Cloture: Why So Prevalent?

[Democratic Hawk]

I've just been down on the Senate website and between 1919-1971:

1. Cloture motions were filed 56 times
2. There were 49 votes on cloture
3. Cloture being invoked only 8 times

Thus far, in the 111th Congress, there have been 43 cloture motions filed and 24 votes with cloture being invoked 22 times already!

[Meeker]

It's simple really. Our Senators used to be honorable men and women.

[Beet]

And before 1975, 67 votes were needed to cut off debate.

Also, I love how the Republicans started talking about the nuclear option on election night 2004 (Yes, I was sitting with a Republican; he started talking about how they would need to get rid of the filibuster hours before the election was called for Bush). They play hardball a lot more than the spineless Dems do.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

It's simple really. Our Senators used to be honorable men and women.

[cinyc]

It's simple really. Our Senators used to be honorable men and women.

The good old days weren't always good.  Politicians were whores back then, too.

Democrats held very large Senate majorities for a good portion of the 1917-1971 period.

[Meeker]

It's simple really. Our Senators used to be honorable men and women.

The good old days weren't always good.  Politicians were whores back then, too.

Democrats held very large Senate majorities for a good portion of the 1917-1971 period.

The Democratic caucus was by no means a unified force during that time though.

[cinyc]

The Democratic caucus was by no means a unified force during that time though.

True (nor is it today, really).  But on controversial votes over things like ending segregation, it could rely on Republican votes to override the objections of Southern Democrats back in the day.

Any time I hear how things were less partisan in the good old days, I shake my head.  Partisanship may have waxed and waned at times, but has almost always been there.   The numerous partisan newspapers back in the day sometimes put partisan things written on the Internet to shame.  There's nothing new under the sun.

[12th Doctor]

It's simple really. Our Senators used to be honorable men and women.

The good old days weren't always good.  Politicians were whores back then, too.

Democrats held very large Senate majorities for a good portion of the 1917-1971 period.

The Democratic caucus was by no means a unified force during that time though.

They were unified on issues that did not involve the n-word though.

[12th Doctor]

Also, it is correct that back then you needed far more votes to gain cloture (I think it was 80 in the 1910's), so there were alot more bills that simply never had the votes to even move on it.

[12th Doctor]

And on another note, I honestly don't mind the filibuster.

It's people who use the anonymous hold that are just fuckers.  One reason I don't like Paul Wellstone and don't consider him a statesman.

I wouldn't be surprised if even most people on this forum have no clue what I am talking about.

[Meeker]

The Democratic caucus was by no means a unified force during that time though.

True (nor is it today, really).  But on controversial votes over things like ending segregation, it could rely on Republican votes to override the objections of Southern Democrats back in the day.

Any time I hear how things were less partisan in the good old days, I shake my head.  Partisanship may have waxed and waned at times, but has almost always been there.   The numerous partisan newspapers back in the day sometimes put partisan things written on the Internet to shame.  There's nothing new under the sun.

I'm not denying that things were just as partisan back then. It's just that using the cloture motion as a stalling tactic on smaller, non-hot-button issues is really an invention of the modern Senate.

And on another note, I honestly don't mind the filibuster.

It's people who use the anonymous hold that are just fuckers.  One reason I don't like Paul Wellstone and don't consider him a statesman.

I wouldn't be surprised if even most people on this forum have no clue what I am talking about.

I agree that the anonymous hold is a ridiculous procedure and should be abolished.

[Lief 🗽]

The Republican Party, long ago, before I was born, used to not be a morally bankrupt band of corporate-owned hypocrites.

[cinyc]

I'm not denying that things were just as partisan back then. It's just that using the cloture motion as a stalling tactic on smaller, non-hot-button issues is really an invention of the modern Senate.

Your initial statement that I responded to was "It's simple really. Our Senators used to be honorable men and women."

Perhaps cloture was used less as a stalling tactic back then - but there may have been others employed in committee or on the floor.  We don't know.  Tactics may change over time.  But politicians are more or less the same.

In case anyone thinks our politicians were more honorable back in the day, consider these slogans from the 19th century:

"Ma, Ma, Wheres My Pa, Gone To the White House, Ha Ha, Ha" - Blaine supporters on Grover Cleveland, who may have sired a child out of wedlock with a prostitute.

"Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, the continental liar from the State of Maine!" - Blaine opponents, including the Cleveland campaign, regarding his questionable business deals.

Hardly honorable campaign rhetoric.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Meeker]

I'm not denying that things were just as partisan back then. It's just that using the cloture motion as a stalling tactic on smaller, non-hot-button issues is really an invention of the modern Senate.

Your initial statement that I responded to was "It's simple really. Our Senators used to be honorable men and women."

Perhaps cloture was used less as a stalling tactic back then - but there may have been others employed in committee or on the floor.  We don't know.  Tactics may change over time.  But politicians are more or less the same.

In case anyone thinks our politicians were more honorable back in the day, consider these slogans from the 19th century:

"Ma, Ma, Wheres My Pa, Gone To the White House, Ha Ha, Ha" - Blaine supporters on Grover Cleveland, who may have sired a child out of wedlock with a prostitute.

"Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, the continental liar from the State of Maine!" - Blaine opponents, including the Cleveland campaign, regarding his questionable business deals.

Hardly honorable campaign rhetoric.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

My comment was directed specifically towards using the fillibuster as a stalling tactic. It was an overgeneralization for rhetorical purpose. I'm well aware that American politics has been just as dirtier if not dirtier since around 1840 if not before.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It's simple really. Our Senators used to be honorable men and women.

Every generation says that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That too (well, since 1870 or so.. which I guess is before you were born.)

[Meeker]

It's simple really. Our Senators used to be honorable men and women.

Every generation says that.

Read the previous post...

[12th Doctor]

The problem is that if you changed the rules on the anonymous hold, then you would have to change almost everything else about how the Senate operates.  It's not like the hold is really a rule.  It is something that is implied by the Senate rules, because the Senate runs purely on unanimous consent.  Change that, and you would have to change alot of other things.

[Silent Hunter]

The Republican Party, long ago, before I was born, used to not be a morally bankrupt band of corporate-owned hypocrites.

Much of the Democratic Party used to be a morally bankrupt bunch of racists. The racists moved party.

History has so many rich examples of negative campaigning.

[Meeker]

The problem is that if you changed the rules on the anonymous, then you would have to change almost everything else about how the Senate operates.  It's not like the hold is really a rule.  It is something that is implied by the Senate rules, because the Senate runs purely on unanimous consent.  Change that, and you would have to change alot of other things.

Well yes, but, in an ideal world and such...