May 16, 2005
MIKE MANSFIELD KILLED THE CONSTITUTION:
Marathon filibusters a thing of the past (DONNA CASSATA, May 16, 2005, Associated Press)
It was a Senate filibuster that did justice to all the celluloid versions and spirited talkathons of bygone years. New York Sen. Alfonse D'Amato chattered, crooned "South of the Border," answered questions from a visiting colleague around 3 a.m., recited names and controlled all Senate business for 15 hours, 14 minutes.The issue was parochial for the Republican just weeks before a tough re-election contest in a Democratic-leaning state - the fate of a small typewriter company in Cortland, N.Y.
The year was 1992.
George Bush's father was president. Microsoft was shipping Windows 3.1 to computer owners. Johnny Carson hosted his final "Tonight" show. And it was the last time that a senator pulled an all-nighter in the 20th century tradition of Senate filibusters.
"I really wanted to keep going ... and I could have," D'Amato said in an interview 13 years later.
Amid all the current Senate talk of rules changes, judicial nominees and partisan bickering, there is a certain reality that has been evident to historians and congressional watchers: They don't make filibusters like they used to.
A change in Senate procedure in the 1960s and, more recently, the simple threat of a filibuster have turned those marathon sessions into something of a rarity, best known in history books and Hollywood.
"The Senate doesn't really conduct those 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' filibusters," said Senate historian Donald A. Ritchie.
Since 1992, there have been multihour, round-the-clock sessions with several senators taking turns speaking, and two years ago, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., spoke for eight and a half hours on the issue that is roiling the Senate today - the right to filibuster a president's judicial nominees.
But the memorable filibusters are a thing of the past, in large part because of former Sen. Mike Mansfield, D-Mont., who after becoming majority leader in 1961 instituted a "two-track system" that would allow time for filibusters as well as work on other legislation.
An Amerika where Al D'Amato doesn't have to chatter about a pet boondoggle for three days is about one step away from totalitarianism. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 16, 2005 4:39 PM
What possibility could be more terrifying to the chattering classes than an off switch?
Posted by: Luciferous at May 16, 2005 5:28 PMInstead of letting the Democrats frame the question as they have, Republicans would have been better served to let them filibuster all they want. The leadership could have arranged that there was always a good showing of Republican senators looking alert, no scowls or derisive snickering, just a nice smile of merriment on their faces. The occasional note jotted on their legal pads is always a nice touch.
Looking good for cameras as the cable channels and CSPAN cover them 24/7 and with Fox News and conservative talk radio supplying color commentary, we'd have had a great show. The question of the president's nominees would have been quickly resolved after they saw how idiotic they looked on TV and it would have had a salutary effect on Rinos as well.
It seems clear to me that the Newsweek article was timed for maximum damage to the president's initiatives, but instead of damaging Bush, they gave a black eye to the anti-Bush, anti-war movement. It would be poetic justice after all if the 17 deaths and the worldwide furor caused by these false accusations resulted in a chagrined senate and a quick up or down vote on the nominees.
erp - How can you tell they're timing their anti-Bush articles? There's a new one every week, so they can't help but coincide with presidential initiatives from time to time.
Posted by: pj at May 16, 2005 8:05 PMCome to think about it, Al D'Amato would have made a great replacement for Joe Franklin on his long-running overnight nostalgia show on WOR in New York.
Posted by: John at May 16, 2005 11:09 PMToo bad, Harry's broken off negotiations.
Posted by: Sandy P. at May 17, 2005 12:15 AMThey should make the D's do a real filibuster. How long can Teddy Kennedy go before he has to go?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 17, 2005 1:18 AM