Filibusters have fallen under Obama: The media is confusing motions to file for cloture votes with successful filibusters
Click on figures to enlarge.
There are three stages in a filibuster fight: file a motion for cloture, a vote on cloture, and whether a cloture is invoked. In the Senate, a motion must be filed before a cloture vote can take place. Motions to file for cloture is the measure that the Democrats and the media want everyone to focus on, but the typical discussion averages the numbers across administrations and ignores that this soared before Obama became president. Indeed, the important point to emphasize is that the increase in motions for cloture occurred when Democrats took control of the Senate in 2007. What happened was that Democrats decided to file a motion for cloture whenever debates started, even if there was no threat of a filibuster. Motion for clotures soared from 68 in 2005-2006 (when Republicans controlled the Senate) to 139 in 2007-2008(when Democrats controlled the Senate), and they have remained high since then as Democrats have continued to be in control.
But a motion filed is not a vote on cloture, let alone a successful
filibuster. Indeed, the annual rate of
successful filibusters under Obama (15) is actually slightly lower than it was
under George W. Bush or Clinton (17 each).
The
drop is even more pronounced when one looks at the pattern since the Democrats
took control of the Senate in 2007. In
2007-2008 under George W. Bush, there were 51 successful filibusters. During the next to congresses under Obama
those numbers were 28 and 32. So much
for the claim that Obama is being singled out for filibusters.
Conclusion: the changes in both motions to file and filibusters are due to the Democrats taking control of the Senate. And it is not surprising given that Democrats are running the show, the problems were greater for George W. Bush than for Obama.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a former member of the GOP leadership close to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), has assembled an agenda Republicans would pursue with the nuclear option if they retake control of the upper chamber.
It includes repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act, converting all federal education spending into school vouchers and scholarships to middle-income and low-income children, opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling and repealing the estate tax. . . .
Three Republican Senators promise to filibuster Democrat Gun Control Bill
How just a few new Senators can make such a big difference in how the Senate operates. These Senators are focusing on how these bills will hurt "citizens' right to self-defense." A filibuster might give these Senators a real chance to educate people about exactly how these laws will cause harm. From The Hill newspaper:
Carney said a filibuster would be “unfortunate” and would send the wrong message to the families of gun violence victims.
“I don't think you need to tell the families of those who have lost their children to gun violence that bills like this may be filibustered. I don't think that would be welcome news,” Carney said.
GOP Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), and Ted Cruz (Texas) threatened to filibuster the bill in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that argued it was an infringement of Second Amendment rights. The bill would expand background checks and penalties on straw purchases of firearms.
The senators pledged to “oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions.”
“The Second Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens' right to self-defense. It speaks to history's lesson that government cannot be in all places at all times, and history's warning about the oppression of a government that tries,” they wrote. . . .
