Quotes of the Day

When Democrats awoke the day after the 2008 election to overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, plus control of the White House, many imagined they would be able to accomplish nearly anything they wanted. It seemed possible that Congress would finish health care reform within a year, including a strong "public option" plan. A climate bill would sail through, along with immigration reform, the pro-union Employee Free Choice Act and an end to the ban on non-closeted gays in the military.

But the reality has been very different. Health care passed, but just barely, months behind schedule and with no public option. Every other measure listed above is a nonstarter or in limbo. The Obama White House struggles to pass even minor measures designed to create jobs in the sick economy.

What happened to those Democratic hopes? They have been shattered by the Republicans' unprecedented reliance on the filibuster, a legislative maneuver that can slam the brakes on even popular legislation. The filibuster allows 41 Senators to block a bill from coming to a vote by voting against motions to end debate (which need 60 votes to pass). Since Barack Obama took office, Senate Republicans have used the tactic dozens of times, throwing the President's agenda into chaos and infuriating Democrats. In late December, an exasperated Obama told a PBS interviewer that he was tired of seeing even "routine" measures fall to GOP filibusters. "If this pattern continues, you're going to see an inability on the part of America to deal with big problems," Obama said. "We're going to have to return to some sense that governance is more important than politics inside the Senate."

Now some leading Democrats are ready to act on that frustration. They've begun pushing in earnest to change the Senate rules to end what they consider anti-democratic filibuster abuse. Republicans are already denouncing it as a political power grab. If the Democrats follow through on their plans, Washington could be in for a bloody political brawl.

The filibuster may be business as usual in Washington today, but it wasn't always. Not long ago, the tactic was a rarity, considered a measure of extreme last resort for major pieces of legislation. In the 1969-70 session of Congress, the filibuster wasn't used a single time. In 1977-78, it was used only three times. But as the Senate has grown more partisan in recent years, the filibuster has become a tool for the minority to thwart the majority at every opportunity. After Democrats lost control of the Senate in 2001, they set a record with 34 filibuster attempts. Republicans outdid them in the last session of Congress with 61 filibusters. In the current Congress, Senate Republicans are already at 53 with five months left to go.

Assuming that the Democrats retain control of the Senate, as expected, January might provide a rare window of opportunity: when the Senate reorganizes at the beginning of a new session of Congress, the rules can be changed with just a simple majority of 51 votes. If such a rule change is put into effect, the Senate would henceforth be run like the House, with bills needing only a simple majority to pass.

Such talk has circulated before, and it picked up steam after the Democrats won the House and Senate in 2006. But it has recently become far more tangible, with four different Democratic bills filed to revamp the Senate's procedures. On July 28 Democrats raised the issue at a Senate Rules Committee hearing on the subject: "We are not getting the people's business done, and ordinary Americans are losing faith in the legislative process," said Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, author of one of the bills. "The filibuster itself was meant to keep the flow of debate going, not to stop the Senate in its tracks."

Republicans reject the charges, insisting that they are using the filibuster as a much-needed check on an ambitious Democratic majority, which has sought quick votes on 2,000-page bills no one has time to read. "[Senate majority leader Harry] Reid says he wants to be bipartisan, and then he runs to the floor and files for cloture before negotiations have even begun," says a senior GOP Senate aide. "They're trying to ram legislation through — we're not here to rubber-stamp."

For now, the anti-filibuster Democrats face an uphill battle. Even within the party, there is disagreement over the controversial move. About 10 moderate and long-serving Democrats are particularly skeptical of the change. "I think as torturous as this place can be, the cloture rule and the filibuster is important to protect the rights of the minority," Senator Mark Pryor, an Arkansas Democrat, told the Hill newspaper this week. "My inclination is no."

Nevertheless, two ideas are gaining traction within the caucus that could help relieve some of the procedural bottlenecks — one of which may see action soon. Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri has proposed doing away with secret "holds," a tactic by which a Senator can anonymously block a bill or nomination for any reason they see fit. (The holds can be broken by a simple majority vote, but overcoming such objections — and even outing the Senator doing the holding — is considered a breach of decorum and is rarely done.) McCaskill has convinced 67 of her colleagues to support the change, enough for the two-thirds majority needed to pass it, and Reid has added her measure to the Senate calendar. Democrats are also discussing the possibility of restricting the ability of Republicans to filibuster a bill or amendment to twice — once to start debate and once to end it.

Some Democrats admit that changing the Senate's rules could come back to bite them should they lose control of the chamber to Republicans. "What if the tables were turned? What if they become the majority and we have to stop them?" Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois mused at Wednesday's Rules Committee hearing. "That basic fear, concern, guides us on this in terms of how far we should go." Still, Durbin is a supporter of change. "I would argue at this point that we've got to do something," he said. That some senior Democrats are willing to put themselves at the mercy of a future Republican majority tells you just how frustrated they've become with filibuster politics.

• JAY NEWTON-SMALL