There are two ways of looking at the talking filibuster. My way is as a form of unanimous consent.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
You know, the purpose of reconciliation is to avoid the filibuster. The filibuster is an effort to talk something to death.
When you use the word 'filibuster,' most of us in America - and I count myself among them - envision it as the ability to hold the floor on rare occasions to speak at length and make your point emphatically and even delay progress by taking hours.
We've seen filibusters to block judicial nominations, jobs bills, political transparency, ending Big Oil subsidies - you name it, there's been a filibuster.
It seems as though there are Members in this body who want to filibuster just about everything we try to do, whether it is stopping judicial nominations, the Energy bill, or this Medicare bill.
The argument most commonly made in the filibuster's favor is crudely partisan: 'Our side may be in the majority now, but someday it will be in the minority, and when that happens we'll want to block the other side's extremist agenda.'
I mean, if you go back to 1960 on major pieces of legislation, the filibuster was used about eight percent of the time.
Filibusters should require 35 senators to... make a commitment to continually debate an issue in reality, not just in theory. The number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster should be reduced to 55 from 60.
No one ever built the filibuster rule. It just kind of was created.
My way of viewing the talking filibuster was as a way of doing unanimous consent with your feet. You object by going down and talking.
My view of the filibuster is either you've got to lower vote edge or make people really filibuster if they feel that seriously about a piece of legislation.