The rules are different now...

After Strom Thurmond's tirade against civil rights and a few of his friends reading phone books in attempts to stall litigation, They changed the rules so that there is no such thing as a prolonged filibuster... if the cloture vote comes up, and it fails, that's it... move onto next business.

There can be no more "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" type moments... although, I wish there would be.

Thanks,

Mike

There are two reasons the Senate Republicans didn't filibuster last time:

1) It does them no good to look like they are the ones holding up war funding; and

2) They, and not Bush, are the ones who have to suffer the electoral consequences from this war, and so they're incredibly uninclined to do his dirty work for him.

Why would the Senate Republicans expend the political capital for a filibuster just to save Bush the effort of vetoing?  I don't see the logic.

Do Democrats still have the 51 votes to win on something close to the House bill? Nelson seems to be making noise against this kind of effort -- has any other Democrat spoken up about this? What about Gordon Smith and Hagel?

they may have to filibuster because Bush will be forced to sign this one into law, he is only blustering on a veto.

Second, the Democrats should pass whatever in the Senate and come out of Conference with the House version (similar to the kind of shenanigans pulled by the Republicans) and force the Senate to pass no bill at all.

If you were running for reelection to the Senate in 2008 as a Republican, would you want to filibuster anything that the Democratic caucus supported?  Get serious.  

Your best hope is to keep you mouth shut and pray to your supreme being that the D's do you the honor of allowing you to look reasonable many, many times between now and then.

I thought there was a Senate rule against filibuster of any appropriation bill.  Is a supplemental different?

Let's home right in on the graf that Jonathan mentions:

Reid faces two legislative hurdles. First, he must gain Republican support for a placeholder bill, so he can start negotiations with the House. Then he will have to strike a final agreement with Pelosi that can attract enough Senate GOP support to avert a filibuster.

The usual scheme of things, of course, is that both houses have a go at producing texts that satisfy them severally; and then they conference and compromise (or not).

So reference to filibuster after House-Senate negotiations would usually be to a filibuster of the conference report.

But - I'm not clear what the Post guy means.

The GOP's best bet is to ensure that the Senate bill fails on a simple majority.

Now, I was completely wrong in my guess (it wasn't anything more) on the tally on the McGovern bill HR 2237 yesterday. And guesswork on whip counts is all I can manage!

But the downbeat statements we've been getting from Uncle Harry have led me to assume that there is not a simple majority for a short leash bill in the Senate.

If that turns out to be true, it's up to McConnell to ensure that no filibuster is necessary to kill the bill. (He obviously doesn't want to back weaker Dem brethren into a corner, but leave them exposed in the wide blue yonder with their anxieties!)

So - suppose there's a filibuster. As folk upthread having pointed out, the old-style Mr Smith filibuster is dead: it's still in the rules, and if Reid wants it to happen, he can.

So there must be a reason why it doesn't happen. And that reason is that there is an immense pile of stuff that Reid has to get through - enormous bills that will eat floor time like a swarm of locusts - and the CW that is that the value to the majority party of the footage of filibusters in action is smaller than the value of cracking on with viable bills.

The political reason from someone upthread that why should GOP senators give Bush cover I mostly buy.

But McConnell needs to keep something like control of his guys; in particular, he needs to keep responsibility for broad strategy; and having those guys degenerate into bands of francs-tireurs taking potshots at Bush is something he'd want to avoid.

This one will take a lot of thought to unravel.

If the Senate Republicans are stupid enough to do that, I will give money to Veterans Against the War.

That filibuster would disintegrate rapidly once individual Senators are targeted for protest.  It would be very difficult for Mich McConnell to hold on to forty one votes.  He himself would be subject to damage in Kentucky.

Hummm, republicans filibustering a bill that would provide funds for our troops in the midst of combat, and yet they still claim to "support our troops?". If I was Harry Reid, I'd say "bring it on". And if I was a republican senator up for re-election in 2008, I'd slap McConnell in the face if he calls for a filibuster; but then again, i'm using logic and reason here, which clearly have no place in republican party politics.

let 'em.

And to think how recently it was that the Republicans were threatening to do away with filibusters all together.  Oh, if this happens, the irony...