Opinion: Why the Georgia Senate Race Matters, or Not

Jim Martin has a history of serving here in Georgia that makes fiscal conservatives quake, but Saxby’s six year Senate history is not much better. It is important to know that the motto and theme of the Georgia State GOP Convention was “Republican for a Reason.” Georgia rejected McCain in the Republican Presidential Primary; we voted for Huckabee. Yet on Nov 4th, McCain was able pull off about 70% of the Georgia vote, and Saxby couldn't get 50%? Georgians want to vote Republican, but Saxby fails to give them a reason. Let me share my experience with the Senator. Saxby didn't care what I had to say on immigration, he didn't care what I had to say about the "Gang of 10" he boastfully helped to create on the energy issue, and he didn't care what I had to say on the big bailout, I mean “rescue.” Now he wants my help to get re-elected? The worst part is that he refuses to back down and admit he voted wrong on the above 3 issues; instead he offers excuses trying to explain to us dumb voters why he was right and we are wrong. Who works for whom here, Saxby? A few days ago I started to question why a “Filibuster Proof” Senate mattered. The most common answer was that good government is dependent upon the ability to debate. This answer lead to another question. Do Senators ever change their minds or votes based upon what another Senator says on the floor during “debate?” Don’t Senators vote according to party pressure and lobbyist pressure, I mean the will of their constituents? The answer is quite simple. Debates on the floor do not truly lead to other Senators changing their votes. In order to decide how much a “filibuster proof” senate matters, we first need to understand the rules. In order to confirm judges in the Senate, it only takes a simple majority. The Senate has this. A "filibuster proof" Senate means that one party holds enough seats to vote on ending debate. What exactly does that mean? Well, let's go back to 1964. Robert "14:13" Byrd lead quite a vocal filibuster. I call him "14:13" because the man "debated" the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 hours and 13 minutes straight in a valiant effort to stop this Act. Think about that-- he spoke for over 14 straight hours! I mean, I like to talk, but, WOW! Over the past two centuries the rules of filibustering have changed. In order to filibuster, you no longer need to "debate" non-stop. Here are some quotes from Senate.gov on filibuster and cloture:

"Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators"

snip

"The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957."

Once the "debate" ends (cloture rules), the Senate is then allowed to vote. So now let's review. A Saxby win is important due to preventing a filibuster proof Senate for the Democrats. Filibuster proof means that the Senate can vote to end debate and force a vote on judges, appointments, whatever the case may be- and then only a simple majority is necessary. It is imperative that American voters ask questions. It is imperative that we seek answers instead of allowing party leaders, pundits, and talking heads to tell us why we should or should not do this or that. Too often we merely accept their advice without searching deeper. Some fall into this trap out of pure laziness and some out of fear that they will look stupid for asking more questions. I asked the questions, I have shared my experience. Now it is up to the readers and voters to make a decision. The best part of being an American Citizen is having so many opinions and so much information available to you and then having the right to make your own decision. I can respect people who make an informed decision, even if I disagree with that decision. My biggest fear is folks who stick their heads in the sand but will crawl over broken glass to “decide” based upon their emotions. With all the above facts, I am left with this thought: Does anyone truly believe that Senator Saxby "stretch" Chambliss (I call him stretch due to all that 'reaching across the aisle' he loves to do) and every other Republican Senator (this includes folks like McCain, etc) to filibuster for 2 or as long as 4 years? If so, then I have a $700 Billion "rescue plan" I would like you to fund. Just write the check and I will oversee who gets rescued. Don't worry; I will rescue all the folks on my Goldman Sachs "Christmas Card List" first! The bottom line is this; I vote Republican for a reason, and Saxby Chambliss is no reason.