The filibuster has become too easily used by the minority party to block the will of the majority. This trend was begun by the Democrats, who used this method to block judicial appointments by President Bush. It was unprecedented, and it led to the current use of the filibuster by the Republicans in the Senate to block much of the Obama agenda. NEW PARAGRAPH: The bigger problem though, is that President Obama does not know how to lead in a way that will give him bipartisan support for his initiatives. His belief is that since HE won, and his side has the majority in the senate, he can ram through whatever he wants- as he did with Obamacare. It is lack of any real executive experience, and any real understanding of the political process that is causing him to fail to get his bills passed. NEW PARAGRAPH: Despite what Josh seems to think, President Bush did know how to lead, and how to cross the aisle and gin up support for his policies on both sides. For Obama, his failure to lead is a bigger problem than the filibuster.

Thanks for a balanced and thoughtful overview of the dysfunctional group process in federal government. Unfortunately too many people are too quick to personalize the problem. This is not about personal style. Sure, different people try different solutions. But the structural flaws are at the basis of constant attempts to find ways to avoid the minority imposing will on the majority. That imbalance of the teeter-totter can be seen in any number of economic and social issues.

Much of the public is vaguely aware of the obstructionism of the minority party regardless of who the minority party is at the time. Much of the public is also aware that the filibuster is a major impediment to a functioning Congress. But then much of the "voting" public acts very much like "Richmond12" turning any logical discussion into a political talking point. Which is on its face quite alright, but the problem is these talking points have nothing to do with functional government. Voters no longer look at politicians and say, "He'll get something done", no they look at politicians and say, "He's a conservative or He's a liberal". He's a moderate, a compromiser, a working legislator, can't vote for him he doesn't have principles. It is a formula built for children, sports fans and national decay.

"President Bush did know how to lead..." - that's rich. President Bush led us down an eight-year rathole of international embarrassment and economic devastation that we have yet to recover from. He and Cheney launched an unnecessary war in Iraq, turned a budget surplus into a massive deficit, and oversaw a near-depression. Romney promises more of the same failed "leadership."

The filibuster is a Senate rule, it isn't a law nor is it enshrined in the Constitution. The Senate could eliminate a filibuster with a majority vote at any time. So far the Senate has chosen not to do so. One presumes that this is because the majority party knows that it will be a minority party at times in the future and plans to use the power of the filibuster to frustrate the will of the majority party, as the Republicans are doing now.

Gee, and all this time I thought it was unprecedented how Republicans used it to block Clinton's activities, but perhaps my memory is too long.

But wouldn't they need a filibuster-proof majority to accomplish that?

can't filibuster a budget

I'm not convinced they need to do away with the filibuster, so much as just bring back the actual filibuster! Right now, the opposing side only needs to say "stop, I'm calling a filibuster" and it's the same as if they were standing in front of the senate ... except they're not. Legislation gets put on hold, but noone is having to stand up in public and say potentially embarrasing things supporting a substandard position. It used to be that the minority view could stall a vote by standing in front of the senate and talking about the topic. If these senators actually had to defend their position for hours at a time I think you'd have a lot fewer filibusters. As an added benefit, someone might even listen and engage in debate in this 'deliberative body'! Even if you entered legislative gridlock with all the talking, it certainly wouldn't be any worse than what we have now.

I see nothing wrong with a large minority in the Senate being able to temporarily delay legislation. In the past filibusters have had a positive effect in preventing hasty votes on bad bills. The problem is that nowadays the filibuster doesn't delay legislation, it prevents it. A filibuster should be limited to a relatively short time (like a few days or a week, maybe?). It should require that the participants actually take to the floor like they used to. The threat of a filibuster wouldn't be so paralyzing if everyone knew in advance that it could last only a limited amount of time.

JLErwin: The Republicans held the majority in the Senate for most of the Clinton administration, after winning control of the senate in 1994. A filibuster is a tool of the minority party. Mecn1: You are an idiot. President Bush did get support from Democrats for many of his initiatives. He even went against his own party for some things that mattered to him, like immigration reform. Obama has NEVER shown that kind of executive ability.

No, it wouldn't. The filibuster is a Senate rule and rules can be amended or suspended on a simple majority vote.

The filibuster is something any Senator can use, regardless of which party is in the minortiy. I am in error on one thing, though. Most of Republican and Democratic obstruction tactics involve the use of 'holds' to block appointments, which is just plain unconscionable. Nevertheless, the Republicans have, since 1992, become increasingly excessive in their choice to obstruct all activity by Democrats rather than actually get anything done. Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have some excellent discussions on this topic.

For the record, I don't know who mecn1 is, and I find that person to be just as blindly partisan as you are, Richmond, but I object to your resorting to name-calling.

I should not stoop to name calling. I guess my frustration peaks when a response to my point is so asinine, that it does not even address the point I made. My point was that President Bush understood the political process, and worked on both sides of the aisle to get things done. MEC1 could only reply that Bush started a war in Iraq. But you seem to have a limited understanding of how a filibuster works. Generally speaking, it is a tool used by the party in the minority, to keep debate on a bill from stopping. Cloture is the technical term. In the old days, the filibuster was used sparingly to prevent the vote from taking place. Today, it is used commonly, thanks to the Democrats decision to use the filibuster to prevent votes on judicial appointments made by President Bush.

To correct some previous comments, the most extensive use of the filibuster since WWII was by Southern Democrats to try to prevent civil rights legislation. They were essentially filibustering against their own party. That's the historic basis for the filibuster -- a minority can delay legislation. When you review filibusters in the past, you'll find they had little to do with a particular political party. That's something that has changed in recent years.

When your memory extends further back than January of 2001 we can talk about who understands cloture, holds, and bad manners.