SO... WHY DOESN'T REID LET THEM FILIBUSTER THEIR ASSES OFF-- 'TIL THEY START DROPPING DEAD FROM HEART ATTACKS?

If you’re hoping to get an answer to the question in the post’s headline... Well, so am I.

My knowledge of filibustering comes from long-ago high school Social Studies classes, from Jimmy Stewart’s heroic stemwinder in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, and from its rare use in real life.

The always maybe-somewhat-accurate Wikipedia tells us that "filibuster" comes from a Spanish word, filibustero, literally meaning a pirate. To filibuster is to hijack a debate.

Traditionally this has been done by talking the subject to death. Opponents of a bill get up and talk, talk, talk, and talk some more, theoretically endlessly-- sometimes about the subject at hand, sometimes about anything at all, just to keep the subject from coming to a vote.

Strom Thurmond (then a Dixiecrat) set the all-time record for filibustering in 1957, when he spoke against the Civil Rights bill of that year-- continuously, all by himself, for over 24 hours. Thurmond prepared himself by going to the Senate steam room (who knew there was a Senate steam room?) for a long schvitz, dehydrating himself so he wouldn’t have to leave and take a pee. (Wikipedia quotes Newsweek as telling us "They used to call [filibustering] 'going to the diaper.'" Thurmond might not have been wearing one then... But by the time he became our first 100-year-old Senator... Let's not go there.)

During his 24-hour (and 18 minute) marathon, Thurmond managed to read, among other things, the Declaration of Independence, Washington’s Farewell Address, and the voting rights laws of every one of the (then) 48 states-- along with his own long-winded orations.

The only way to stop a filibuster is by a vote for cloture (which the British call, more sensibly, closure). The rules have changed over the years, but now it takes 60 votes to get cloture, stopping a filibuster and allowing a vote on the bill in question to take place.

This is the place where I get very, very confused.

This past Saturday, the Republicans killed the pathetic non-binding resolution that would have told Bush that the Senate "disapproves" of his current escalation. Tut, tut, such language! The resolution was killed when Democrats were unable to muster the 60 votes to get cloture, and so stop debate.

Here’s my question: WHAT debate?

Where’s that juicy filibuster? Why didn’t we get to see Republicans standing up in opposition to the overwhelming will of the people to stop this war? (Not that the toothless resolution would have done anything like that...)

Why weren’t they required to keep debate going by standing up there in front of America and revealing their despicable opinions, detested by the huge majority of voters? Why weren’t they forced to drone on, reading from the Bible, the phone book, or the collected made-up quotations of Abraham Lincoln?

Instead, it appears that there WAS no debate, just a vote to stop debate, which failed, after which there was no vote on the bill itself. Wha???

Even if the resolution was bound to fail, how sweet it would have been to see the Republicans make fools of themselves in front of the whole country and the world. (Well, not MAKE fools of themselves-- they did that long ago-- but to make it unmistakable to everybody except the brain-dead 30%.)

And, instead of a vote for cloture (of a non-existent debate), why couldn't the majority Democrats just push for a vote on the bill itself, which I’m assuming would have passed with only 51 votes? There were 54 votes for cloture-- how many votes would there have been for the actual resolution?

This situation reminds me of how jump balls are now decided in basketball games. When there’s a disputed possession, the ref whistles for a jump ball. But, everywhere except at the pro level, no actual jumping takes place anymore. Instead, the ball is just handed over to one of the teams, alternating through the game.

Is that how filibusters now work? We don’t bother with the actual filibuster, we just have a vote on whether or not to stop it? Again... Wha???

Is the filibuster now obsolete? If so, what a shame. No more Jimmy Stewart heroics, no more Strom Thurmond bullshit. No way for the Republicans to stand up and be exposed.

And the result of this charade is that we're treated to newspaper and TV news stories headlined "Senate Defeats Resolution." Well, no. It wasn’t the Senate, it was those fucking Republican Bushistas. And it wasn’t defeated, it was... Well, what WAS it, exactly?

I’m no parliamentarian (obviously!)-- but can some DWT readers who understand this surrealist kabuki drama please explain it to those of us in the reality-based world?

-A Guest Opinion From Woid