More Filibusters

Republicans in the Senate have now filibustered the Farm Bill and the War Funding bill. And yet in neither of these articles in the Washington Post is the word filibuster used, the closest they come is:

joined 51 Democrats in support of the cloture motion to end delays.

Here’s how they describe the vote in the articles:

The 53 to 45 vote in favor of the bill fell seven short of the 60 votes needed and signaled that the contours of the war debate, now nearing its first anniversary, have barely changed. An alternative GOP proposal, which would have provided $70 billion with no strings attached, was rejected outright, 53 to 45.

and

The 55 to 42 vote to end the deadlock fell short of the 60-vote majority needed. Four Republicans, including two facing election challenges next year, joined a solid bloc of Democrats seeking to force Senate consideration of the huge measure.

seem to imply that 60 votes are needed to pass a bill in the Senate–of course, in this Senate that’s true, since the Republicans filibuster so much.

Now compare this to how McClatchy talks about the Farm bill vote:

Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, mustered 55 votes to break a filibuster. He needed 60. Partisanship prevailed, as every Democrat voted to proceed and all 42 votes to block the bill came from Republicans.

The 55-42 filibuster vote Friday capped 10 days of inaction, during which time the farm bill remained inert on the Senate floor. Although 260-plus amendments have been drafted, many unrelated to farm policy, senators remain split over substance, process and politics.

Was that so hard? Glenn Greenwald looks at this in the context of the confirmation of Mukasey:

Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they “tried”), the excuse they gave was that they “need 60 votes in the Senate” in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general “60-vote requirement” for everything.

where he notes that Mukasey only got 53 votes even though many Democrats thought this involved an important issue. But how can this be, it’s Democrats that are the obstructionists (Glenn was hoping for a filibuster by the Democrats)?

Back in July, McClatchy noted that this Senate was on course to easily break the record for cloture votes (which are used to end filibusters). I’m not sure exactly where they got their numbers, but here are the numbers;

Congress; years; # of cloture motions; # filed; # voted on; # invoked (ending a filibuster) 

110 2007-2008 72 56 29 (through 11/17/2007)
109 2005-2006 68 54 34
108 2003-2004 62 49 12
107 2001-2002 72 61 34
106 1999-2000 71 58 28
105 1997-1998 69 53 18
104 1995-1996 82 50 9
103 1993-1994 80 46 14
102 1991-1992 59 47 22
101 1989-1990 37 24 11
100 1987-1988 53 43 12
99 1985-1986 40 23 10
98 1983-1984 41 19 11
97 1981-1982 31 30 10
96 1979-1980 30 20 11
95 1977-1978 23 13 3
94 1975-1976 39 27 17
93 1973-1974 44 31 9
92 1971-1972 23 20 4

It looks like the number of motions filed and votes on cloture for a term will be broken by this Senate term in ONE YEAR (in other words, they’re on pace to more than double the record). Who said the Republicans weren’t good at something?

You would think this would be a big story, but I don’t see it anywhere–maybe when the record is actually broken. Maybe.