Those of us hoping that John Fetterman would win Pennsylvania’s Senate race and defeat the oleaginous “Dr. Oz” should be very pleased with the initial steps Fetterman is taking as he prepares to assume office.
U.S. Senator-elect John Fetterman on Friday announced two key staff hires for his office on Friday, including tapping the author of a book calling for the abolishment of the arcane Senate filibuster to be his next chief of staff.
The Pennsylvania Democrat said in a statement that he has hired Adam Jentleson to oversee his D.C. office as chief of staff and that longtime party operative and labor organizer Joseph Pierce will be his state director.
A veteran of the Senate who served under former Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Jentleson also wrote the 2021 book, Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern State and the Crippling of American Democracy, which examines Senate rules that powerful interests have exploited to obstruct progressive legislation with overwhelming majority support among the American public”
Jentleson has been a strong voice for ending the filibuster, which he insists is necessary to protect American democracy. I couldn’t agree more.
Those who haven’t followed the Senate’s inner workings may not realize that the filibuster in its current iteration bears little or no resemblance to the original rule. Whatever original purpose the filibuster may have served, for many years its use was infrequent. For one thing, it required a Senator to actually make a lengthy speech on the Senate floor.. In its current form, it operates to require government by super-majority–it has become a weapon employed by extremists to hold the country hostage.
A bit of history is instructive.
The original idea of a filibuster was that so long as a senator kept talking, the bill in question couldn’t move forward. Once those opposed to the measure felt they had made their case, or at least exhausted their argument, they would leave the Senate floor and allow a vote. In 1917, when filibustering Senators threatened President Wilson’s ability to respond to a perceived military threat, the Senate adopted a mechanism called cloture, allowing a super-majority vote to end a filibuster.
In 1975, the Senate again changed the rules, making it much, much easier to filibuster.
The new rules allowed other business to be conducted during the time a filibuster is (theoretically) taking place. Senators no longer are required to take to the Senate floor and publicly argue their case. This “virtual” use has increased dramatically as partisan polarization has worsened, and it has effectively abolished the principle of majority rule. It now takes the sixty votes needed for cloture to pass any legislation.
This anti-democratic result isn’t just in direct conflict with the intent of the Founders, it has brought normal government operation to a standstill.
Meanwhile, the lack of any requirement to publicly debate the matter keeps Americans from hearing and evaluating the rationale for opposition to a measure–or even understanding why nothing is getting done.
There is really no principled argument for maintaining the filibuster in its current form. During the campaign, Fetterman repeatedly promised to support efforts to end the filibuster in the Senate, explaining that abolishing it would allow key legislation to pass on gun control, labor protections, abortion rights, and voting access.
Jettleman has also pushed for Democrats to brand Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination as “illegitimate” in order to pave the way for eventually eliminating the filibuster and adding more seats to the court. In 2020, he had an op-ed in the New York Times a few days after Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, in which he argued that– while Democrats did not have the power to block a nomination by then-President Donald Trump–they could and should work to delegitimize it.
I first read about Fetterman when he was the very unorthodox Mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania, and (while I’ll admit to being somewhat puzzled by his choice of clothing) I was impressed. Here was a person who actually wanted to be mayor, wanted to improve his community, unlike the many politicians who clearly view local office solely as a stepping-stone.
Fetterman is evidently bringing that same sensibility to the Senate. His choices of staff are indications that he will focus on the nuts and bolts of actual governance, rather than following the culture war/negative partisanship of Senators like Indiana’s Mike Braun. (Braun is so uninterested in the nuts and bolts of legislating that he has announced he’ll leave the Senate and run for Governor.)
Fetterman joins other Democrats who seem intent upon actually addressing the problems we face. Getting rid of the filibuster would allow them to do so.
If only they actually did Filibuster a bill. Instead they just threaten it. If the party member wants to filibuster, then go for it. I want to see those senators actually fight over it. Stand up for as many hours as you can. Nothing moves forward until someone stands up or collapses. Show us you mean business! Otherwise, sit down and shut up! Go Fetterman!
The Republican version of the filibuster allowed Ted Cruz to stand before the U.S. Senate in 2013 to read Dr. Seuss’ book “Green Eggs and Ham” as a bedtime story to his children to halt the vote to pass the ACA. Everything coming from the Republican party makes a joke of democracy, Rule of Law, the Constitution and it’s Amendments. This was part of their plan to stop all progress during President Obama’s administration as McConnell denied the President’s Judicial nominations to be heard to maintain the openings till a Republican president could fill them with his support and approval. Their version of the filibuster still enforced and increased to that super-majority, along with Trump’s Judicial appointees, including the SCOTUS majority, are still in power. Their slim House majority with the slim Democratic Senate majority will probably maintain the standstill in Congress and aid Trump’s 2024 third campaign for the presidency. The years of empty threats of prosecuting Trump continue and the technicality that he hasn’t, and will not be, charged, prosecuted and convicted for his continuing decades of criminal actions will strengthen his hold on voters. As Sheila said before; they don’t even try to hide their actions now, they don’t need to as their system is working for them.
Is Fetterman a serious man with Democratic wings?
He ran for office in his lounge pants.
Let’s be real…Lindsay Graham, Ted Cruz, and John Fetterman are US Senators. We have become a trash receptacle.
Let’s face it, the only thing that Dr. Oz had to offer was his skills in entertainment. The only thing that John Fetterman had to offer where his skills in governing. In a state where the split between urban and rural, the racial makeup of the population, and the red/blue ratio could have split either way, governing prevailed. The prima Donnie, as the country’s best-known entertainer, could not force his entertainment on democracy in an even fight. A hopeful sign of recovery. The army of wealth and power redistribution up was turned back.
Now what? Governing such that public health care and the public retirement system are stabilized reflecting the current and projected demographics of the human world, and leading the transition of energy sourcing away from changing the distribution and variability of weather and sea level around the world are number one priorities for a stable future and isn’t that what governing is about?
It appears Fetterman is just a figurehead. Policies will be continued and established by longtime DNC operatives within his office. SOS.
Operatives remain the same,only the figureads seem to change.
Senator Fetterman, a lifelong Pennsylvania resident, has demonstrated that he is sincere individual who truly cares for his constituency shown by his public service in the local and state offices he has held. Having studied finance at Albright College with a degree in 1991 and having earned an MBA from the University of Connecticut in 1993, he went on to join Americorps in 1995 and taught students in Pittsburgh pursuing their GEDs. He later attended Harvard Kennedy School and obtained a Master of Public Policy degree from Harvard in 1999 before becoming mayor of Braddock, PA in 2005 and the Lieutenant Governor in 2018.
His bio notes that while studying at UConn, his best friend died in a car accident which had a profound impact on his life and career. After his friend’s death, Fetterman joined Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, pairing with an 8-year old boy in New Haven whose father had died from AIDS and whose mother was slowing dying from the disease. He promised the boy’s mother he would continue to look out for her son after she was gone. His persona comes off as “no frills,” including his typical attire, with a straightforward approach to tackling problems. In a word, he is genuine. What you see is what you get.
In contrast, Mehmet Oz was a “political tourist” as well as opportunist in running for the Senate. Being born in Connecticut, he lived most of his life in North Jersey and moved in with in-laws in PA in 2020 to run for the US Senate seat. In my view, Oz is the polar opposite of Senator Fetterman.
In my view, Fetterman will be a breath of fresh air in DC politics.
Unfortunately, the Dems need another 2 senators to assure the end of the filibuster. While it only takes 51 votes to change Senate rules, with Manchin and Sinema anti any good change, even the addition of that 51st senator doesn’t help.
Let it be known that Fettterman does own a suit and I’m sure he’ll wear it when necessary.
Thirteen Circuits/Thirteen Justices.
Todd. “He ran for office in his lounge pants.” How can you think straight while wearing such a silly hat? Get my point?
Perhaps Fetterman will introduce Republican culture warriors in the Senate to the concept of “gpverning,” which is what Republican voters used to send their representatives and senators to do before their representatives and senators (excluding Nebraska’s unicameral system) discovered that culture wars were more sexy and brought in more donations than such arcane matters as, for instance, balancing budgets etc.
Fetterman’s attire is totally unrelated to his understanding of his duties as a United States senator, which is one of service to those who sent him to Washington, just as the attire of our (unicameral) senator from Arizona , one Sinema, is unrelated to her uncertain service to those who elected her. The bottom line is not their attire but their votes on issues of the day and how such votes relate to the common good since, after all, would we gauge the contributions of Washington’s Farewell Address by his wig or Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address by a tophat crowning his 6-4 frame?
If I were brought into a law firm and spent my time there remarking on the attire of others instead of attending to my duties I would fully expect to be fired. Perhaps we should apply that standard to our representatives and senators. 174 grand and expenses per annum to these culture warriors, and for what?
Governing, not gpvernring. Mea culpa.
Ian: Fetterman elected to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat, hiring Democrats to work with and for him and following Democratic policies. Imagine that! After the past and continuing Trump years of chaos, confusion, ignoring former Republican party policies while creating his own agenda, twice impeached but still the Republican party leader; I can understand a Democrat hiring Democrats and following Democratic policies would confuse you. Those of us who have been following what is happening in both political parties the past 25 years or so are not the least confused. Stick with us, kid, and maybe you will catch up to what is going on.
Thanks to all of you who don’t mind Senator Fetterman’s attire but have kept watch on his campaign and his political history.
I am perplexed with people on the left wanting to get rid of the filibuster. Looking at the 2024 map, it is almost guaranteed that the Republicans will win a majority of seats in that election. It is virtually impossible for the GOP to get 60 votes, however. So the Ds want to get rid of the filibuster so the Senate Republican ,majority can pass legislation without any Democratic support whatsoever I don’t understand why the Ds want to get rid of a tool that helps safeguards their power. While doing away with it will benefit the Ds 2025-2027, you have a Republican House and Manchin and Sinema (as well as others) who won’t go along with many D proposals even if the filibuster is eliminated. Besides, there are several D Senators (it is not just Manchin and Sinema) who won’t support eliminating the filibuster no doubt because they know the writing on the wall.
I meant getting rid of the filibuster benefits the Senate Ds 2023-2025. Not 2025-2027. Got ahead of myself.
Hey Todd, what sort of clothes do oligarchs wear?
You commentary, for me, is summed up in your ‘summation’…
“Fetterman is evidently bringing that same sensibility to the Senate. His choices of staff are indications that he will focus on the nuts and bolts of actual governance, rather than following the culture war/negative partisanship of Senators like Indiana’s Mike Braun. (Braun is so uninterested in the nuts and bolts of legislating that he has announced he’ll leave the Senate and run for Governor.)
Fetterman joins other Democrats who seem intent upon actually addressing the problems we face. Getting rid of the filibuster would allow them to do so. “
Your commentary, for me, is summed up in your ‘summation’…
“Fetterman is evidently bringing that same sensibility to the Senate. His choices of staff are indications that he will focus on the nuts and bolts of actual governance, rather than following the culture war/negative partisanship of Senators like Indiana’s Mike Braun. (Braun is so uninterested in the nuts and bolts of legislating that he has announced he’ll leave the Senate and run for Governor.)
Fetterman joins other Democrats who seem intent upon actually addressing the problems we face. Getting rid of the filibuster would allow them to do so. “
Fetterman does not present a “standard” picture, but if nothing else, we owe him ridding ourselves of Mr.
Oleaginous. He would have been a seriously clownish addition to the GOP circus.
It may be that his doubters will wind up admiring the man.
Paul – you continue to amaze me with your argument for the filibuster. The Democrats used it a dozen times and the Republicans twenty thousand (OK, exaggerated and made up numbers, but you should be able to get my drift). Besides, when it really mattered, like Supreme Court Justices, the GOP eliminated it, and don’t give me the Dems did it first. McConnell makes up rules to please himself – Lame Duck Presidents (defined as day 1 of their second term) cannot appoint Justices, but Republican Presidents can until the day they leave office — just saying.
Today’s GOP care about three things – (1) tax cuts for the rich – through reconciliation, (2) eliminating all regulatory restraints on business – through executive action, and (3) a Supreme Court full of right-wing extremists to guarantee that no one interferes with the first two. The rest is window dressing.
Fetterman is a breath a fresh air in the Senate. If only we could have more like him.
Paul – one more thing – you are correct about the chances for filibuster reform – nil
There’s a case to be made that 51-49 democracy is the problem, leading to constant policy changes. Maybe 60-40 would be more stable.
Joann as usual you “knocked it out the park”. Todd, as usual you made a fool of yourself.