Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Ron Glass, 68. As I've said, I was never really a big Barney Miller fan; of course, I am a huge fan of Shepherd Book.

The good stuff:

1. Will Wilkinson on the security state and democracy. Several good points here. On the final question he asks -- what happened to Barack Obama? -- I suspect he has the answer mostly wrong, or maybe it's the question that he gets wrong. I strongly suspect it's not so much about what Obama "really" thinks; my guess is that what we've seen is a president getting rolled by a combination of the bureaucracy and, to a lesser extent, a combination of the out party and the president's political advisers. Yes, I'm guessing here, and we probably won't know the answer for a long time, but that's my fairly strong guess.

2. Abby Rapoport on the likely next governor of Texas, Greg Abbott.

3. Even more from Scott Lemieux on Shelby County.

4. Dan Drezner on Rand Paul and foreign policy.

5. What Jennifer Victor learned at the Political Networks Conference.

6. Seth Masket on this summer's movies and higher education.

7. And the best thing of all: Vital Statistics on Congress is now on line and available.

Back to the "Live" Filibuster

Everyone loves a live, or talking, filibuster. They make for terrific drama! No question about it -- hey, say what you will about Frank Capra, but he certainly knew from compelling drama. So when there is one -- such as yesterday's marathon filibuster of abortion legislation by Texas State Senator Wendy Davis -- everyone wants more, and gets all upset that in the US Senate most filibusters are "silent" and not dramatic at all.

First, a bit of fun. Me, responding to why Democrats didn't demand a talking filibuster against the ACA in 2009:

In the old days, Senators engaged in a filibuster would read recipes or otherwise stray off topic. No need for that now! Not only do Senators have large staffs who could produce content, but there's a whole big internet available. If I were advising the GOP in that situation, I'd tell them to let conservative bloggers know that they can have their big chance for immortality: post something good, and a Republican Senator will read it on the floor of the Senate. Doesn't even have to be about health care! Excellent way to rev up the conservative blogosphere, no? Meanwhile, by forcing Republicans to perform a "real" filibuster, Democrats would transform a 24 hour network that millions of Americans get in their homes into a 24 hour Republican propaganda outlet. 

I'd say that's a pretty good prediction for the Rand Paul and Wendy Davis filibusters, no? 

Indeed, Paul did read from blog posts; Davis did solicit stuff to read. No recipes required. Well, none allowed, in the Texas example, but no shortage of germane material.

The specific question about Senate reform that this is all about is whether minority party Senators would be discouraged from obstruction if their filibusters had to be "live." Under the Merkley/Udall reform, remember, a talking filibuster staged by a small or large group of minority party Senators would still be able to continue indefinitely, but only as long as Senators were willing to come to the floor and talk. 

First, I've argued that there would be plenty of stuff for them to say. I hope that part of it can be treated as settled.

Second, if anything I underestimated the personal incentives for participating in one of these things. By midnight last night, liberals across the nation had practically nominated Wendy Davis for governor of Texas. Granted, that's not quite as useful as actually getting a nomination from Texas Democrats, but it's not nothing. Similarly, everyone seems to agree that Paul did himself quite a bit of good from his filibuster. 

Third, another thing seems to kick in on these -- the underdog bias of the Capra-loving press. Granted, both of these talking filibusters were about topics in which the minority position was probably shared by many reporters, but I'm fairly confident that the underdog bias would kick in no matter what the topic. 

Fourth, that's all about the "neutral" press. Within the partisan press, it's not only certain that the coverage would be favorable, but highly likely that it would make a great story.

Fifth, the nature of these things seems to be that once it kicks in, the minority party (or, in the Paul case, those with the minority opinion) really starts to mobilize in response. The minority, after all, has action on its side; its their Senators who are speaking. 

I just don't see it being a problem to find enough minority party Senators to speak. Sure, they have other demands on their time, but I suspect a handful would be eager to take the bulk of the time, and others would be willing to pitch in. In particular, if we're talking about trying to defeat a filibuster that way, we're talking about a bill or nomination which could not get cloture -- meaning that the minority would have more than 40 Senators to choose from.

Moreover: if Merkley/Udall was adopted by Democrats, I continue to believe that there would be strong incentives for the minority party to immediately prove that they could sustain a talking filibuster indefinitely, regardless of the underlying topic. They might wait a bit to choose something reasonably appealing, but maybe not; the topic of the filibuster, regardless of the underlying measure, would be the arrogance and the unfair and rule-breaking behavior of the Democratic majority. 

The bottom line here is that as much as these extended talking filibusters are -- and I agree they are -- they aren't a very good way of deciding things in a legislative chamber. Talking filibusters are fine as one-off publicity-attracting stunts that last a few hours but otherwise have no effects; I'm all for the Rand Paul type of filibuster. But as a real decision mechanism, it's just a lousy way of doing things. It's exceptionally difficult to calibrate the rules in order to get the desired degree of difficulty to keep one going (at least if you want something other than either easy or impossible to sustain it indefinitely). And, at the end of the day, it really makes no sense at all to use physical feats of strength and endurance as some sort of trump card. The right way to make decisions is, well, by voting. Maybe not necessarily by simple majority vote or party-determined party vote, but by vote, one way or another. 

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Valerie Bertinelli, 53. Yes, of course I watch her retread show on TVLand, although I watch it the old fashioned way -- when I happen to see it when I'm flipping around the dial. If you haven't seen it...it's exactly what it should be, no better but no worse. Excellent idea, though.

Some good stuff:

1. Jay Ulfelder's guide for social scientists on twitter.

2. Dan Amira on the (un)reliability of Rand Paul on civil liberties issues.

3. 2016 (Republican) rules update, from Josh Putnam.

4. More on studies of the health care cost slow-down, from Sarah Kliff.

5. Nice Sean Trende item on the gun bill and midterms.

6. And Dan Larison on George W. Bush's foreign policy.

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to David Letterman, 66. Our TV friend.

Good stuff:

1. All the Hastert Rule violations, from Derek Willis.

2. Kevin Drum reads GOP (or at least Chuck Grassley) reserve court-packing as an indication that they aren't going to confirm anyone to the DC Circuit court for the remainder of Barack Obama's presidency, at least not after the current nominee. I'm not sure; it could just be Grassley, who has been following a Hatch re-election strategy,  looking to score points.

3. Jamelle Bouie, very good on Rand Paul at Howard.

4. The next step on health care? Sarah Kliff on the cost-cutting approaches wonks would like to see in the future.

5. Norm Ornstein on what's wrong with Congress.

6. And popularizing political science, from Joshua Tucker.

Rand Paul and the Merkely Plan

No, Rand Paul's filibuster wasn't, as Josh Marshall thinks, "the best argument of the need for reform" -- and particularly, for Jeff Merkley's idea that current successful filibusters (that is, those where cloture should not be invoked) should become talking filibusters.

Suppose, for example, that the Merkley plan went into effect this week. And suppose Democrats nonetheless brought up the Halligan nomination. The cloture vote happens, and fails, since every Republican but one opposes cloture. Under the new rules, that triggers a talking filibuster.

What happens next? Republicans must decide whether they want to do it or not. What does yesterday's events tell us? It's a terrific opportunity...for the Republicans! The press absolutely loves talking filibusters! Sure, they might not if it became a regular thing (as Kevin Drum points out in an excellent post), but for now it is. Republicans would be prepared for this; they would organize it carefully, tag-team style, as both current Senate rules and Merkley allow for.

As for content...I'm far too modest to give myself a catch of the day, but I've been saying for years that a modern talking filibuster would be fueled by the endless resources of the internet. Which Rand Paul proved to be true by reading, not the phone book, but blog posts and articles. Republicans filibustering against Halligan would have plenty of stuff to choose from in the conservative blogosphere, and you can be certain that with the incentive available that their material could be read on the Senate floor, both professional and amateur bloggers would be happy to crank out more and more about what's wrong with Halligan, and why filibusters are good things, and how important the DC Circuit is and how much Halligan could destroy America if she was on that panel, and on and on and on.

The incentives for doing it are considerable; if they don't back up their cloture votes with the newfangled talking filibuster, then the 60 vote Senate is dead and they lose a ton of influence. And after all this specific nomination is, in fact, substantively important.

So if Merkley is in effect, the Halligan nomination is still on the floor and the Senate never even gets to the Brennan nomination yesterday.

Or, most likely, today. Or tomorrow.

Gaming these things out is sometimes tricky, but it's pretty easy to see what happens next in some ways. Liberal newspaper editorial boards -- the ones that already had editorialized for Halligan anyway -- deplore the continuing filibuster. But the conservative media absolutely love it. They pick out conservative heroes of the filibuster -- indeed, the sudden possibility of become the darling of Fox News and the rest of it makes scheduling the filibuster relatively easy for Senate Republican leadership (if Harry Reid keeps the Senate in all night, it's easy to imagine volunteers eager to do a four or five hour graveyard shift, knowing that they'll certainly get plenty of conservative media coverage and with a good chance they'll even get positive coverage in the neutral press).

Now, I realize there are differences of opinion about how long this can go on. But if the Republicans can keep it up through the weekend...well, they still haven't done Brennan. They haven't done a CR, either, and by Monday the calendar is getting tight to pass something and reconcile it with the House and then pass that, too -- especially since if they do try to pass a Democratic version it is subject to a filibuster, and that filibuster could go on for days. They're not getting anything else done, either: no other nominations, no legislation, nothing. They still have (presumably) two days of the Brennan nomination to get through.

To be sure: at some point, whether it's Day 3 or Day 6 or Day 10, it may become more difficult for the GOP leadership to schedule Senators. The celebrity for doing the graveyard shift, if Reid does keep them in overnight, is going to be a lot more appealing to the first Senator to do it than the fifth.

But the rewards are terrific, as well. An extended talking filibuster on one judicial nomination is really a filibuster of every single judicial nomination; after all, all that time spent talking about Halligan is time that the Democrats aren't bringing up any other judges. Nor are they bringing up executive branch nominations. Or immigration, or gun legislation, or minimum wage.

There are 45 Republican Senators, 44 of whom appear to have opposed cloture on Halligan. Even if Harry Reid keeps the Senate going 24 hours a day, that's basically half an hour a day per Senator, or a bit under four hours a week. Is that really all that much of a burden? Granted, if the positive need for 41 is part of the reform they would have to stay in town to make sure they have 41 every time a new cloture vote is called, so they lose weekends home in the district even if they're not scheduled to speak. But again: the incentives to hang in there are just very, very, strong.

And meanwhile, the White House is increasingly upset if Brennan and other cabinet picks aren't being confirmed. The deadline on the CR is approaching. Bills are ready to come to the floor. The majority actually wants to get things done! But instead, they're forcing Republicans to continue talking if they want to block one nomination...but as a bonus, they also get to block absolutely everything else on the Democrats' agenda.

I really just don't see how that's a win for the majority.

Rand Paul Talks

So we're some number of hours into Rand Paul's talking filibuster of the nomination of John Brennan for Director of the CIA. Paul has been joined by a few Republicans and by one Democrat, Ron Wyden. Everyone agrees that 60 or more Senators support the nomination, so at this point it's just a case of how long Paul wants to keep it going; presumably it ends when he's done, although it is possible that the others could tag-team and keep it going indefinitely and thus force a cloture petition to end it.

As usual, these things draw a lot of attention from the political press, which these days means that it sort of eats up twitter (well, at least for those who have politics-centered twitter feeds). It also is drawing a lot of attention from filibuster reformers, who (as Ezra Klein does here) are praising it as the good kind of filibuster. Josh Marshall says "This is a great example of why the talking filibuster is exactly what we need."

I'll say a few things about that. One is that we don't actually know right now how long this will go on. If it continues for a week (assuming no cloture petition), would these filibuster opponents still love the talking filibuster? What if Paul and his group did this once a week? Is it still a good thing?

What's more, as far as this being in the true spirit of filibusters as opposed to normal "silent" modern filibusters: I disagree. The spirit of a filibuster is to attempt to defeat something the majority wants by delay or the equivalent of delay. One might say that it's in the best spirit of the Senate for individual or small groups of Senators to use their rights under Senate rules to call attention to something, but that's not necessarily by filibuster.

Indeed: it's fairly likely that Paul's filibuster drew attention today away from far more substantive action on the same issues: Attorney General Holder's grilling from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Granted, it's hard to tell; perhaps Paul is raising the issue to a generally higher profile (and, at least at the NYT home page, the attention is on Holder, not Paul).

But it's worth remembering that "Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work." Good reporters will keep that in mind and assess how "Congress at work" is doing -- and take it seriously -- rather than being overly impressed at how well they do the public exhibition portion of it.

The last thing is that today's live filibuster shows again just how easy it is to hold the Senate floor for an extended period. I continue to believe that Jeff Merkley's talking filibuster suggestion is not only misguided (because, in part, it puts more emphasis on that public exhibition thing) but just wouldn't work. Essentially, Paul is willing to do this because he believes in the cause and because it plays well with his constituency. A talking filibuster showdown under Merkley would mean that every single Senator in the minority party would be fighting, the very first time they did this, for their future leverage in the Senate -- and surely that would play extremely well with the constituency they care most about.

Marshall believes that the current types of filibusters are invisible and therefore cost-free for the minority party in terms of public opinion, but that "A minority that is doing constant filibusters of everything — and by that I mean, visible filibusters — is going to take a public hit pretty quickly." I just don't see that. Sure, if you have a twitter feed like mine and if you watch C-SPAN, and if you support the majority party, then you'll be annoyed by a talking filibuster and angry with the minority party. But if you support the minority party you'll cheer them on. And most people will barely know it's going on, and at best will just be reminded of how much they hate Congress. Which, technically, is good for the party with fewer incumbents -- the ones who are doing the filibustering. Not to mention that anyone who does turn on C-SPAN today is getting a steady dose of Rand Paul's views, not the majority party's views. I see no reason at all to expect a public hit from talking filibusters.

All that said: I have nothing at all against what Rand Paul is doing today, and I think it's fine that Senate rules allow it. But don't be fooled into thinking that this is the Senate at its best; the Senate at it's best is doing real legislating and real oversight, not making speeches. And to the extent that Paul is reinforcing the romantic notion that talking filibusters are some sort of ideal, it's hurting the prospects for solid, effective Senate reform. Which remains, alas, badly needed.

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Gavin McLeod, 82.

Some good stuff:

1. Kevin Drum on outrages.

2. Worth reading: Ross Douthat on Rand Paul's foreign policy.

3. Joe White on sequestration and how we got here.

4. And Brad DeLong on Amity Shlaes and Calvin Coolidge. It's a good thing he stopped reading before he got to the point where she blames FDR for the Depression. Not for prolonging it. Just for the Depression.

Rand Paul Might Shut Down the Government

This story from The Hill about Rand Paul's threatened filibuster of the FY 2011 spending deal somehow misses one of the biggest parts of the story: if Paul wants to, he almost certainly could force a short-term government shutdown.

Remember, the Senate can move very quickly when it collectively wants to, but a single Senator can force a delay. A single-Senator filibuster is generally defeated by attrition (that is, waiting him or her out). Once multiple Senators are involved, however, the only way to defeat the filibuster is through the cloture process -- which not only requires 60 votes but also takes a few days, and possibly a week or more if those Senators really want to maximize delay. The Hill story doesn't say anything about other Senators willing to join Paul, although he does say that "we" haven't decided about the filibuster strategy yet; it's unclear whether this means "myself and other Senators," "myself and other Tea Parties," "myself and my other selves," or what. Of course, it's also Paul would insist on a cloture vote but agree to expedite it or to allow yet another bridge CR to pass in order to prevent a government shutdown in the interim. The point, however, is one Senator, and certainly any small group of Senators, could force a short shutdown if they want to.

Anyway, I covered some of this last week before the deal (see items 4 through 6), but it's worth a reminder -- the usual sequence is a leadership agreement followed by ratification on the House and Senate floors, but every once in a while something screwy happens. As we learn more details of exactly what was agreed to, it's still very possible that this thing could collapse completely, or at least cause a little excitement before it's signed into law.

Quality

One of the more useful findings from elections research, in this case from Gary Jacobson, is that "quality" challengers, politically skilled and ambitious candidates, are far more likely to defeat House incumbents than are other challengers.  In fact, it's such a big deal that it is possible to get a large partisan effect in fall elections purely from the choices of potential candidates months in advance.  That is, if Republicans think it's going to be a great year for them, and all the best potential GOP candidates choose to run while the opposite dynamic works on the Democratic side, one can show that the results will be a Republican landslide even if there is no other, external reason for Republicans to do well -- that is, even if voters have no intention to reward Republicans or punish Democrats. 

Now, that raises the question of what constitutes a "quality" candidate.  Well, that, and Rand Paul's Big Adventure.  While we know, from Jacobson's (and other) research, that candidates who have previously won elective office do quite a bit better than those who don't, it's not clear what differentiates good from bad candidates.  Is it something about the person -- does one learn how to be a pol from previous (especially successful) efforts?  Perhaps previously successful pols are better at giving speeches, allocating resources, and convincing people to give money; perhaps previously successful pols have built strong ties to district elites.   Or is it about the system, and external to the candidate?  Regardless of whether or not she knows what she's doing, the previously successful candidate probably starts with higher name recognition than a newcomer.  She may raise more money not because she's good at it, but because people eager to support candidates with a good chance of winning will just assume that, say, a state senator has a better chance than a shoe salesman, and make choices accordingly.  For those who want to solve that question, however, the problem is that it's hard to isolate the various things in the real world.  Candidates don't conveniently come with single skills present (or missing) so that we can tease out which traits matter.

All of which brings me to Rand Paul, who surely is setting some sort of record for ugliest first week as a Senate nominee.  Not that he's necessarily going to lose (or that he'll be hurt in the polls right away), but just in terms of the number and the visibility of awkward moments.  He clearly has some solid candidate skills, but knowing how to talk about potentially unpopular positions in an interview doesn't seem to be one of them, at least so far.  I'm afraid that Steve Benen is entirely correct; it sounds pretty lame for national Republicans to be making excuses for him based on his inexperience, although not nearly as lame as Paul's complaint that he's not getting a honeymoon (he's used that one at least twice so far.  Yikes!  Hey, Rand Paul: Honeymoons come after the wedding, not after the engagement!). 

Of course, this is a case of living by the sword and all that.  I suspect that there are plenty of candidates for the U.S. Senate who would do badly if exposed to the national press in gotcha mode; Paul has the disadvantage of holding issue positions out of the mainstream, but then again he probably has more facts at his disposal than does the average Senate candidate  Granted, I haven't listened to him enough to be able to speculate how many of his facts are actually true -- could be all of them, could be only a portion -- but unless it gets to Reagan levels it's usually not a problem to confidently state facts that turn out not to be true.  Unless, of course, the facts are about oneself...that gets tricky.  But holding oddball positions, and having a history of holding oddball positions, is definitely a problem for a candidate, especially one that is going to receive more than his share of news coverage.   Rand Paul wouldn't be a nominee for Senate without the things that have brought him all the attention this week; we'll see now how he handles it over the next several months.