While the game is to tar the other side, let's all remember that the 60 vote cloture rule is voluntary and the Democrats can get rid of it any time they please.

So, if they *really* wanted to pass legislation, they could. What you wish to do is give them a pass when they are in charge.

Face it, the struggle for power now and in the future is more compelling to Democrats than any perceived need to pass their agenda.

It is and they can... but I think the story is all about bad PR; I think Harry Reid's a bit better at it than Pelosi, but really, both of them have seemed slow off the mark to spin the story of this Congress in a way that benefits them, rather than making them look terrible. I think (as Glen Greenwald suggested) many Democrats went into this Congressional term overconfident; even with the unseatings, we had a bare majority on the House and no real majority in the Senate (just Joe Lieberman... which, really, is Chuck Schumer's fault as much as anyone for not backing Ned Lamont more strongly), and it was unrealistic to expect, say, an end to the War in Iraq. Now I think they go into 2008 looking terrible, though given the fact that Congressional Republicans have virtually nothing to offer, and they sem unable to find a Presidential leadr either, we may just win again, in spite of ourselves. But if someone floated the idea of tossing Pelosi and Reid next time... I wouldn't fight it.

Gotta be steroids. Nobody is that good.

Dem leaders need some pop psychology books on victimology. If someone takes advantage of you one time, you are nice person, if he does it twice you are a bit dense, if he does it thrice you are a doormat, and if he does it all the time you are a blot on humanity and richly deserve all the abuse that you get.

i think this year will make an interesting lesson in political psychology. the traditional paradigm of see-saw politics with one side replacing the other every few terms was up-ended when the modern republican party, bolstered by a complicit MSM and an abetting Fox News, set about trying to ensure the reins of power never swung back by framing the opposition not just as wrong on issues, but as the enemy within, intent on destroying America. with that kind of mind-set, governance took second seat to political victory and we had the notorious government shutdowns of the Gingrich era. now that power has swung back, Republicans are totally incapable of accepting the change. they certainly seem to be saying of the government, "If I can't have you, NOBODY CAN!"

The GOP can get away with this kind of behavior because they have leadership. We have Harry Reid.

While the game is to tar the other side, let's all remember that the 60 vote cloture rule is voluntary and the Democrats can get rid of it any time they please.

This is, of course, completely false.

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) today called this Congress "the most incompetent I've ever seen" in his nearly 35 years in office. Because the Democrats can't overcome GOP obstructionism (he didn't say). It's hard to disagree.

Does this mean there is an "obstruction bubble"?

The Dems are ineffectual. They are failing to pass their agenda. Although, their situation is different. If they pass it and it is vetoed, its the same as failing to avert a filibuster. The Repubs did not face veto.

A couple more senate seats and dem pres will tip the scales.

On a vaguely tangential note...

How bout the fire in VP Cheney's office? ...I can imagine this coming up as future obstructionism to congressional investigations.

"Papers? what papers? You mean the ones lost in the fire?"

This is just far too handy.

All the chart emans is that the Democrats actually force the vote. Threatening fillibuster when you have the votes is sufficient.

emans = means

Actually, there most likely will be a new Senate Majority Leader in 2009, but it won't be Chris Dodd (apparently he's retiring in 2010 anyway, per wikipedia) or Harry Reid ... it'll be Hillary (if she loses the presidential race.) So I could easily see President Obama or Edwards hamstrung by the Daschlesque manueverings of Hillary as they try to get a health care plan through -- it'll make you nostalgic for the days of Harry and Louise!

Fair or not, this framing means that the 2008 Republican candidate will be running against this "ineffectual" Democratic Congress. Is it wise for Democrats to nominate someone currently serving in Congress?

are there stats for the filibuster rate in the first year of each congress?

Might be truly shocking to compare apples to apples--it wouldn't be surprising if there's a periodicity to filibustering, with it markedly lower or higher in the first year of a congress vs. the second.

Slowing down change is what being a conservative is supposed to be all about.

Ezra,

Check out today's Washington Post, lamenting the Democrats' failures this year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902643.html?hpid=topnews

Hit Control+F and type in filibuster. It is not mentioned, not even once.

Slowing down change is what being a conservative is supposed to be all about.

Nope. True conservatives are risk averse. They recognize that there are always unforeseen risks associated with changing policies, and these risks weigh heavily against change. But true conservatives are not against change simply for being averse to change; rather their default assumption is that change is to be avoided because it's highly risky.

Conservatives don't get in the way of change once it becomes clear that the risks of a particular change are low or nonexistent and the benefits are large, but they do need to be convinced with particularity on a case-by-case basis. People who are change averse, as opposed to people who generally oppose change because of risk aversion, are reactionaries, not conservatives.