There are very few things in life that I truly hate. Waking up early on the weekends, mushrooms, and whoever gave Dr. Phil a television show are a few atrocities I can never forgive. But in general, I'm a pretty open-minded person. Putting nuts in chocolate-chip cookies is a crime to humanity, but I will still eat the cookie if it's offered to me because, hey, I'm just that caring and tolerant. But I just don't get this whole filibuster argument that seems to have politicians' panties in a bunch. Why would they want to get rid of the filibuster? It's the coolest political weapon we've got. Well, aside from smear campaigns and mob-backed assassinations. Those are pretty fun too.
Let's have a quick and straightforward run-through of the facts. The Democrats have approved over 200 of President Bush's judicial nominees, but they have filibustered 10 to prohibit a Senate vote. The Senate's rules currently allow filibusters, so the Democrats haven't done anything illegal. The Republicans say this is unjust and wrong, although they once used Senate rules to bar 60 of Bill Clinton's judicial nominees. Clinton's guys didn't even receive a hearing before the Judiciary committee, much less a vote on the Senate floor. Although, to be fair, the Republicans didn't use filibusters.
The Democrats say the Republicans are being big bullies. They are mean and scary and they're trying to manipulate the rules to get their way. But in 1995, Democratic Senators Harkin and Lieberman proposed the same rule change that Senate Republicans are now considering to prevent Republicans from using the Senate rules to block an up or down vote on such nominations. Back then, they were the bullies. Back then, the Republicans were the victims.
So really, both sides are being stupid. The Republicans don't really believe that blocking judicial nominees is egregious and wrong, and the Democrats don't have some sacred relationship with the filibuster. They're all just big, fat liars. And I hate liars. Almost as much as I hate mushrooms.
I remember when I was a little girl, sitting in my fifth-grade history class, learning about checks and balances. "The United States Congress is the legislative branch of our government," the teacher would say, and suddenly my eyelids would feel very heavy. She would outline the differences between the House and the Senate, what they do and how they work, while I drew pictures of horses and rainbows in my notebook.
But when she mentioned the filibusters, when she told stories of stuffy politicians talking for hours, sometimes even days on end, just because they were violently opposed to Treaty of Versailles or anti-lynching laws, I paid attention again. Filibusters provide the best political stories I've heard in a long time. Did you know that Strom Thurmond once visited a steam room before a filibuster so he could drink water without having to pee? Thurmond was a veteran filibusterer. In 1957, he broke the record for longest filibuster when he spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Oh yeah, by the way, Thurmond didn't really like civil rights. Whoops.
Let's face it. Politicians are really boring. George W. Bush sometimes makes up funny new words for us to say, but other than that, he always acts pretty much the same. Blue suit, red tie, culture of life, blah blah blah. Senator John Kerry is even worse. But he supports the filibusters right now, probably because they're his last hope for a chance to have a personality.
When they're really getting into the filibustering spirit, politicians wheel cots into the Senate and have a sleepover. I have no proof, but I'm pretty sure they paint each other's toes and give each other quizzes out of Seventeen magazine too. Until he retired in 1932, Louisiana Senator Huey Long frequently filibustered policies he considered unfair to the poor, often reading recipes for oyster dishes for up to 15 hours. And Andy Kaufman, who was a comedian, not a politician, once read the entire Great Gatsby to an audience who pissed him off. That's right, my fellow Americans. The filibuster is not only for politicians. You too can use it in your daily life!
Children, are your parents not giving you the respect you think you deserve? Are they trying to serve you Brussels sprouts for dinner again? Why not filibuster their poor nutrition decision? Lecture them on the merits of Nintendo versus X-Box, describing every Final Fantasy game in minute detail until they finally give in and let you eat some macaroni and cheese.
Adults can use filibusters too. If a store declines your credit card, just tell them you disagree with their decision to accept only valid forms of payment. Regale them with tales from your childhood—be sure to include embarrassing stories about your awkward adolescent years, like the time you kissed your seventh-grade sweetheart and your braces locked together and you had to go to the emergency room—until they give up and let you have the items for free.
Filibustering is a time-honored tradition, guarded closely by lying politicians and people who manufacture and sell cots. We can't get rid of a process so fundamental to our legislative system? If we don't have filibusters, what's left? Sure there are other checks and balances, but do they involve oyster recipes? How about naptime on cots? If you take away the Senate's right to nap on cots, you take away their freedom.
Did that even make any sense? I don't know, I've run out of things to say. But if you don't agree with me, I'll just keep writing. Let's see here—did you know that I'm allergic to cats? If you like, I can give you a detailed description of how my face puffs up and my eyes swell shut when I have an allergic reaction. Oh, so you agree with me now? You like filibusters? Well, good. I'm glad that's settled. But let me ask you this: how do you feel about mushrooms?
