There’s a growing level of interest in the Senate in reforming the filibuster via Tom Udall’s 51-vote constitutional option but it should come as no surprise that many Senate Democrats would rather stick with the status quo even thought that means it will be 100 percent impossible to deliver on any progressive agenda items.
The article cites Dianne Feinstein, Daniel Akaka, Russ Feingold, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, and Jay Rockefeller as definite reform skeptics. I assume, however, that this is merely the leading edge of opposition to reform. People really need to press their Senators on this, however. Several of these people say they support action to curb climate change. That can’t happen without filibuster reform. Several say they support comprehensive immigration reform. That can’t happen without filibuster reform. Several say they support a public option. That can’t happen without filibuster reform. Senators who are happy with the status quo—who think our current approach to energy and immigration and gay rights and all the rest is fine and shouldn’t be changed—should support the filibuster. But people who want you to believe that they support substantial policy reform need to explain how they envision that happening.
Previous in TP Yglesias
By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the ThinkProgress Privacy Policy and agree to the ThinkProgress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policies as applicable, which can be found here.