Mark Curtis Media

(Providence, Rhode Island) – One political event managed to steal most of the headlines this week. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) engaged the U.S. Senate in a thirteen-hour filibuster. I thought it might be interesting to talk about that feared, but little used, political debate tactic which has become such a part of our history:

“The Origins” – The filibuster dates back to the first Senate in 1789, when provisions for “unlimited debate” were put forth in the rules. Actually, the House of Representatives also allowed filibusters for a time, but that rule was eventually abolished. The principle was that a lawmaker should be able to argue his or her case for as long as possible. Back then, a two-thirds vote of the Senate could end a filibuster (today it’s three-fifths, or 60 votes, also known as cloture). A group of Senators or an individual can debate until doomsday if they wish, unless cloture is invoked.

“Droning on About Drones” – Senator Paul droned on for thirteen hours about whether President Obama had the authority to use drones to kill U.S. citizens on American soil. While Paul is a Tea Party Republican, he had the support of the ultraliberal group Code Pink, and even had notable liberals such as Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) making sympathetic comments about his cause. Paul, who was attempting to block John Brennan’s confirmation to be CIA Director, even had Leahy voting “no” on Brennan when the filibuster ended. Filibusters, it seems, can attract strange political bedfellows for a variety of reasons.

“Why No Changes? – In January, Democrats who have a 55-to-45 edge in the U.S. Senate were considering changes that would alter the filibuster rules drastically; but in the end they decided against the changes. Why? Well, in Washington politicians fear being the minority party. The 2014 election looms, with Democrats defending more seats in the Senate than Republicans (21-D versus 14-R). The chances of Democrats losing control of the Senate next year are very real. The filibuster has long been the lone weapon of the minority party to block legislation. Democrats don’t want to lose that leverage should they become the minority party once again, just as Republicans, in the minority now, don’t want to lose that weapon. In Washington, D.C., you always have to be looking over your shoulder.

“The Record Books” – The longest filibuster in history was by Senator Strom Thurmond (D-South Carolina), who tried to block the Civil Rights Act of 1957 by talking on the Senate floor for 24 hours and 18 minutes. By the way, Senators can talk about anything they want. Senator Huey Long (D-Louisiana) once spoke for 15 hours, reciting Shakespeare and some of his favorite recipes. Famed Senators Henry Clay (D-Kentucky) and Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) both had filibusters in excess of 14 hours. Rand Paul’s “debate” this week now ranks as the ninth longest filibuster in U.S. Senate history.

“The Weirdest” – What is it with Kentucky Senators? Both Henry Clay and Rand Paul are now in the record books, but the oddest achievement goes to Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky). The current Senate Minority Leader filibustered his own bill back in December, 2012. It was an arcane procedural move that was designed to force Democrats to vote on a debt ceiling bill. But the intricate “chess moves” McConell was trying to play out I can’t even begin to explain here. Suffice to say, it was the first, and only, “self-filibuster" of a bill in Senate history!

“The Launching Pad” – If nothing else, a filibuster will get you lots of national press. Such famous lawmakers as Henry Clay, Huey Long, Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd owe some of their national notoriety to holding court during a long Senate filibuster. Senator Rand Paul is said to be seriously considering a run for the White House in 2016, now that his filibuster is over.

“Hollywood Nights” – The weirdest part of this week’s debate was when Paul pondered whether the U.S. would have used a drone to kill actress and anti-war activist Jane Fonda in the 1960s. It reminds me that perhaps the most famous filibuster ever took place on the silver screen - and not on the Senate floor. Jimmy Stewart, as the fictional Senator Jefferson Smith, filibustered during the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (photo above). Even the real life filibusters - like Rand Paul’s this week - prove to be good political theater.

"Amazing Ops: Siege at Benghazi" - Speaking of movies, we are currently promoting development of "Amazing Ops: Siege at Benghazi," a film about the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Libya on September 11, 2012. If you would like to help, see: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/historivision/amazing-ops-siege-at-b.... Co-Producer Jeff Hix was on "The John Batchelor Show" nationwide this week. Here is a link to the podcast. Jeff's interview is about 30 minutes into the hour: http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcasts/2013/03/07/third-hour

As always, your questions, comments and observations are welcome. Just click the comment button at www.MarkCurtisMedia.com.

© 2013, Mark Curtis Media, LLC

(Providence, Rhode Island) – With all the talk about sequestration and automatic budget cuts in the news, I thought I would take you behind the scenes today for some perspective on political strategy. While most of my career has been on the outside, covering politics as a reporter, I did spend enough time on the inside of the political process to gain valuable insight into how political tacticians operate. The things I am about to share I neither endorse, nor condemn. I am simply trying to break down and reveal the behind-the-scenes strategy.

“Where’s the Urgency?”- There was no sense of panic in Washington Friday (nor was there panic on Wall Street); and that should be a big clue. Yes, the President met with Congressional leaders, but that was more “show” for the press and public. Truth be told, neither side knows which way public opinion is going to swing on this issue (because the full impact – or lack of impact from the cuts – is not really known yet). Both sides really want to wait and see, and perhaps to take credit or to affix blame weeks or months from now.

“The ‘Trickle-Down’ Effect” – Many of the spending cuts are gradual, and many are quite small. Because we are talking employee furloughs and not layoffs, the impact is more gradual and less apparent. Take defense spending, for example. Telling employees they will face 22 furlough days in the next year means an average of a nine percent pay cut. Those employees will work a lot of four-day weeks, but they will still be working, albeit with a pay cut. Now, you could have had the same net gain by simply laying off nine percent of the defense workforce indefinitely. Can you imagine the TV images with that many people standing outside the unemployment office Monday morning? It would have caused a firestorm. Instead, there are no such photo ops for the press. Believe me. People in politics strategize this way, as cynical as that may sound.

“No Fingerprints” – This may be a win-win for both parties. It isn’t as if there was a vote Thursday night in the House and Senate that set the budget cuts in motion first thing Friday morning. Instead, the automatic sequester cuts were part of a deal last year between President Obama and Congressional leaders. Lots of people who voted on this are no longer even in Congress. There is no list people can instantly pull up to affix credit or blame (although you could Google it). This is very much like the BRAC process (the Base Realignment and Closure Commissions), which made the decisions on which military bases to close in the 1980s and 90s, instead of having Congress do it. The sequester process limits the Congressional fingerprints (and, therefore, the blame). The cuts were automatic and not the result of a recent, direct vote. These kinds of legislative tricks are why incumbency is still so powerful. Accountability (i.e. blame) can be “managed.”

“The Gamble” – Republicans have wanted significant spending cuts, but with no tax increases. They got what they wanted in the short term. Democrats want to be able to force the hand of Republicans and get some of those revenue increases, but that’s more of a long-term strategy. If the economy tanks and goes back into recession in the next six months, Republicans lose and the consequences for the midterm elections could be dire. If the impact of sequester on the national economy is imperceptible, Democrats lose; and the pressure for more spending cuts will become a Congressional campaign mantra for Republicans. Right now, control of the U.S. Senate in 2014 is up for grabs. And even though President Obama will not face voters again, his legacy is on the line. He doesn’t want to leave the White House with the economy even worse than it was when he arrived. There are risks all around.

“Defending Defense” – Republicans are probably risking the most. The public perceives them as being stronger on national defense, so for them to agree to cuts across the board – including defense – seems in conflict. But what they are really cutting - through furloughs - is personnel, and on a rotating basis. They aren’t cutting missiles or battleships or VA benefits. If it works, Republicans can claim they have no "sacred cows" when it comes to spending cuts. On the downside, the ripple effect on the economy is of big concern. Some military communities are “one-horse” towns when it comes to their economies. They have the military, but no other real industry. If you cut nine percent of the military income, you’ve also cut nine percent of spending power at local restaurants, car dealerships and stores. The rolling momentum of an economic downtown could start very slowly, but could have significant critical mass a year from now. Again, it’s a calculated risk.

“At the Movies!” – Okay, enough talk on sequester! I had to watch “Argo” this weekend after it won Best Picture at the Academy Awards. It reminded me a lot of “Apollo 13,” with Hollywood taking a good swing at a real-life, gripping and dramatic event. In an era of government cynicism, I found both movies demonstrated the “can do” attitude that this nation (and its government) can actually accomplish good things in the face of adversity. So, I liked “Argo” (especially the roles played by John Goodman and Alan Arkin); but I still think “Lincoln” should have won Best Picture!

As always, share your thoughts, questions and opinions by clicking the comment button at www.MarkCurtisMedia.com.

Also, if you wish to contribute to the making of the film, "Amazing Ops: Siege at Benghazi," then click on this link: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/historivision/amazing-ops-siege-at-b...