Filibuster Threat? Perhaps Obama should tell GOP to “Bring it On”

Thursday January 28, 2010/MikeWeek Bulletin

New York, NY—President Obama commands the largest Democratic majority in decades, yet they have been doing the nation’s business, under the constant threat of a Republican filibuster—that would slam the breaks on everything in the Senate.

My Question for President Obama is....why not tell the GOP, to go ahead and “bring it on.”

Obama used his State of the Union to rise above partisanship and party bickering.

And, he used strong words to paint the GOP into the obstructionist corner.

“If the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well.”

Obama briefly touched on the political calculation that he believes is in the mind of his opponents… “Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.”

In my view, Obama would be well served to move this argument from words to action.

Word is that Republicans agreed there would be no shouts of “Liar” from their side of the aisle at this address. They got some short term props from some quarters for that brash display, but they know the nation is looking for solutions, not hot air.

I believe the USA could use a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 2010 refresher on what the heck a filibuster is.

Yes, I saw the Mr. Smith on the big screen years ago. I realize that Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) was the hero. And yes, his great moment was when he stood up on principal and started a filibuster, but this is 2010…the nation is in a very different, demanding, fowl and angry mood. And, we have the 24 hour news cycle.

Which member really wants to be seen on the Cable networks stopping the nation’s business in the depths of a recession, when threats of terror are morphing to acts of terror? Which senator really wants to stand up and read the minutes of the Congressional Record, or whatever other extraneous material he or she can find, to keep talking, as the rules require…to prevent a bill from coming to a vote.

I understand the political risk. Sure, one member of the GOP would get to take a few free shots at the administration and the opposition might actually enjoy the first couple hours of coverage

But, this humble reporter’s gut tells him —the nation is struggling to claw its way back…people are already very angry because they don’t see their leaders keeping their eye on the ball and getting things done.

Days and Days of round the clock coverage of the same lawmaker talking non-stop to stop the nation’s business would not have good shelf life.

I think the nation’s anger would gravitate towards the party that is perceived to be standing in the way of reasonable discourse and working towards common ground.

My hunch is that it would not be too many hours into the 24 hour news cycle, before the Grand Old Party pulled the plug on this not so grand old tactic.

What do you think?