I wish I'd thought of this months ago.  There's one question that we really need to ask all of the leading Democratic Presidential contenders:

"In light of the GOP's willingness to filibuster everything that moves, what's your next move when 41 GOP Senators block cloture on your entire legislative agenda?"

I think we'd learn a lot from the answers, if we had the opportunity to ask the question.  It would be good to see who talks about forcing actual filibusters and who doesn't.

During the 2006 election cycle, which resulted in Democrats winning back both the House and the Senate, one of the most effective initiatives to spur Democratic fundraising was the Use It or Lose It campaign.  The campaign urged "safe" House Democrats to contribute significant sums to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to put towards bolstering the efforts of Democrats in more competitive races.  The end result, as mentioned, was a solid, new Democratic House majority, to which the Use It or Lose It effort no doubt played a helpful role.  I'm sure it also played a very helpful role in encouraging Democratic donors to contribute all they could, seeing as many Democratic legislators were leading by example.

Republicans, particularly in the Senate, were much stingier when it came to contributing to their campaign committees.  One of my favorite factoids from the '06 cycle was the case of then-Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Dick Shelby:

Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) gave $15,000 to the NRSC, leaving $11.5 million in his account even though he will not face reelection until 2010.

Dick Shelby's actions should be regarded as a cautionary tale.  Back in 2004, Shelby won 68% of the vote against token opposition, spending all of $2.6 million.  Keep in mind that he raised $9.3 million during the cycle, hence his current hefty warchest.  Though Shelby will be 76 on Election Day 2010, we can assume that, due to his stinginess, he is at least planning on keeping his options open for a re-election bid, if he is not already committed to one.  So he will need money.  But, given his ability to raise funds and the relative safety of his red-state seat, he most certainly could have afforded to cough up more than $15,000, which is the absolute minimum amount Senators are traditionally expected to contribute to their respective Party's campaign committees.

Would Shelby chipping in, say, a cool $1 million instead of the mere $15,000 have made a difference in 2006?  Given that the Senate race in Virginia, in which Democrat Jim Webb bested Republican incumbent George Allen, was decided by only 7,231 votes out of over 2.3 million votes cast, and given that the Senate race in Montana, in which Democrat Jon Tester beat Republian incumbent Conrad Burns, was decided by an even closer 2,847 votes out of over 400,000 votes cast, an extra million dollars to spend by the National Republican Senatorial Committee between Virginia and Montana could have definitely made the difference.  It is perfectly rational to suggest that, had Shelby contributed $1 million (that he wouldn't miss anyway) to the NRSC instead of just $15,000, Republicans may have very well held on to both the Virginia and Montana Senate seats and, however slimly, maintained the Senate majority.  And Dick Shelby would still be a Committee Chairman, with a hefty campaign bankroll of $10.5 instead of $11.5 million.

(Much more below the fold.)

For the better part of the past three decades the Republican Party has promoted itself as the party of tax cuts. What happens, though, when Republicans filibuster legislation that would ensure that as many as 50 million Americans don't get caught in the net of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was originally designed to ensure that the wealthiest among us weren't able to get out of paying federal income taxes? That might not be the way the media is framing this story -- or even how the Democrats are, for that matter -- but that question comes at the heart of the debate over how to deal with the AMT this session of Congress. Edmund L. Andrews reports.

Senate Democrats face an agonizing choice in the days ahead: find a way to raise at least $50 billion in new taxes, or undermine their most important rule for enforcing budget discipline.

With the end of the year fast approaching, Congress has to pass another one-year fix to prevent the alternative minimum tax -- a tax originally created to make sure millionaires paid income taxes -- from engulfing about 23 million households with incomes as low as $50,000.

Democrats and Republicans alike want to prevent that increase, just as they have in the past, but the one-year cost has ballooned and Democratic "pay as you go" rules now require Congress to make up for the lost revenue.

On Thursday, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a $76 billion bill that would freeze the alternative minimum tax, extend several other tax breaks and pay for that mainly by eliminating a major tax break for people who run private equity funds and scores of other investment partnerships.

But Senate Democrats are less than enthusiastic about that tax increase, and they worry that they cannot muster the 60-vote majority they will need to pass any measure that would comply with the pay-as-you-go rule. [empphasis added]

First of all, shame on Andrews for calling Charlie Rangel's AMT legislation a "tax increase." It is not a tax increase. Not whatsoever. The measure being forwarded in the House by Ways and Means chairman Rangel is a tax reform, one intended to be revenue neutral. While some will see their tax liabilities go up, others -- in fact many others -- will see their tax liabilities go down. In the aggregate, there will be no increase in the amount of taxes being paid by the American people. Ronald Reagan, along with the Democratic House and the Republican Senate, passed tax reform legislation in 1986 that cut taxes for some and raised taxes for other. That measure was not deemed a "tax increase" -- and neither should Rangel's bill.

Leaving aside that shoddy word usage by Andrews, if the Democrats want to have any success on this issue, they're going to have to begin talking about it in a cogent way. This means calling out the Republicans for threatening to filibuster legislation that would ensure that 23 million households don't all of the sudden find themselves subject to a tax initially aimed at the extremely conniving wealthy. That's exactly what Republicans are doing -- threatening to filibuster a reasonable tax reform bill that would save billions for millions of Americans because of their extremist ideology, on the basis of which they are unwilling to pay for pay for today through offsets rather than tomorrow through borrowing.

This is how this issue should be framed. Andrews says it, though not emphatically: "Republicans [are] insisting on 60 votes to limit debate," which is another way of saying they are filibustering the legislation. Now I'm under no delusion that this is necessarily the way this issue is going to play out. But if the Democrats want to win, they're going to have to play hardball -- and in this case that means beating the Republicans at their own game.

Dear Friends and Patriots

Since you are receiving this email, you may very well be aware of the latest developments with regards to domestic spying. The federal government wants to take away the power of the courts to determine if AT&T and other Telecoms broke the law, instead seizing the power to overide the courts. It is bad enough the congress has given those in the government amnesty, it now wants to give amnesty to companies that have good enough lawyers to have known what they were doing was breaking the law. These cases important because they would determine for sure if the law was broken (and so far AT&T is losing).

At the July 17, 2007 rally against the war, these veterans, mothers and sisters are talking about Republicans and the War but I feel the same about our Blue Dogs and this weekend's FISA vote. These speakers talk about how they can't understand why Republicans don't see that their votes do not support our troops. But can't we now say the same thing about our Representatives who voted to support the President's insane domestic spying agenda?

The first speaker, John, a veteran, had spent the day on Capitol Hill. He talked to Republicans and their staffers. John says: "They agree with us. For some strange reason, they won't vote right." Yeah, Heath Shuler and friends, what's your reason to give Alberto Gonzales more secret powers?

Retired Lt. Colonel Andrew Horne said: "They were saying all the things you want to hear . . . They took the same oath we did. It doesn't say anything about fealty to George Bush." So, Blue Dogs, why did you support his late-night arm-twisting expansion of secret powers?

Here's video from the rally/vigil that took place across from the Capitol earlier tonight. Think Progress has more.

Read Sen. Reid's and Rep. Pelosi's full comments over the flip.

As for the filibuster, it's still going strong. Watch it HERE.

I managed to catch Sen. Lieberman speaking on the floor earlier and threw up a little in my mouth. I have to say Sens. Landrieu and Snowe did impress me. As did Sen. Feinstein. These moderates really stepped up, unlike Sens. Alexander and Collins who just continued to mindlessly praise bi-partisanship, as though a. Levin-Reed isn't bi-partisan and b. Bush, or McConnell for that matter, cares. It doesn't matter if it's partisan or bi-partisan or post-partisan, Bush and McConnell will obstruct it. Collins had the nerve to lift up the Iraq Study Group report as an example of what the Senate should be voting on but as Sen. Mikulski said earlier in the day, Democrats called for those recommendations to be adopted 7 months ago and as Sen. Landrieu said, Bush would just veto it anyway. It's too little too late, Sen. Collins, clean out your desk and make way for Sen. Allen. You're done.

The Senate is currently debating the Levin/Reed amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. Watch history in the making live HERE.

Harry Reid called the Republicans' bluff and demanded that, if they really are going to filibuster the amendment, they ought to do it up right by engaging in an old school all night debate, cots and all. As the AP puts it:

Senate Democrats refused to flinch Tuesday as the chamber moved toward a rare, all-night session of debate on legislation to bring troops home this fall.

They called for sleeping cots to be rolled into a room off the Senate floor and told members to prepare for repeated votes throughout the evening. Senators even left open the possibility of dispatching the sergeant at arms to summon colleagues from their homes to the floor if lawmakers ignored the debate.

The Levin/Reed amendment, much like the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act that passed the House last week, would:

order troops to start leaving in 120 days and complete the pullout by April 30, 2008. Under the bill, an unspecified number of troops could remain behind to fight terrorists, protect U.S. assets and train Iraqi security forces.

So far, the amendment is assured of the support of Republican Senators Olympia Snowe, Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith in addition to the 49 Democrats in the Senate (not including Johnson who is still recovering and Lieberman who's a wanker and not a Democrat.) As for the WINOs (Waverers In Name Only) I expect none of them to switch over (for example I just heard Sen. Warner announce he will be voting against the amendment.)

Regardless, I expect there may be some fireworks on display tonight. If you're watching let us know what the senators are saying in the comments.

Update [2007-7-17 22:10:47 by Todd Beeton]: Think Progress is liveblogging the filibuster and has some striking photos of a MoveOn vigil and rally being held across from the Capitol.

Bob Geiger has the big scoop of the day: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will force the Republicans to actually filibuster -- to speak at length rather than just vote against cloture -- a measure that would bring an end to the Iraq War. This is a move called for by former MyDDer Chris Bowers, among others, and one that I have generally thought to be a good idea (as I indicated a few months ago).

That said, I'd like to take a moment to lay out a few notes of caution -- not an argument that the Democrats should not undertake this move, because I generally believe they should, but some thoughts that should be kept in mind through this process.

During the last Congress, Senate Republicans found themselves to be frustrated by Democrats' moves to stall the judicial nominations of some extremely conservative jurists. As a result, they decided to hold a 30-hour counter filibuster, forcing Democrats to the floor overnight as they talked through the evening about the importance of radically realigning the court to favor corporations, an all-powerful executive and the religious right. By undertaking this action, Senate Republicans hoped to expose what they saw as Democratic obstructionism. Yet in the end, it was the Republicans who emerged with egg on their faces, seemingly wasting taxpayer dollars and legislators' time in a clearly futile effort.

I do not believe that there is a direct parallel here. For one, the Democrats are on much stronger political footing working to end the war in Iraq than the Republicans ever were during the battle over judicial nominations. The Republicans' move was a play to the base whereas the Democrats' move is one that appeals not only to Democrats but also Independents and even some Republicans fed up with the war.

Yet at the same time, just as the Republicans' dog and pony show during the last Congress did wonders to highlight the Democrats' attack that the 109th Congress was a "Do Nothing Congress", so too might an all-night talk-a-thon remind voters of the fact that despite the fact that the Democrats have been able to move legislation out of the House and even at times out of the Senate that a good deal of of the top priorities of Congressional leadership have not been signed into law.

I do not believe that this is something that will necessarily happen. But it is worth bearing in mind as the Senate Democrats move forward with this procedure -- particularly as we strive to shape the debate over the debate.