition and present the petition to the presiding officer, then the Clerk of the Senate shall immediately report the petition and schedule a cloture vote for the next session day. At the time of the cloture vote, the question presented is whether to cut off debate on the pending matter or not, and 60 votes are required. If cloture is invoked (e.g. if 60+ Senators vote yes), then the next part kicks in. If not, the status quo ante returns.
Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more than one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate … After no more than thirty hours of consideration of the measure, motion, or other matter on which cloture has been invoked, the Senate shall proceed, without any further debate on any question, to vote on the final disposition thereof … No Senator shall call up more than two amendments until every other Senator shall have had the opportunity to do likewise. … [A] Senator may yield all or part of his one hour to the majority or minority floor managers of the measure, motion, or matter or to the Majority or Minority Leader, but each Senator specified shall not have more than two hours so yielded to him and may in turn yield such time to other Senators. Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, any Senator who has not used or yielded at least ten minutes, is, if he seeks recognition, guaranteed up to ten minutes, inclusive, to speak only.
Reduced to plain English, this part means that each Senator gets only 1 hour AFTER cloture has been invoked, and that Senators can yield their time to the floor leader for their party, with Senators unable to receive more than 2 hours of their colleagues’ time in this manner. Rule XXII also sets the total “shot clock” after invocation of cloture may not total more than 30 hours (except by a special agreement to the contrary).
So, long story short, between the time a group of Senators FILES FOR CLOTURE and the time of the vote on cloture, there are no requirements that anyone speak or do anything at all. Mitch McConnell cannot be made to speak until he pees his pants or anything like that. As I said before, as long as 41+ Senators vote against cloture, the special timing rules do not come into effect.
@ Juris. Interesting point. The peer review angle had not naturally occurred to me, but it makes sense in context. With that view in mind, I'll gladly retract my earlier statement re: mission creep and welcome the debate to come in the months ahead. Having a forum for informed debate and a mouthpiece (fivethirtyeight.com) to give voice to that debate is a precious thing indeed.
"-EV said...
governing confirmation of cabinet members. My view is that if there is blame to place, that blame lies at President Bush's feet and not with his nominees (who merely carry out his policies for the most part)."
This is certainly right. There's a tendency to treat the President as a figurehead and blame "bad advisers" for unpopular decisions -- even with Bush.
Even liberal Democrats who hate Bush tend to see him as a dimwit who sat in office twiddling his thumbs, while his appointed officials were out there committing various felonies he paid no attention to, because he was too dimwitted to even understand and Dick Cheney didn't explain it to him using small words you could find in "My Pet Goat."
But, in truth, Bush was FAR MORE responsible for the screw-ups and illegal activities of his administration than is generally understood. He seems to have personally insisted on torture procedures for instance.
The screwups in Iraq started when Dick Cheney wanted to forcibly install convicted con-man and notorious liar Ahmed Chalaby as Iraqi President, and Bush flat vetoed the idea. He wanted "Iraqi Democracy" and when that didn't produce stability, his administration just floundered. He overruled Cheney's idea to install an American backed tyrant, but didn't forcefully come up with any alternative strategy.
Is the reading the phone book/wetting pants a real story or allegory?
wv: snusne - gesundheit
The procedural debate aside -- I've reread it a couple times and I'm not sure what point Nate is trying to make by presenting that cloture data. The bottom line is that it provides almost no leverage towards this debate. Most obstruction is done behind the scenes via holds or blue slips (i.e. a senator announces his intention to block a bill or nomination). Most majority leaders either respond by not scheduling that item or working out a compromise with the senator (or senators) before the bill or nominee comes to the floor. So while Nate's implication is that the Republicans are obstructing more, it could just as easily mean that Reid is being more aggressive in combating the obstruction. Given the presence of divided government, I would not be surprised if it was the latter.
Data that might be helpful (that I don't have) would be the number (or proportion) of bills passing by a non-filibuster proof majority.
-Tony
Steve is right - the key issue here is the presidential veto. Why bother going through long-ass filibusters to pass bills that Bush will just veto anyway? If Reid is similarly ineffective against the filibuster in the next congress, then there will be something to complain about.
But, that in itself is infuriating because there's a POLITICAL PRICE that Republicans have to pay when Bush vetoed popular bills.
Umm...I don't see how this works. Bush is a lame duck, so it doesn't matter whether her pays a political price. As far as the Congressional Republicans - well, they lost 7, maybe 8 seats in the Senate and about 20 seats in the House this cycle - didn't they pay a political price anyway? Would getting some bills over to Bush to veto have really led to us doing better in the midterms? What more do you want here in terms of a political cost? We won the last elections, huge!
@Davy
Is the reading the phone book/wetting pants a real story or allegory?
Mostly allegory; however, Huey Long was once reduced to reading Cajun recipes from a helpful cookbook (I don't remember what bill that was about, probably something noxious like letting darkies votes).
Davy,
Actually, that sort of thing happens alot. A filibustering Senator can talk about just about anything as long as it's loosely related to the bill being filibustered - and reading the names in the phone book (as Jimmy Stewart's character in the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington would be in line with accepted procedure.
The point of a filibuster is to take up as much time as possible, creating a logjam. If there's another bill that the other side reeeeealy wants to pass and it comes after yours on the agenda, dragging the filibuster out for days on end (it keeps going until you shut up) can drive your opponents so crazy they'll do whatever you want just to shut your ass up.
And if you've never considered how huge your bladder would have to be to endure over 24 hours of non-stop talking (a bathroom break means you've stopped filibustering), well, I guess it all depends
@ EV
I haven't had a chance yet to read your last post but let me ask this first.Are you saying that,under the present rules,there is no way to force an actual filibuster on a bill without having a cloture vote first?
@ Davy - the reading the phonebooks/wetting pants thing is cinema-driven urban legend. To summarize a lengthier discussion above, there is nothing in the Senate rules or any other rules that would compel minority Senators to speak at length to maintain a filibuster. The minority can successfully filibuster by (1) always having at least 1 Senator on the floor to object to UC requests and (2) always being able to muster 41+ votes if and when the majority forces a cloture vote. Those two things, and ONLY those two things, are sufficient to defeat any legislation or nominee, aside from the budget resolution (where different rules apply).
@ TonyJM
Two other interesting potential data points come to mind.
The first is be the average percentage of cloture clearance acquired. The numerator would be the number of minority Senators delivered by the minority leader in favor of cloture votes, and the denominator would be the raw number of minority Senators needed to achieve cloture (assuming the majority votes en bloc). The plan would be to calculate this for each cloture vote, and then turn out an average for each Congress.
I hypothesize that in Congresses with small majorities (51-55 seats), majority leaders would achieve a slightly higher cloture clearance rate than majority leaders in Congresses with large majorities (56-60+). I say this because there's a real free rider problem for "large" minorities, while "small" minorities will likely be more ideologically cohesive and thus less likely to peel off on cloture votes.
The second potential data point would measure the flip side: average majority cohesion. The numerator here would be the number of majority party Senators voting for cloture, and the denominator the total number of minority Senators. An average for a whole Congress would be telling of two things: (1) the ideological diversity within a party and (2) the majority leader's ability to use sticks and carrots to enforce party discipline.
@ Opus (7:11)
I'm saying there is no way to force a theatrical filibuster EVER, pre- or post-cloture. The closest the majority can come is to hold the floor open continuously, asking repeatedly for UC to proceed to a bill (or to end debate on the merits). As long as there is 1 minority Senator there to object, then the majority's only other tactic is to hold numerous, repeated cloture votes. None of these options require anyone from the minority party to speak, ever (aside from uttering the words "I object").
I really cannot emphasize enough the fact that this game was played out to the fullest extent possible in 2004-05 under Frist, so we already know what can and can't be accomplished with theatrical anti-filibuster moves. As TonyJM said, the practical truth is that such tactics may garner press/interest group attention, but they do not move votes within the Senate.
Sorry for 3x post! I should add that the only time I can see a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington type filibuster of the kind Nate initially mentioned (continuous speech or else you lose) being applicable is if the majority has 60+ votes for cloture, but someone from the minority already has the floor (e.g. they're speaking). In that case, the instant the minority Senator stops speaking, the majority leader can seek recognition, offer the cloture petition, and get the ball rolling towards a cloture vote. Since the minority in such a situation cannot muster 41+ votes to win on the cloture vote, the only way for them to prevail is to monopolize the Senate floor by speaking at length. That's the source of the common perception of what filibusters look like -- but again, it only applies when the majority already has 60+ votes for cloture, which isn't our topic of discussion here today.
hey EV (sounds like Evie fromV for Vendetta),
In response to your comment about the shift from polls to politics, don,t overlook the obvious. It's going to be a while before the next Federal elections, barring special elections erupting from the Blago meltdown. Which means, Nate and Sean can either
a) shut the site down until the next election and hope everybody comes back/remembers that it's here/doesn't think it shut down for good
or
b) shift the focus of the site.
Can't do math without any numbers to crunch.
Only other option? Hope the people that come to this site know enough/care enough about Canadian politics and start talking about polling numbers up there. Something nasty's brewing on their political scene, if you care to look.I wouldn't mind this (having something of a kinship between Louisiana and Quebec-we're both French colonies), alot of other folks might respond to this suggestion with a
"eh?"
Je me souviens!
Wow, just as Nate has provided me with a refresher in stats, EV has just given me a mini-course civics review. You didn't mention your personal politics just that you were a GOP staffer. Regardless, I move that you be voted the best, knowledgeable, and most articulate Republican to visit here (we don't get a lot of civil discourse across party lines). Please feel free to contribute further.
@EV: I endorse Davy's vote of confidence in you. BTW/ some time ago Nate mentioned that he may be looking for other writers, preferably, he said, on the (moderate) right. Keep that in mind if you have a lot of spare time on your hands and can give insight into legislative events as things move along,
-EV: But you were not right about what that status quo ante was.
Only if they never actually debate bills on the Senate floor, but spend all their time debating motions to proceed.
Dude, I may not be as intimately familiar with the workings of the Senate as you are, but I know that sometimes they're debating the actual bill, and it's the actual bill that the majority can't get cloture on, and not the motion to proceed to the actual bill. (I'll dig out a list of such bills from the 1st session of this Congress tomorrow if you like - I inventoried all the cloture motions last winter.)
But it scarcely matters. If the majority forces a filibuster after a failed cloture vote on the Motion to Proceed, (a) it's still going to be a pain in the butt for the minority to talk talk talk to keep from proceeding to debating the actual bill, (b) they're going to have a damned hard time explaining even to their friends in the press exactly why they're unwilling to even debate the bill, and (c) once the filibuster on the Motion to Proceed is broken, the majority will be even more ready to fight the same battle when the bill itself is filibustered.
If the Dems have to spend an entire session of one Congress to put GOP recalcitrance and obstruction on display, and make them pay a price in inconvenience and bad publicity for it, it'll be worth it in the long run.
Ah, I've never seen Mr. Smith goes to Washington. I'll add it to my flix list.
Just to clear up any ambiguity, -EV, when you say, "When a majority leader decides to try and require a filibustering minority to speak at length," that point of decision happens when the minority has just blocked cloture on something, whether it's a bill, or the motion to proceed to a bill. Because the majority leader only has that decision available to him in the wake of a failed cloture vote.
I posted this suggestion as a comment to another article. Reid should hold the Senate in session right through Christmas and continue to ask for votes on the auto bridge loan bill. This would have several effects:
1. Reid wants to keep the senate in session anyway to prevent Bush from making any recess appointments.
2. It would keep the issue on the front burner in the news and IMO build public support for the loan bill. I think this is a loser issue for the Republicans and more publicity exactly what they do not need.
3. It would enhance Reid's terrible image as a leader.
4. It might actually work when these pampered prima donnas figure out they might have to spend Christmas working.
I can't see any down side for Reid to do this. Still, I don't expect this to happen because the Democrats really don't want to stay in Washington either.
Wow, Reid is terrible.
Hey, this is my first time posting here, but I just wanted to let you guys know that I very much enjoyed reading these comments. I am a newcomer to politics (especially legislation), so I was wondering if any of you could point me to some good books or other resources that I could use to brush up a little bit.
Thanks.
YES!! Thank you very much. I know you may feel like you are stating the obvious, but no one else is really saying it.
Same with the veto. Let the President explain why he is vetoing a bill. By passing it .. even if you know it's going to be vetoed, you tell the world where you stand. Without passing the bill, Bush never really has to put his weight behind where he stands.
@ EV
Are you saying that filibusters like the following can no longer happen:
"During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957."
@ Statler
Good point re: the blog needing to shift gears somewhat between elections. As I said in response to Juris above, I [now] better understand the change in focus and welcome it. Likewise, I welcome the exchange of ideas that comes with the shift towards a policy/political process concentration. I don't know that I'd be comfortable participating in some other, more prominent fora, for a variety of reasons. Last, but not least, I do think, and TonyJM seems to agree, that the lack of elections does not mean there aren't numbers to crunch (ex: the cloture numbers discussed above).
@ Davy, Juris, and zdrtx, thanks for the kind words. I've enjoyed this conversation as well. While I normally have my hands full with my day job, I do hope to continue participating informally/periodically in the future.
@ cyclist: I see what you're getting at and don't disagree. The Dems can surely exact a large political/press cost from the R's by selectively highlighting obstruction on major/popular issues, whether on motions to proceed or the merits of bills. I do agree with Tony and Statler that doing this too often could undermine Dem credibility and impede actual legislative progress, however. But reasonable minds can disagree on that point.
@ A.I.R. - Wow. Thinking that this site is not credible or not valuable is one thing. Responding the way you have is completely another. Even if you're just a schtick, you're still a little beyond the pale.
@ Opus
They certainly "can" happen...It's just not likely to have an affect on the outcome of the bill. If you look at the Thurmond filibuster for example, the threat of the filibuster already forced the majority into making substantial compromises on the substance of the bill (much to the disdain of chamber liberals). In exchange, Richard Russell (the Southern leader) agree to "drop" the filibuster. Thurmond's 24 hour filibuster was really just for show, and meant to grab attention for himself -- the bill's passage was all but assured by the point and he lacked support from any other southerner. This differs from the strategy advocated in Nate's post in the sense that it wasn't coordinated action by a minority party (or even sizeable faction). Applying that strategy to this civil rights filibuster would have meant forcing the Southern Democrats on the floor earlier and holding firm on the substance of the bill. It also differs in the sense that Thurmond was forced to the floor to defeat the bill. He (just like La Follette, D'Amato and Morse did in their famous filibuster) knew the bill was going to pass...He just wanted to look good for his constituency.
The caveat is that there is a simple majoritarian method for getting around the filibuster -- and there are some great examples from the civil rights debate of senators attempting that (and the fracas over Bush's judicial nominees in 2002-2003 cited by EV demonstrated an attempt by the Republicans to do so). The downside is it's very difficult to get 50 votes to "end" the practice of filibustering (you're asking your own members to give up a substantial amount of their power as senators), it's still likely to create numerous problems down the road because you've completely alienated Republicans and moderate Democrats alike and you risk potential public opinion hits. The latter is especially true given the Democratic rhetoric in opposing the 2003 "nuclear option" proposed by Frist. Reid called defeated it the greatest achievement of his Senate career.
Related to the book suggestion, if you want more on the Thurmond filibuster -- and the interaction between procedure and legislative substance more broadly, check out Robert Mann's The Walls of Jericho. It's excellent and reads like a novel.
Apologies...That should read "Thurmond was "not" forced to the floor to defeat..."
@ Opus (re: Huey P. Long)
Filibusters like that *can* occur today, but there's only one way a majority leader can compel them to occur. That way is to secure the support of 60+ Senators for cloture on the matter in question. I covered that situation above, e.g. where a minority Senator has the floor, and speaks at length because s/he knows that the moment s/he relinquishes the floor, the majority leader can gain recognition from the presiding officer and offer the cloture petition, getting the ball rolling towards a mandatory cloture vote the next day (which would carry in this circumstance, since the ML has the support of 60+ Senators).
If the majority leader does not have the support of 60+ Senators for cloture on the matter at hand, there is no way whatsoever for the majority leader to compel Huey P. Long style filibusters. Of course Senators of either party can, of their own accord, decide to go do one on their own (as Sen. Reid did in 2004 re: Searchlight, NV), but that is a far cry from Nate's original supposition that an effective majority leader can compel such things to happen.
Ev-
I think the philosophy, ethics, pragmatics, etc of whether or not cabinet selections should be hand-waved through the Senate or not is not as open and shut as you think (and you're not alone, this is a bipartisan insider view).
First thing: Senate was specifically written the power in the Constitution for advice and consent for Cabinet picks to begin with. (I'm not checking, so we'll see if I misremember). Logically, the FF's must have had a role in mind for the Senate to stop Cabinet picks outright in some cases. There's no reason to require Senate consent unless you want the Senate to have *power* over this pick. A concept of inherent or default deference to the president's selections basically makes an official power nonexistent in practice.
So where does this obligation to defer to the president on his cabinet picks come from, if not from the Founding Documents? Is it a universal appeal to "fairness"? As in, "no one should have to get someone else's approval on their own subordinates?"
Again, I can't agree. Loosening the President's control of the executive branch, while it can also have some problems, can also be almost the only remaining check on an increasingly centralized state. From the outside, it seems to me like Congress has all but ceased to exist as a meaningful oversight force, and the Bush Admin has neutralized the judiciary by a) going all the way to the Supreme Court, every time, making every loss take two-four years, and b) on the rare occasions when they get stuck in a real corner, using Congress to pass a law that bails them out. (See FISA.) And so the clock is reset.
The Senate consent power isn't perfect. For one thing, there's no real criteria except "how much do we like him" and "how much bad press gets drummed up on him?" You're right that, taken to extremes - ritualistic, repeated rejections; an attempt to force the President to appoint Congressionally hand-picked personnel who support policies he opposes, etc; this could weigh down the government. And there is something tricky about rejecting a cabinet officer because anyone who supports the Pres' policies is objectionable. But killing his first choice and making him pick a *lukewarm* supporter of his policies ain't so bad.
By the way, Mukasey is a special case, although not as bad as FISA. Alberto Gonzales, although he's never been convicted in a court of law, is probably a felon, guilty of obstruction of justice; i.e. planning and enacting the prosecution of Democrats for political gain, and blocking the prosecution of Republicans. Read Scott Horton sometime - take an afternoon, read the whole archive. You can skip the German poetry.
When the former AG is suspected on strong, albeit informal, evidentiary grounds of being a criminal - not private crime, but politically motivated crime - the rules for consent go out the window. Reid was really, apocalyptically bad at this stage (and this is as someone who buys your argument on the filibuster). Given how bad George Bush wanted FISA to save the butts of his close friends, Reid could have had anything he wanted if he was going to sell us down the river. He should have sent bush a short list of moderates and said "pick one, or kiss your war funding/retroactive immunity goodbye".
There are a few key posts where criminal behavior permanently disqualifies your boss, the C&C, from being allowed to exercise control over the post from there forward. Attorney General is one.
phaetons-path: Given how bad George Bush wanted FISA to save the butts of his close friends, Reid could have had anything he wanted if he was going to sell us down the river. He should have sent bush a short list of moderates and said "pick one, or kiss your war funding/retroactive immunity goodbye".
I disagree with your analysis of the Mukasey nomination. My understanding is that Bush had the power to appoint an acting AG which would not have required Senate approval. If so, then there was no way for Democrats to force Bush to nominate someone more moderate than Mukasey. If Mukasey was the best they thought they could get, then confirmation at least arguably makes sense.
As for holding out on retroactive immunity and war funding, I don't think the votes were there. Or at least it was not unreasonable to think that the party would pay a price at the polls if they didn't "support the troops" or stood in the way of "defending America." If they had acted otherwise, they might not be within a few moderate Republican votes of breaking a filibuster (or a procedural filibuster) as they are now.
Reasonable minds can differ as to whether they should have been willing to pay that price. I'm just arguing that doing what they did is understandable.
phaetons-path, Gonzales is also probably a criminal based on his official approval of torture.
Bob X wrote:
"Huey Long was once reduced to reading Cajun recipes from a helpful cookbook (I don't remember what bill that was about, probably something noxious like letting darkies votes)."
I doubt it. Huey Long was a populist (albeit also a demagogue and corrupt), and because of all he did for the poor of all colors in Louisiana, he was popular with whites and blacks alike. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that he was a radical civil rights fighter or anything, but for a Southern governor, he was pretty damn good in terms of how he treated his black citizens. I will happily accept correction if the documentaries and oral testimonies I've witnessed gave a grossly incomplete picture.
Nate, PLEASE implement some sort of idiot-zapping device to remove troll posts on this site. I would be more than willing to volunteer to monitor the threads and yank those posts that are destructive.
A.I.R is obviosly Mule Rider.The use of the word "douchebag' gives him away.It's a verbal tic that appears in all his rants.
I'm surprised Nate/Sean haven't deleted today's yet.
To EV and other newcomers,Mule Rider is our resident troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
PRAG
actually you can sorta self-delete the offensive spam & posts by trolls like A.I.R.
if using IE, right click in 'Post a Comment'
choose 'open in a new tab'
[then you get a full screen view of all comments in the new tab]
scroll down & click on the screenname of the offender [A.I.R.]
the post will disappear from tate tab view so close the Blogger window
repeat as often as necessary...
--------------------------------
this works for any of the serial offenders [such as Mule Rider & the old Pent Kent] when they spam, cut & paste or go ballistic...
this strategy carried me through the entire campaign
Michael is right. Huey Long abolished the poll tax in Louisiana. He was hardly a civil rights leader, but, given his time, and compared to other southern governors of his time, he was quite progressive (in terms of race relations, not clean government).
Reid called defeated it the greatest achievement of his Senate career.
This shows how dumb Reid is.He defeated the Nuclear Option by never filibustering.So the goal of the Nuclear Option was assured without the Option being adopted.
Reid must go!!!
BTW - 'BOB' post @ 9:40 PM has the same Blogger ID as A.I.R.
the doofus must think he is clever...
@Nate
I don't know who EV is, but you should offer him (her?) a job! Most informative comments I've ever read.
Based on my previous post,I'm beginning to reconsider my opposition to the Nuclear Option.
comments are comments IMHO
this site doesn not need & would not benefit from additional staff posters
moderators or chat host, maybe...
others can migrate to HuffPost or create their own stand alone blog sites
[HuffPost is where Nate started blogging before he created 538 btw]
WV - bus lyzes [missing an 'h' in the middle...]
regarding that absurb display of juvenalia by AIR, perhaps I should reconsider my opposition to the death penalty.
Those complaining about Reid's role as majority leader should suspend judgment until after the new congress begins and Obama is sworn in. If he is as spineless as you seem to think, there will be no excuses. If, on the other hand, he succeeds in pushing things through, you might want to reevaluate your opinion of him.
The country is sick of blind partisanship, a some of which is evident in some of the posts here. It would hurt Obama if right when he begins his presidency the congress breaks down into bitter partisanship.
That being said, if the minority is filibustering a major piece of legislation there is every reason to shove cloture up the obstructionists' butts. The secret to this is being able to judge which fights to pick. Too many fights looks bad, as does too few (unless the other side is doing all the caving.)
wv=retsph
a person with a speech impediment that keeps him from saying the "l" sound is suggesting that we all "ph." I gues that would be the acid test.
anyone else on the site remember when just 8 months ago 538 wasz hosted by a mystery poster & threads were created by 'Poblano' ?
then in May Nate finally revealed himself as the hot political chili pepper behind this new political projection site...
WV - 'shoni' - get your pecan clusters at...
EV-
Thanks for taking the time to disabuse me of my filibuster misconceptions.
Of course,I won't sleep well tonight.
THERE"S NO WAY OUT.
Sigh...Any bets that this new troll is AssRider?
Ass Rider,
The stench of your stupidity is too strong for you to hide.
*******************
EV
Thank you for your comments, they were illuminating. Hope you stick around.
WV- ungna The only sound Ass Rider is capable of vocalizing.
All scoffed when Palin told a second grade class that she would work with the Congress to pass legislation.
And yet Nat has Biden running up to Capitol Hill to do what Reid cannot.
Call Chris Matthews.
I've mentioned this before but wouldn't it be possible to use a different service to host the site? Other places I post have really cool protections and features such as "post collapsed by the community", or rate a comment. Also, tracking features so that you can keep up with conversation threads you had in previous articles. Newsvine comes to mind; very user friendly.
@DCM
Collapsing posts works the same in Safari, too when you click on the Blogger symbol or in a ghost area in the upper right corner of the post. However I think they re-open when you refresh or reload the comment page.
wv: inate - what happens when 538 is bought by Apple
DCM in FL said...
anyone else on the site remember when just 8 months ago 538 wasz hosted by a mystery poster & threads were created by 'Poblano' ?
December 16, 2008 12:16 AM
##########
Yes I do remember.
Plus I do remember Sean&Brett "on the road" amazing reports.
And eventually I do remember you DCM ,daily telling about your canvassing in Florida(Volusia county...am I right ???? ) and many others bloggers doing the same.
Holy mackerel,
what a wonderful site.
ok.
time to stuck whit my job for me.
good night to you all.
:)
Nate,Sean,
listen it's not certainly my business but,I wonder...this thing from A.I.R.-vs-538 is getting more personal day after day.
for your safety maybe it's time to hire someone to start investigation.
ok.
I said it.
bye.
;)
Tennessee posted certified numbers today and, in addition, some minor party and other numbers were revised over at wikipedia.org. Here are the current 538 projection-actual result differences ranging from those most off in Obama's favor to those most off in McCain's favor:
Arkansas -8.9%
Louisiana -8.7%
Alaska -7.3%
Wyoming -6.9%
North Dakota -5.9%
Oklahoma -5.7%
Idaho -4.8%
Arizona -3.6%
West Virginia -3.3%
Kentucky -2.6%
Utah -2.4%
Tennessee -2.2%
Iowa -2.2%
Mississippi -1.9%
Georgia -1.5%
Kansas -1.4%
Texas -1.0%
North Carolina -0.7%
Nebraska -0.5%
New Hampshire -0.2%
Missouri 0.1%
Minnesota 0.1%
South Dakota 0.3%
Montana 0.4%
Virginia 0.6%
South Carolina 0.7%
Alabama 0.7%
Delaware 0.9%
New Jersey 1.0%
Florida 1.1%
Ohio 1.1%
U.S. Total 1.2%
New York 1.3%
Oregon 1.6%
Pennsylvania 2.3%
Colorado 2.4%
Wisconsin 2.4%
Maryland 2.4%
Indiana 2.6%
Washington 2.8%
Maine 2.8%
Connecticut 2.9%
Illinois 3.3%
California 3.5%
Rhode Island 3.8%
Michigan 3.9%
New Mexico 5.4%
Massachusetts 5.9%
Nevada 7.7%
Vermont 12.4%
Hawaii 17.8%
District of Columbia 26.5%
The state numbers for Kentucky thru Illinois and also Rhode Island are within the MOE.
Massachusetts has yet to post certified numbers.
Why you gays gotta keep beating up on me? huh? Y'all make me wanna cry!
wow. evidence that "ignorant Republican" is redundant.
I hated (and still hate) the so-called "Nuclear Option" since I feel that fillibustering is an important procedural aspect of the U.S. Senate. It's just about the only power a minority party can weild and I think that's a good thing, even when Republicans hold that power.
However, I echo several other commenters when I say WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO IT?! It was all the rage to threaten it just a few years ago and now it's a distant memory in beltway past.
Harry Reid needs to be replaced. I was never crazy about him, but the standing ovation for Ted Stevens was the last straw. A true "Senator of the people" with the slogan "give 'em hell, Harry" would have pounded the gabble and yelled, "What the hell is wrong with you people?! This man is a convicted criminal! ...And an asshole to boot! Get back to work!"
@Michael:
Bob X wrote: "Huey Long was once reduced to reading Cajun recipes from a helpful cookbook (I don't remember what bill that was about, probably something noxious like letting darkies votes)."
I doubt it. Huey Long was a populist (albeit also a demagogue and corrupt), and because of all he did for the poor of all colors in Louisiana, he was popular with whites and blacks alike. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that he was a radical civil rights fighter or anything, but for a Southern governor, he was pretty damn good in terms of how he treated his black citizens. I will happily accept correction if the documentaries and oral testimonies I've witnessed gave a grossly incomplete picture.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Indeed, Huey's filibusters were against bills that he considered to be class-warfare against the poor; I had his filibusters confused with Strom Thurmond's, an insult to Huey's memory which he did not deserve.
It's about time we started hanging our politicians from street lamps, like they do in 3rd world nations.
Since we now have a 3rd world economy, what the fuck are we waiting for?
Pelosi first, then Reid, then on with the rest.
So the presiding officer would recognize Sen. Reid assuming nobody else already had the floor. Once recognized, then Reid would make a motion to proceed to S. 1 -- i.e. to start debate on S. 1. Prior to that motion, no bill or matter is technically before the Senate. Reid's motion would take the following form: "I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. 1, the CHANGE Act of 2009."
Assuming that a Republican objects to Reid's UC (e.g. his motion to proceed), the presiding officer would state that "objection is heard." At that point, the pending question before the Senate is WHETHER TO BEGIN DEBATE ON S.1. The Senate isn't actually on S. 1 yet. It is on the motion to proceed to S. 1. That's an important distinction that most people don't understand.
Why has a motion to proceed to have unanimous consent? This would mean that every single Senator could block all motions to whatever by dissenting unless he doesn't leave. And two of them could block such a motion undefinately.
BTW: Thank's to ya'll. This was one of the most informative discussions I've seen in a long time. Easily worth of 20 CP.
thx1200: I hated (and still hate) the so-called "Nuclear Option" since I feel that fillibustering is an important procedural aspect of the U.S. Senate.
Well, there's something to be said for making political parties take their stances seriously. Presently, the majority party can take stances its members may not really believe because they know the minority will block the legislation. When Republicans are in the majority, they can propose big tax cuts or vouchers for DC schools knowing the won't get through. And the same goes for Democrats.
But what if the majority really did rule? Would Republicans still advocate hugely irresponsible tax cuts (more irresponsible than the ones we got) if they actually might pass? Would all of them support vouchers if they knew they would be held accountable for the results? Would they still have pushed so hard for privatizing Social Security, or establishing a flat tax? I doubt it.
The threat of real accountability might lead to less posturing and more moderation on both sides. And that's where the nation's business gets done, even if it's not where I happen to be.
I've gotten much of this argument from Timothy Noah's article at Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2117015/
We're just NOW realizing that the filibuster can be used to impede progress? It was the Constitution's gift to America when Democrats were in the minority.
Now, it's just da#n inconvenient.
Simply put, it means that we can't make major structural changes without eliciting at least some support from both parties. Why is that a bad thing?
The People's Business said: Simply put, it means that we can't make major structural changes without eliciting at least some support from both parties. Why is that a bad thing?
100% agreed. Senate Rule XXII is one of the most important structural features of our current federal government, and we should cherish, rather than object to its continued vitality. The Nuclear Option was a horrible idea that ran directly counter to the intentions of the Framers, it was rightly rejected (by R's and D's alike!) a few years ago, and it should be rejected if proposed once more.
For all those well left of center who are now up in arms about GOP obstruction, please take a moment to step back and see what you were saying when the majority shoe was on the other foot. Requiring some modicum of bipartisanship on major issues is a good thing in the long run, even if it means that EFCA doesn't pass as-is or whatever else you may prefer in the short run. Bipartisanship of the kind required by Rule XXII is the sole reason Social Security isn't privatized right now, and the sole reason we don't have drills in the ground in ANWR. It is the sole reason lots of bad ideas aren't law, in fact. Yes, it stops some good ideas from becoming law as well, but on the whole it seems that the rule gives us more than it takes away.
"Harry Reid has been exceptionally ineffective as the Democrats' majority leader"
Okay, fine.
But goshdarnit, Nate, that doesn't answer the question. Neither does the count of of clotures.
And, (thanks, B.R.) it's a question I and my friends have been utterly stumped by for years. Googled, followed blogs, still just plain stumped.
Try again: why doesn't Reid make them read the phone book?
Oh and:
"the Republicans are filibustering more and more often"
No they aren't. When was the last time you saw a filibuster?
@ Steve Roth
You aren't seeing the Republicans read the phone book because there's nothing, anywhere, in the Senate rules that Harry Reid or anyone else can use to make them do it. The extensive comments above explain why. The "reading the phonebook" filibuster is a thing of the movies and not reality.
The one exception to that reality in modern settings would only occur (1) once the majority had 60+ Senators ready to vote for cloture and (2) once a minority Senator decided, on his or her own, to try to monopolize the floor to prevent that 60+ vote coalition from actually invoking cloture. Since condition (1) occurs infrequently and condition (2) basically never occurs once (1) is satisfied [e.g. didn't happen even once in the 107th-109th Congresses], you never see people reading phone books in the Senate.
EV: For all those well left of center who are now up in arms about GOP obstruction, please take a moment to step back and see what you were saying when the majority shoe was on the other foot.
Well, my position was the same regardless of who was in the majority.
Bipartisanship of the kind required by Rule XXII is the sole reason Social Security isn't privatized right now, and the sole reason we don't have drills in the ground in ANWR.
So be it. Let the majority take responsibility for what they pass. If what I want isn't the majority view, then I should be spending my time trying to shift people to my point of view, not using my minority status to block the will of the people.
And as I wrote above, you might see more moderation if both parties knew that what they proposed wouldn't be blocked by the minority party. Accountability can be a powerful moderating force. But the filibuster allows parties to not be held accountable for the positions they say they stand for because they know those positions stand no chance of becoming law.
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇
牙醫,植牙,矯正,紋身,刺青,創業,批發,皮膚科,痘痘,中醫,飛梭雷射,毛孔粗大,醫學美容,seo,關鍵字行銷,關鍵字、自然排序,網路行銷,關鍵字、自然排序,關鍵字行銷、seo,關鍵字廣告,部落格行銷,網路行銷,seo,關鍵字行銷,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,自然排序,部落格行銷,網路行銷,網路爆紅,牛舌餅，婚紗，台中婚紗,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,中古車,二手車,中古車,二手車,高雄婚紗,減肥,瘦身 ,搬家,搬家公司,服飾批發,團體服。
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment