It almost goes without saying that some of the best arguments on why the filibuster in the Senate is a good thing were made by Democrats when George W. Bush was President and by Republicans today, while some of the best arguments on why filibusters are bad were made by Republicans during George W. Bush’s presidency and by Democrats during … oh, you get the idea.
Actually, Jay Cost may have said it best at "RealClearPolitics.com":
"[P]eople with strong policy preferences should rarely be listened to in a debate about appropriate procedure. People who care intensely about the final vote tally often don't care how the votes are counted, so long as they get their preferred outcome. This is why there was no hue and cry coming from most of these born-again majoritarians on the left when the Democrats were looking to filibuster judicial nominees in 2005. It is easy to find numerous examples of conservative hypocrisy on this subject, too."
Actually, I agree with Democrats who say the filibuster is used too often today (as is the practice of allowing individual senators to put "holds" on the consideration of Presidential appointees). But then I felt the same way during the Bush presidency, too. If I were in the Senate, I would be agreeable, I think, to cut back on these things – as long as I could get an agreement with the Democrats that they would cut back on these things the next time they were in the minority – and as long as I felt they really meant it. Which probably means we would be back to where we started.
In any case, even if I would favor cutting back on the use of the filibuster, I would still want it to be around for really important issues – and I am sure most Democrats would say that, too. And a bill of the size and impact and complexity of the "Obama/Pelosi/Reid Health Care Contraption" is definitely an issue important enough to justify a filibuster.
Comments