Via MyDD, here's some encouraging news. Saying that the filibuster wasn't supposed to be used to stop legislation, Sen. Tom Harkin told Iowa reporters he's thinking about reintroducing legislation he first put forth 15 years ago. I say, call and write to let him know you support it:

Given what he sees as the abuse of power by a couple members of his own party whom he said are threatening to join the minority party if their every demand is not met, Harkin is considering reintroducing the legislation.

"I think, if anything, this health care debate is showing the dangers of unlimited filibuster," Harkin said Thursday during a conference call with reporters. "I think there's a reason for slowing things down ... and getting the public aware of what's happening and maybe even to change public sentiment, but not to just absolutely stop something."

Harkin noted with interest that his original legislation was cosponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who has been threatening to filibuster the legislation.

"Today, in the age of instant news and Internet and rapid travel -- you can get from anywhere to here within a day or a few hours -- the initial reasons for the filibuster kind of fall by the wayside, and now it's got into an abusive situation," Harkin said.

He and the constitutional scholars agree that the intention was never to hold up legislation entirely.

To keep the spirit of slowing down legislation, though, Harkin's proposal back in 1995 would have kept the 60-vote rule for the first vote but lessening the number required in subsequent votes.

He said for instance if 60 senators could not agree to end debate, it would carry on for another week or so and then the number of votes required to end debate would drop by three. Harkin said it would carry on this way until it reached a simple majority of 51 votes.

"You could hold something up for maybe a month, but then, finally you'd come down to 51 votes and a majority would be able to pass," Harkin said. "I may revive that. I pushed it very hard at one time and then things kind of got a little better."

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (58)

PLAYS: (258)

Keith talks to Rep. Alan Grayson about his effort to get Harry Reid to change the filibuster rule changed from 60 to 55 in order to stop obstructionist Republicans from blocking reform.

The Hill has more--Rep. Grayson: Change Senate rules to require 55 for cloture:

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fl.) is now urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to propose a revision to the Senate's cloture rules so that only 55 votes, instead of 60, would be required to end floor debate.

His effort -- spearheaded with the help of an online campaign at StopSenateStalling.com -- takes special aim at the healthcare debate, which Grayson said has fallen victim to countless overused and unfair filibuster threats over the past few months.

"Why should launching wars and cutting taxes for the rich require only 50 votes while saving lives requires 60?" asked Grayson, who listed a series of important bills that passed with fewer than 60 votes.

"Join me in calling for an end to this unfair system," he added. "Tell Majority Leader Reid to modify the rules of the Senate to require only 55 votes to invoke cloture instead of 60. Fill out the form below to sign the petition today!"

So far, Grayson's campaign has netted about 7,000 signatures, though a cursory glance at the names on the list yields a few duplicates.

Continue reading...

From Rep. Grayson's site Stop Senate Stalling!:

Why should launching wars and cutting taxes for the rich require only 50 votes while saving lives requires 60?

Join me in calling for an end to this unfair system. Tell Majority Leader Reid to modify the rules of the Senate to require only 55 votes to invoke cloture instead of 60. Fill out the form below to sign the petition today!

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (84)

PLAYS: (436)

Rachel Maddow calls out Judd Gregg for his 180 on the filibuster rule and his threat to stall healthcare bill in the Senate. As Rachel noted, the one point of consistency... I.O.K.W.A.R.D.I.

Sen. Judd Gregg has hundreds of procedural objections ready for a healthcare plan Democrats want to speed through the Senate.

Gregg (N.H.), the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, told The Hill in a recent interview that Republicans will wage a vicious fight if Democrats try to circumvent Senate rules and use a budget maneuver to pass a trillion-dollar healthcare plan with a simple majority.

The death of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) leaves Democrats with 59 Senate seats — one shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. That, combined with the pushback from Republican negotiators, has prompted Democratic leaders to look more closely at using budget reconciliation to push a healthcare overhaul through.

The maneuver was originally intended to help reduce the federal deficit by allowing spending cuts and tax increases to pass by majority vote, but it has since been used to fast-track wider-scope legislation, such as former President George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts.

Republicans, however, warn that if Democrats attempt the maneuver, their healthcare bill will end up looking like Swiss cheese.

Gregg said that Republicans could file “hundreds” of points-of-order objections to the bill, each one requiring 60 votes to waive.

“We are very much engaged in taking a hard look at our rights under reconciliation,” Gregg said. “It would be very contentious.”

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2791)

PLAYS: (7793)

Paul Krugman and Robert Reich both made some really great points during the panel discussion on This Week on the reasons for some real reform of the insurance industry, the mistakes made by the President in negotiating with the Senate, and the notion that there is a need for bipartisanship when the Republican party has moved so far out of the mainstream. And this statement by Krugman bears noting:

Krugman: Well, the public option again, this is something, that, there’s a question whether they're for it, or whether, are they willing to actually vote against cloture to stop this really quite modest but helpful piece of the reform being in there? (crosstalk) They have no intellectual basis to stand on, right? The argument against the public option is sheer nonsense. We know that. It's nothing except the insurance lobby.

Exactly. If these conserva-Dems want to block health care reform and getting the insurance industries in check, make them actually have to stand up and filibuster it along with the Republicans and show their true colors.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

...said Senator-elect Ken Salazar, Democrat from Colorado, on "Face the Nation" Sunday, in response to Bill Frist's comments on getting rid of the filibuster rule.

The lines are being drawn and the wagons are circling on this issue. Harry Reid vowed earlier today to "tie the Senate in knots" if they try to change the law. It reminds me of a time when republicans blocked over sixty of Bill Clinton's judicial nominations without a vote, but hey.. the Dems only blocked ten of Bush's nominees out of over 200. Let's change two hundred years of legislation.

Talk of trying to do away with filibuster rule has made Reid throw down the gauntlet.

USATODAY: GOP sets up Senate collision on judges

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has vowed to tie the Senate into procedural knots if Frist tries to change the filibuster rule. "It will be very difficult to get even the most routine work done in the Senate," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said in an interview Sunday.