Dear Rachel,

You asked for a snappy word that would get people's attention (even if they are in the final throes of watching the super bowl, 7th game of the world series, or the last sing- off of American Idol). Here it is...to be spelled in the following discreet way for appropriateness and censorship. The word is "f**kitbuster". Because, as we all know, Congress is "on the Appalachian Trail" as far as our country's welfare is concerned.

I believe we should do away with the Filibuster. It is a sin that the majority can't rule in the Senate.

I think the Republicans should look at what they are doing to our country by voting NO on eveything including the proposals they have made after they find out President Obama has agreed with.

I think they should all be voted out of the senate and get someone in there that knows what they are doing. It is sad the the minoity can rule the Senate like this.

I have long been against the super majority or super filibuster. We don't use it in the Church, town meeting or any other place. The majority is the important body. I'm so glad you brought it up. You're right we need to get legislation passed to build a country.

Clarence Haber, Holton, KS

yakattack

blabberblock

The filibuster should be, from here on out, called the "billblocker" because that is its exact purpose. I write this here, now, to make sure at least one legitimate suggestion stays on the front page of a discussion meant to collect legitimate suggestions.

Ms. Maddow, please understand that with this discussion and collection of input you have the ability to coin a term that will not only resonate with the American people, but also serve as a self-explanatory way of explaining the filibuster to them, thereby spreading the undeniable truth of what's occuring!

Filibuster = Congressional Constipation...no laxative will cure this ill!

or Filibuster = Legislative Constipation...we need more fiber in the Congressional diet.

they need to take a taxative

I think the GOP should change whatever their motto is to something more suitable, I suggest one of my favorite adages:

'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b--- s---.'

Filibuster= roadblock to cause Obama's failure.

Re: filabuster

"billabuster" or "bill-o-buster"

Jim Klein

Chino Valley, AZ

"corkery," "corking," "corked" . . . waddya think?

LMerry1 - re: "The filibuster is to leadership as a gun is to persuasion." Agreed.

Pls take a look at my suggestion and argument (comment #1960 ~ pg 100) and consider voting for: 'Hung Senate'.

As in, "We have a 'Hung Senate' today/tonight folks."

Just like most any/everyone KNOWS what a 'hung jury' is and what it means (one or two 'rogue' jurors are holding up a majority decision, re-branding the filibuster as a 'Hung Senate' will tell everyone what they need to know.

Note: i've included a 'path' for procedure when a 'Hung Jury occurs, including a 72 hours for public comment, followed by a 2nd up or down vote, on a simple majority basis.

Thanks! - Ken

Also some great humor potential on Rachel's show...as well as making her blush...

Sorry to hijack this, but I think it should the filibuster should be called the "piddle", and I'm afraid my post on page 131 might not be seen...

It should not be given any name that could be taken in any positive light: "Hung Senate", let's not say there's anything "hung" about the minority; "minority veto" (I like!), but it could rally support against a perceived repressive majority.

"piddle" has few, if any, positive meanings: "The Republicans are piddling on health care reform.". "The Republic Party has become the Piddle Party."

Let's call it what it is: a strategy to waste time and piss on the Constitution.

This has been so much fun! Please do this again!

For more information and a logical argument proving the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the billblocker [formerly known as a "filibuster"], check out the article I wrote and published on my Newsvine profile today. It's called "Billblocker: Calling A Spade A Spade"; not self-promoting per se, just trying to assist in informing the masses about the flaws of the filibuster process.

A Filibuster would get much more appropriate attention if it were referred to as

"MONKEY-WRENCHING":

"The Senator from South Carolina stood up today and began Monkey Wrenching the vote on this important Bill".

Under the revised rules for filibuster reporting, a picture of the guilty Senator could then be shown with a drawing of a menacing-looking Curious George on the offender's shoulder with an extended monkey-paw holding a giant wrench.

The imagery would not be lost on the American public who would either be against the Senator's obstructionist act, or in favor of it, in which case they would be referred to as Monkey's Uncles.

If I win, could I also get a Keith O. Bobble-Head doll, too? I'll be sure to donate my winnings to the same cause that Sarah (Don't Call Me Full of Blubber) Palin donates her speakers' fees.

JR MULE'

GREER, SC

My thesaurus gives these synonyms for "Abort": terminate, frustrate, circumvent, obstruct.

The filibuster is legislative abortion or Bill-abortion. I know. The term is too ugly, too loaded with other connotations. But that's what it is.

*

*

Stop the D.C. STRANGLER ! It's cutting off America's air supply!

*

*

The Republican Senators in D.C. are out of touch with the little guys' desire for financial reform! All they do is sit around and practice their D.C. STRANGLER moves!

*

*

Mitch McConnell--STRANGLER-IN-CHIEF!!

*
*

Stop the D.C. STRANGLER ! Save America! Save the Heartland !

*

*

Stop the D.C. STRANGLER ! It's cutting off America's air supply!

*

*

The Republican Senators in D.C. are out of touch with the little guys' desire for financial reform! All they do is sit around and practice their D.C. STRANGLER moves!

*

*

Mitch McConnell--STRANGLER-IN-CHIEF!!

*
*

Stop the D.C. STRANGLER ! Save America! Save the Heartland !

Majority rule is the essence of democracy. The Senate needs to restore majority rule. It's as simple as that. When 41 Senators can block the vote of 59, that's minority rule, and it's unconstitutional. The filibuster is not in the Constitution nor in law, it's simply a tradition in the Senate, and it can be changed.

Restore majority rule and democracy in the United States!

STAND STILL-I-BUSTER

DIG A DEEPER HOLE-I-BUSTER

KILL A BILL-I-BUSTER

By the way, Rachel, LOVE you and your show.

Billblocker, if adopted may only serve to be an example of why the GOP wins the sountbyte wars. A billblocker is a good thing if it is blocking a bad bill, whereas a "death pannel" leaves little room to be misinterpreted. Therefore I suggest:

Iron Curtain

What could be more Marxist than an economic minority class able to accumulate political power?

Fear will always be a factor in politics. Fear of too much government, fear terrorism or foreign military threats, fear of "death panels", are all ultimately fears of oppression. The Iron Curtain is a frightening concept because it defends the Communism that is a threat to our nation and our rights. It is motivated by a minority party who may not be representing the best interest of the people.

Don't corporations qualify as Marxist if they have the legal rights of an individual, and are able to amass political power by way of their economic influence? If we truly want to defend Capitalism, then the Enemy is accurately identified not as Socialism, but as Monopoly (of which Socialism certainly qualifies). But so do monopolistic, and by definition and to a lesser degree, oligopolistic corporate entities. A clear line can be drawn from them to the supporters of the filibuster abuse if you follow the money and the lobbyists.

It should not be difficult to point out that the thing we should really be fearing, is the loss of our Democracy. As the New Yorker quotes in a 2005 piece on the nuclear option, my senator Charles Grassley, “But you can’t compromise a Presidential nomination. It’s yes or no. So filibusters on nominations are an abuse of our function under the Constitution to advise and consent.” and notes a "filibuster actually has more, not less, moral legitimacy in the case of a judicial appointment. A piece of legislation can be repealed or amended after the next election. A judge is there for life." http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/03/14/050314ta_talk_hertzberg#ixzz0fQyJ86Qd

PR experts have given us "Clean coal" without evidence in reality. "Destroying Nature by Drilling in a Wildlife Preserve" has become "Responsible exploration of energy", the "Estate Tax" morphed to be a "Death tax" and "Fair and Balanced" blankets those who bill themselves "a commentator rather than a reporter". If it is that easy to use association to sell a half-truth, why not apply accurate descriptions of Socialism when we see it?

Rather than give the positive connotation a "bill buster" could gain (who wouldn't want to "bust" a bad bill), we should remove the option. The Iron Curtain is a tool of the Marxists. Being the patriots we all are, let's acknowledge the fact that legislation can be changed if it is bad, and repeal the Iron Curtain that was formerly known as the filibuster.

We don't want to be Communists now do we?

It is sad that the minority can rule the Senate like this.- Gaybeth

The minority doesn't rule, the people do! They are the ones telling congress they don't want the healthcare bill. It's just that some congress people want to push this bill down our throats. Watch, in November just wait and see who is gone. You might be very upset come December.

Who will gain seats? The people that fabricated this whole health care scare (remember 72% of healthcare users were happy with their coverage) or the people that tried (and succeeded) to stop a democratic President, House and Senate - with a filibuster proof majority- from doing this too America. If you are right then democrats will win everywhere. If I'm right then the elections big winners will be the American People and our Constitution.

Ms. Maddow, please understand that with this discussion and collection of input you have the ability to coin a term that will not only resonate with the American people, but also serve as a self-explanatory way of explaining the filibuster to them, thereby spreading the undeniable truth of what's occurring!- M. Vega

Yeah, for both of the people that watch her/his/whatever show.

You're right we need to get legislation passed to build a country.-Clarence Haber, Holton, KS

Don't you mean, "build a new, different country" because America has this thing called The Constitution it has a whole bunch of laws that help build a country, if you follow them.

It is sad that the minority can rule the Senate like this.- Gaybeth

The minority doesn't rule, the people do! They are the ones telling congress they don't want the healthcare bill. It's just that some congress people want to push this bill down our throats. Watch, in November just wait and see who is gone. You might be very upset come December.

Who will gain seats? The people that fabricated this whole health care scare (remember 72% of healthcare users were happy with their coverage) or the people that tried (and succeeded) to stop a democratic President, House and Senate - with a filibuster proof majority- from doing this too America. If you are right then democrats will win everywhere. If I'm right then the elections big winners will be the American People and our Constitution.

Ms. Maddow, please understand that with this discussion and collection of input you have the ability to coin a term that will not only resonate with the American people, but also serve as a self-explanatory way of explaining the filibuster to them, thereby spreading the undeniable truth of what's occurring!- M. Vega

Yeah, for both of the people that watch her/his/whatever show.

You're right we need to get legislation passed to build a country.-Clarence Haber, Holton, KS

Don't you mean, "build a new, different country" because America has this thing called The Constitution it has a whole bunch of laws that help build a country, if you follow them.

Oh yeah, you should call a Filibuster "The Big Stick" because the democrates get hit with it and the republicans didn't even have to swing it.

WINDBAG-I-BUSTER

@rtw3: Firstly, way to double the size of your post via repetition in efforts of creating the illusion that the content of your post was doubled. I don't drop that low, so don't worry.

Both of the people that watch TRMS? Try ~200,000 (a rather conservative average) nightly that watch her show. If only she was willing to stoop low enough to warp the truth to gain triple that number and take #1 in her slot when she already has #2-#3 unarguably. Why blatantly lie in order to gain #1 when the truth gets you #2?

Why resort to personal attacks on a person's appearance/character? Any legitimate explanation for this? (Please let me know! Educate me as to why a cosmetic insult is necessary!) I remember telling my grandfather when she first came on the air, "I think she's pretty, even with the short hair." He then informed me, "I believe she's gay." I wasn't even aware of it, and it shouldn't matter in today's day and age.

It takes 51 votes to pass a bill, and 41 votes to block a bill. Do you believe this is constitutional, rtw3? Once again, please educate me if you do! You had no problem writing all that text to throw cheap-shots, how about backing your claims up by explaining to me how 51VotePass & 41VoteBlock is constitutional. Please!

For your information, the Constitution outlines the requirements for passing legislation as including a majority vote. 51 is a majority, so please elaborate on the constitutionality of forcing a supermajority on any bill the right dislikes?

You believe the American people do not want health-care reform? Please show some proof, because there's another blatant lie.

I'd like you to also explain how the current rate of health-care premiums vs the inflation rate is acceptable; if you believe it is not acceptable, how about briefly explaining a solution? The Democrats have created a solution, if you want bi-partisanship, how about coming up with a workable idea? By the way, the ones suggested by the Republicans so far have been analyzed and proven to not be effective.

Hello Rachel! I love your show and keep banging that drum as there are a lot of us who are following your lead.

This is a great idea - let's re-brand the filibuster and hope the Dems will get the message and kill the filibuster. Then afterward, maybe we can take on that pesky matter of the Electoral College (seriously).

Well anywho, here's my entries for re-branding that fili-thingy ;?D

The Do Nothing Option

The Scorched Constitution Option

Legislation Assassination

Democroggedon

Billocide Rule

The Kiss of Death

Legistopper

The Bill Swatter

No Bill For You (aka The Bill Nazi)

Nilo Billo

Kill-a-Bill

The Bill Abort Option

Democracide

And last but not least, TEODAWKI (which stands for The End Of Democracy As We Know It)

So a filibuster is someone who talks endlessly just to fill time with useless jabber...........filibuster = Rachel Maddow!!

Hey Mac!

Why don't you crawl back into your Fox hole with the rest of the Fixed News Zombies and leave the thinking to people with an IQ higher than their shoe size (in case that was over your head, I mean you buckaroo). BTW, a filibuster is not a "someone", it is a word describing an act, as in the act of filibustering a bill, you ultra-maroon you. What are you doing here anyway? Why don't you just go back to fawning over those idiotic talking heads at Faux Gnus. I'm sure Glenn Beck must be missing his number one fan....

Congressional constipation

Maniacal motion

Legislative lobotomy

Senate suicide

The capitol cork

Democracy demolisher

Democricide

Senatecide

Defecators cap

The original post here replied to doesn't even have a suggestion/name for this "contest" and it got 9 votes. I left something in the frig, how many votes do you have for me?

In case my suggestion on p. 207 doesn't get seen, here's my filibuster name.

In honor of the former senator Ted Stevens, one of the republicans whose loss of a senate seat helped create a temporarily filibuster-proof democrat super-majority:

The Senatorial Tube-Clogger

John Stimmel: Billblocker, if adopted may only serve to be an example of why the GOP wins the sountbyte wars. A billblocker is a good thing if it is blocking a bad bill...

Although you're correct, this argument can be made for almost any suggestion that is submitted to this discussion. It will be a two-way street, though, because although the right-wingers will support the "billblocker," many more Americans who were previously oblivious to the idea of a filibuster will become opposed to the billblocker. The advantage "billblocker" would give the left will be more powerful than the advantage it would give the right. The purpose of a re-branding of the term filibuster is to make more Americans aware of its existence and its obviously unfair usage, expecting that they will support an overhaul. The minority that is in favor of the ridiculous usage of the billblocker during this administration will continue to be in favor of it regardless of what we call it.

Also, I love how rtw3 came back to the discussion to have a reasonable debate and back up his assert-- oh wait, nevermind...

@Michael Vega Fair 'nuff. But sometime the left would be wise to use some branding that is more connotation than content. Maybe this is not yet the place, but we should at least consider monopolies the enemy of the free markets we love. Where they're needed, I'd much rather have them run by elected officials --not by CEOs who are only beholdant to "the board", not to the shareholders as they'd have you believe.

While billblocker may be a more accurate description and indeed provide a hightened awareness, the tea party is not bothered by the fact that it would accurately be defined as "taxation without representation". The overwhelming majority of the activists don't even realize they had their taxes CUT as shown by the recent CBS poll http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6201911.shtml?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesAreaMain

I think the supporters of the filibuster would be happy to use billblocker- they've been championing their ability to "kill this bill and start over" for almost a year. Or there's death panels, and cries about socialism. Why not tap some of the outrage & direct it where it would do some good?

Although Rachel is asking for a new moniker to replace "filibuster," what is needed (imho) is to name the process by which the filibuster rule will be changed. This is to proffer:

"Two Restore Democracy"

Using the two fingered peace sign to signal the change we need.

Rachel, you have permission from this voice in the wilderness to "make it your own." (kindly send the RMS mug)

@TriangleNC: Not trying to be uptight or pedantic, but can you explain how it is even possible to replace the term "filibuster" with "two restore democracy" and depict a better image than is currently depicted?

I can't even think of one set of circumstances where it would make sense...

Unfortunately, the comments have been chronological, so that you're always seeing the comment of the very first person who responded, and it's difficult for people to go through all of the pages of comments, so it's the earliest ones who get most of the "votes."

My recommendations:

VOTE-MANDERING: A sibling to gerrymandering. Both are strategies employed to manipulate the voting process. Gerrymandering does so by deliberately modifying an electoral district or constituency in order to achieve desired electoral results.

Vote-mandering is a strategy employed to manipulate the CONGRESSIONAL voting process, and "modifies" the functioning of Congress for purpose of preventing members from voting on a bill.

democracy-buster

vote-hijacking: Note that the geneology of this word harkens back to the term vrijbuiter (freebooter), and applied to American adventurers, MOSTLY FROM SOUTHERN STATES, who sought to overthrow the governments of Central American states. (Peeps to Wikipedia.)

Bill obstruction -- not sexy, but it is a very succinct phrase that gets at the core of the issue -- obstructing legislation.

full vote nelson -- (husband's contribution)

An idea I saw from another blogger: stall-a-buster.

LMerry1...truth be told..."The filibuster is to leadership as a gun is to persuasion". Whew! I have read most of the following entries...many repeats...but nothing so simple as the very first one on the list. It really strikes me to the quick, yet saddens me even more deeply.

Did you come up with that? Or are you quoting someone else?

Can you put this into a single word?

22 SKIDOO!

It's SuperFractiousNihilisticExpurgateAtrocious!

See post #4876 on page 244 for a full explanation of The old 22 SKIDOO!

Also see post #4930 on page 247 for the The 22 SKIDOO song!

Thanks, Bruce-1628250

Love that! Fillibuster as the Opposite of Leadership.

Rachel -

Fullabluster. It's so descriptive!

"trope-a-dope"??

How about "Stop Motion"?

Just want to compliment Rachel for calling out these Repub idiots who obviously have no integrity or sense of embarrassment at all about all this flip-flopping. But I'm not sure I agree with you about it being hypocrisy. With President Obama now in the mix, I think it's more likely a case of institutionalized racism.

The word, filibuster, is an act by a miniority party to obstruct the agenda of the majority party. What fun! A more exciting name for this act might be "block party," meaning a party (nothing boring about a party as a rule) to "block" the ability of the majority party to function as the people who elected them expect.

In reply to dbv, I think having a positive connotation is good for a few reasons:

1. Why repress the opposing viewpoint? I find it undemocratic.

2. With my suggestion "corkery," which can mean a bang-up job, you can leverage the self-image of the minority party with irony.

Beside, if you're partisan, you'll need a good fail-safe when the Pubs are back in power. Aha ha.

Here's my term for the filibuster...The Bill Buster.When Republicans want to stop any bill they don't have to think or talk or read or analyze,they just drop another Bill Buster Bomb.We need to expose them and let it Explode in their face.

Every Republican Senator, upon entering the Senate for the 1st time, is issued a laminated instruction card detailing what they need to do in the event that a vote is called for on a Democrat sponsored bill.Any Democrat sponsored bill.Any bill supported by President Obama.It covers everything.It is all inclusive.It is endorsed by Nancy Reagan.Herte's what it says...

"Just say no."

Cock Blocking

How about BLOCKAMOLE (pronounced like the guacamole) or the other variant, BLOCK-A-MOLE (pronounced like whack-a-mole).

I have two suggestions:

1. ersatz-politics: "ersatz" is a German word that WWII POWs interpreted as "fake." The German word literally means "replacement," or "imitation." It was used as a prefix to everyday items, such as coffee—"ersatz-kaffee" meant imitation/fake coffee. Since American politics have been taken prisoner in a Senatorial war between the Republicans and the Democrats, "ersatz-politics" is a befitting brand to describe the cheapening of American "replacement politics;" as opposed to productive or, at least, the functional politics that the Congress has hijacked from the American people!

2. corkery: we need a brand striking to the heart of America that we all can identify as WRONG. Just as it is WRONG for the Republicans to obstruct the passage of every bill in the Senate. Corkery can be a word used to describe stopping up the passage of a bill. This is like a bottleneck only more so in that it is not the mere "constriction" of a "flow," but its complete blockage—as if by a cork. Nothing is more American than BASEBALL. And anybody can understand that corking a bat is illegal! Corkery is within the linguistic paradigm of "cork" ("corking") by its inflection. Therefore, it has an appropriate connotation on more than one layer.

wünderdog :)

So when the filibuster is used to bargain for pork, maybe we should call it "the dinner bell"?

Okay...don't laugh at the spelling - but here is our idea for the replacement of the word filibuster

Legislatus Interruptus

the "plug"

So much for Ms. Maddow's staunch support of democracy -- the suggestion with the most votes (billblocker) didn't even get a mention last night or tonight!

I jest, I jest! No hard feelings... still proud of all the time I spent supporting the death of the billblocker and restoration of constitutional majority rule!

Because we are looking for a symbolic representation of the filibuster lets look at the symbolic representations of the parties, the elephant and the donkey. the gop is using its procedural powers to stop everything, literally putting an end to a great ride. starting today the filibuster tactic being used by the minority party should be addressed as: "whoa horsey" if ever the gop should regain control: "down simba" the graphics alone would be worth the wait!

Simba? Isn't that a lion? And horsey? Isn't that referring to a horse..? I thought you said the representations of the parties are the elephant and the donkey? Made me laugh though!

Dear Rachel,

Why not call a filibuster what it really is? "OUTHOUSING".

Real men are hard to find in Congress these days. Keep pressure on for Public Option!

Dear Rachel -

After quickly researching the history of the word 'Filibuster', here are my suggestions for a new, (hopefully) snappier descriptor:

1. Bill-Jacking

2. Senate-Sacking

3. Beltway Robbery

4. Minority Dictatorship

5. Senate Swindle

That's it for now...I'll keep thinking! Thanks for calling on us - and for all that you do - your show is TERRIFIC!

P.S. "Pillage" came up during my research on "Fillibuster" - hence, the GOP could be called "The Pillage Idiots" - I fear they know not what they do....

Instead of "filibuster" a more accurate description would be to call it "minority control". We're allowing a tyranny of the minority.

Bill jacking is pretty good. I'll vote for that one. Be nice if you could see these in vote order. Mine is not really a new word for it, but what we should do with it: KILL FIL! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=304626821849.

How about "it's constitutional" you silly Maddow

So you think you are pretty smart SPACE GUY? If you can find any reference to FILIBUSTER in the US Constitution, you'll prove yourself a bloody genius! I say this because there is no such word in the constitution or any of its amendments. And while it is not forbidden, it also not specifically permitted. It is just something made up by politicians to slow progress in passing needed legislation such as healthcare.

I've got blood & Tarantino - KILL FIL! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref;=mf&gid;=304626821849.

die-partisan death grip

Obsolete Senate Death Bill Walking -- Dead Man Walking

Senate Minatory BTK --Bill Killer.

Senate minatory Death Panel.

LOST... it already keeps the nation's attention! and most a good deal of the nation is lost when someone talks talking about fillibusters as it is.

and as a bonus Locke would break out his knifes when anyone steps out of line. Regardless of the side they're on. No blood... just a warning...

I like this but I think a better word would be Buccaneering - an act of piracy. In this case, conniving, unscrupulous pirates stealing from the American people and the Democratic majority. This should be the new word for filibuster.

CORNHUSKER - after the Ben Nelson Cornhusker Compromise(where one Senator held up the entire process for the, well, Cornhusker Compromise).

I agree Scott. Very straight forward. Hits home and doesn't sound like a catchy slogan that might turn people off. It's the plain, literal truth.

Well done.

Although, on second thought, is there a way to make sure people realize that the stalling amounts to the same thing as killing? People might not grasp the practical finality of the filibuster.

All but for the fact that "stalling" is not what they are trying to do. They are not even concerned about killing specific legislation. This is an all-out war against one branch of government, one that left itself open to such a "bloodless" attack.

This is a minority attempting to impose their will on the majority. By my lights, this is not merely anti-democratic (which is is), it is the attempt to overturn the results of not just one but two election cycles in a row.

This minority is attempting to impose its will on the majority of constituents in the country. Filibustering does not just stall senators or bills or votes by themselves, but attacks all of us.

It is (my suggested phrase to rebrand this abusive series of attacks): War on Democracy.

Jim King:

More like CORNHOLER wouldn't you think?

More thoughts: I also feel that this is a legitimate new term for a filibuster because it makes sense when one looks at it this way... it takes 51 votes to PASS a bill, yet 41 to BLOCK it? Is anyone willing to support the rationality and logic of this statement? If so, please do - we'd love to hear your thoughts.

I love the BILIBLOCKER!! FANTASTIC job Michael!

-Mike, Florida

Outstanding suggestions here. My vote goes to billblocker - it's perhaps the simplest, it's powerful and it's clearly descriptive. Also quickly and easily understood by everyone.

I prefer it over billbuster because the term 'block' conjures the action being taken more readily. I think people tend to think a thing is hopeless once you call it "busted." We want Americans to get it: this intractable, arrogant minority (which believes itself to be a sub-government) can get away with any lie, any misrepresentation and any tactic.

I would also recommend usage of the term as often as possible in this phrase: billblocking by minority.

I wrote this to hopefully convince people to start calling a spade a spade and put an end to the nonsense that is the filibuster.

Each member of the United States Senate is given access to a little red button when they are sworn in. According to tradition, if 41 Senators -- an obvious minority -- decide to press this metaphorical red button simultaneously, the legislation on the floor is effectively killed. Meanwhile, according to the Constitution, if 51 Senators vote yay/aye/yes on a particular piece of legislation, it is effectively passed.

Woah, woah, woah... Back up the turnip truck. This is how the legislative body functions? The same legislative body in charge of creating the laws that govern our country?

Correct, this is how the Senate currently functions. A majority can pass a bill, and a minority can block it. This statement can not be argued by any reasonable American, and for that reason it will be referred to as the fallacious fact for the duration of this article. If you are reading this in hopes of an explanation for the logical fallacy introduced by the fallacious fact, I apologize, because one does not exist. Not only is a rational explanation non-existent; in truth, the fallacious fact is unconstitutional.

US Constitution, Section 8 [Congressional Duties]: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Clearly, the fallacious fact is not compatible with this fundamentally important clause of the US Constitution. It is impossible for the Congress to efficiently carry out its main duty when a minority can block a bill that a majority is attempting to pass. To my knowledge, it is also impossible to logically refute this statement, so if anyone would like to try, please do! I believe first and foremost in knowledge, education, and intelligence, and if somebody can point out where my thinking is flawed it would be greatly appreciated.

The tool used by a minority to carry out this unconstitutional action is currently known as a filibuster, and its main purpose is to block bills. Therefore, since Americans love to call a spade a spade, I believe we should usher in a more logical train of thought by referring to a filibuster as a billblocker. Not only will this provide a clearer image of the filibuster's function, but it will also show Americans the true and unbiased nature of its unconstitutional usage and flawed utility.

"It is impossible for the Congress to efficiently carry out its main duty when a minority can block a bill that a majority is attempting to pass. To my knowledge, it is also impossible to logically refute this statement, so if anyone would like to try, please do!"

Your statement is correct but it has no support in the Constitution for these reasons:

1. The Constitution does not require "efficiency".
2. The Constitution provides that each legislative body (Senate and House of Representatives) make up its own rules on how that particular body works.

The filibuster is based on the idea that every member of the Senate should be able to speachify as long as they want and there is some logic to that idea, albeit not too much.

As a point of interest, both houses originally had the same rule allowing unlimited speachifying but as the House grew in size the rules were changed and speaking time became limited. As I recall, that happened sometime in the late 1800's.

Regardless, I believe a little thought will show that the problem isn't with the filibuster itself, it is with the unintended consequence of the multi-track system adopted in the 60's because that system effectively hides who is filibustering what from public view. If we didn't have the multi-track system a filibuster would require Senator Joe Dingbat, possibly followed by his like minded brethren, to stand up in front of God and C-Span and read the Bible, or his mother's cookbook, for hours or days. Do that and let the public see it, and let that same public decide the fate of those who are filibustering. It's a simple fix and it worked ok for the first 200 years of our history. Yes, occasionally everything stops for awhile (I think the longest filibuster before adoption of the multi-track system was something like 57 days) but the system we have now causes everything to stop forever. Plus, as I mentioned, a non multi-track filibuster exposes the perpetrators to the light of day, and to retribution in the ballot box.

Lastly, there are two things to keep in mind.

First, it requires a 2/3 majority to change a Senate rule, including the filibuster rule. That's 67 Senators, not 60, so I would say the chances are really slim a change will be made no matter how much of a ruckus is raised.

Second, the multi-track is optional and in every case where it is invoked must be agreed to by both the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader.

So, if he chooses, Mr. Reid can "just say NO" and then watch Senator Dingbat stand up and emote until polling shows his party is going down the tubes as a result. To my way of thinking that is even better than no filibuster because it would show the intent of Mr. Dingbat AND the party that allows him to act in what often is fundamentally and unpatriotic manner.

I'll reply more in depth later but I have a quick point to make. Let's say the Senate votes on rules next year, chooses to cripple the filibuster, and fails to receive 60 votes. One Senator stands up and challenges the failure to pass; 51 Senators vote in favor of the challenge. Would the challenge be successful and upheld?

I suggest the `Fogey rule.'

Ideally it would also be an acronym: Fillibuster Obstruction of General and Essential governance, Yo.

Rachel: Your show is spectacular and makes my day, even as it depresses me.

So far Billblocker has ~25 votes, whereas Electile Dysfunction has 28 but is a very politically incorrect term to use! I'm really hoping billblocker wins, as it is the most effective, straight-forward, and powerful term suggested thus far!

Nearly 30 votes for my submission, 'billblocker,' and I'm very grateful!

Billblocker now has over 35 votes and is the most voted-for submission!

I wrote an extremely comprehensive analysis of the billblocker/"filibuster" today and it's on my Newsvine page right now! Check it out and let me know what you think!

Billblocker is clever and it definitely describes what a filibuster is, but does it really "seize the nation by the lapels" or "shake it to attention"...?

I want a word that's more frightening and dramatic... ;-)

It might not "seize the nation by the lapels," but it's important to have a term that actually describes the filibuster. A catchy term is great, but most of them still won't convey the purpose of a filibuster any better than "filibuster".

This one.

I like that. I was looking to see if anyone said "Minority Block", but that is good too. Anything that emphasizes the fact that the minority is stopping progress.

I like that, but it might encourage people to identify with the minority here, how about "Majority Limp"?

Mason,

"Minority Over-ride" This is the exact term I have used to explain the filibuster to high school students trying to understand the concept. They grasp it immediately. What they still have trouble with is why it has a place in a democratic society.

Not exactly what you were asking for: kill the bluster

Taxation without representation

Borrowing from ideas already posted:

Bill Blocker: Taxation without representation: billibluster

Maybe with a little of a Sarah Palin approach "Billy Buster"

Steve - like i mentioned to Phillippe below, let's NOT 'encourage' them (the minority' by 'tagging' there diminutive status with an adjective like: 'Super'. Pls take a look @ my suggestion / logic (comment #1960 ~ pg 99) and consider voting for 'Hung Senate'. Thanks! - Ken

lol, i love this one!!!!!! electile dysfunction, hahahahahahahaha

Nice!

electile dysfunction = bohnerbuster

ROTFL!!!

Like this one, too!

ROFL fail

I like it!

excellent!

that should get some attention!

That's the one !! Perfect !!

Please remember that an estimated 18,000,000 men in the US are affected and deal with erectile dysfunction each day; it may not be the most politically correct term to use.

I agree Michael, but it is the funniest one I've read yet...

Ok with us females Michael. We have men arguing about our reproductive rights everyday. I like this one.

If Republicans have electile dysfunction, there might be a pill for that. Take the blue pill if you want to live in a world where nothing gets done (e.g., North Korea), or take the red pill if you want to face reality and solve the problems that so desperately need to be addressed (e.g., health care costs that are going to bankrupt this country; the longer we wait, the worse it will get). As another person mentioned, the Republicans have not yet used the filibuster, they have only threatened to use it. Make them do it for a week or so, make fun of them, and then use cloture to get on with solving real problems. Why do we need to change the rules of the Senate? Simply use them as they are intended and let the chips fall where they may.

I'm with this one. I've been saying for months that we should get out the cots, and make the Republic Party put up or shut up.

They'll always threaten a filibuster if they never have to pay a price.

I think electile dysfunction is the best yet

@MikeNTxs: Back in the day, the cot and true filibuster was somewhat honored -- it took endurance and will. Today, due to the fact we have become a society more tolerant of physical struggle, it is unfair to force a Senator to push his/her physical limits to perform a filibuster because that would give a physically-able Senator an unfair advantage. As a person who is physically challenged (or "disabled" if you must), I fully understand this train of thought. Regardless, I feel that because we've entered an age centered around mental ability rather than physical ability, the filibuster no longer holds a place in the list of options available to a Senator. Back in the day, when physical ability was equal to a Senator's status, it was okay to allow a true filibuster, but it is crucial that we understand these differences in era and finally decide to get rid of the billblocker. It has become a "little red button" that can be pressed by 41 Senators simultaneously and bury a bill, and that was never its intended purpose nor function.

Purrrrfecto.

Dysfunction it is.

I was thinking of a more historial reference to Strom Thurmond's 1957 filibuster to stop Civil Rights legislation. "Thurmond" Rule ??

A group of old white men with electile dysfunction. This is perfect.

Averaging one failure every two days. The only thing they can @!$%# is the county. Limp dick government. A senate of wimps.

This phrase will go straight to late night TV.

Town Hall Questions:

"Senator, can you please explain your support of electile dysfunction?"

"Senator, why do Republicans have twice as much electile dysfunction as Democrats?"

"Senator Snow, could you please explain..."

"Senator, why is the Senate impotent?"

And of course: The constitution of the US makes the Senate IMPORTANT not IMPOTENT. The Southern pronounciation will not do in this case.

I like the electile dysfunction, however, not too many seem to suffer from that; hence all the bed-hopping that seems to go on.

If we're trying to make this a productive contest, electile dysfunction is not very effective because it will be flamebait for anybody who is in favor of the way the billblocker has been used recently. Ms. Maddow is actually trying to make a difference and expose this nonsense to the American people -- it would be anti-productive to cause controversy by using a term that is going to offend millions of people. Think about it...

I agree. Also it is slightly unclear. It is legislative dysfunction, in my opinion. But, yes, it is catchy. (ashamed to admit)

Although the the "electile" part is extremely catchy, I think that referring to it as simply "dysfunction" (which it is at all levels) delivers the message with a hint of humor. Example:

The congress' failure to pass the healthcare was due to republican dysfunction.

I like it most because it makes the obstructing party own the issue. No one is dysfunctional for fun or profit.

The problem is that this contest is in search of a term to replace the current word, 'filibuster'. In order to maximize the efficiency of TRMS re-branding, it's important to replace the term with a word that is in the same form. Filibuster is a noun, so we must replace it with another noun (so that we can replace every instance of filibuster with, for example, 'billblocker'). The goal here is to be able to re-brand the term filibuster and start using a more straightforward term in its place to expose America to its unfair usage. The terms "electile dysfunction" or "dysfunction" are more appropriately categorized as adjective-like; sure, they might be catchy terms, but we wouldn't be able to fully re-brand the word filibuster with them.

dude, you're takin this thing way too seriously. besides, "billblocker" replacing filibuster? yea, maybe it's a bit more discriptive, but it's still a snoozer. looking for "the kind of snazzy re-branding that seizes the nation by the lapels and shakes it to attention". i don't think you're getting close.

dude, you're not taking this seriously enough! Filibuster is both a noun and a verb.

Electile Dysfunction is very cute, but doesn't it sound more like something electoral... i.e. having to do with elections?

wünderdog: ersatz-politics (hyphen optional)

It's not original. I can't place where I've heard it before, but it was in the context of an actual election.

@random guy

I never saw or heard it exactly, but I heard something similar to the phrase "electile dysfunction" after the Presidential elections of 2000 & 2004 in a joke that Japan sent thousands of tons of Viagra to the United States because their Prime Minister heard that the country couldn't sustain an election. Maybe you heard the same joke and that's why it seems familiar?

And this electile dysfunction served up by the GOP and its cabal has been goin' on for a long time: http://bit.ly/ElectileDysfunc . Good one, Jerry! -bleuz00m

Phillippe - well, that's the 'problem', though. the minority HAS been (over)ruling virtually everything that the Dems have tried to move. let's NOT encourage them.

Let's 'taint' their resistance by linking them to a concept most any/everyone is familiar with: the 'hung jury'. pls check my suggestion 'Hung Senate' , comment #1960 and consider voting for it, Phillippe. - Ken

I like 'bill a buster.'

or maybe a little pithier...just bill-buster?

As someone else pointed out, the word "buster" implies that you're doing justice to a wrong that has been done. For example, detectives "bust" criminals, the Ghostbusters "bust" ghosts, the DEA performs drug "busts". Using the term billbuster would make it seem as though we're "busting" that bill, which isn't fair since a bill is the form that most of our legislation/laws take...

The more appropriate term would be my suggestion, 'billblocker', because "blocking" implies the opposite of "busting," yuhknowhaddamean?

I came up with the same phrase - I've seen it a few times on here. This is my favorite. Minority Rule.

Minority Rule says it all.

Billafluster

how about just plain tyranny

"Tyranny of the POLITICAL minority"

(Let's bring back some de Toqueville!)

Since "filibuster" is a word that expresses that our country has come to a standstill ... and with the abuse of filibusters bringing our country to the point of the need for life-support ... how about ... Coma-tocracy. To let the country know that the veins of justice are clogged with the plaque of politics. The country needs resuscitation. All hands on deck!!

C-Ya

"Conned Em" (multiple meanings), "Fill a coffer", "Republicott", "Republicide",

"Legicide", "Lobbicott", "Conservicott", "Legistrike", "Filicott", "WingNutBuster"

"Felon Tea", "Tea Buster", "PartiBlock", "CountryBlocker", "CountryStopper",

"Legiblock", "FoolsTool", "Foolibuster", "Citicide", "Peoplebuster",

"Nationbuster", "Sencebuster", "Brainbuster", "Progressotomy",

"Shamelessbuster", "Progressbuster", "Legipeach", "Legitraitor",

"Filibomb", "Filibomber", "Nationflipoff", "Voterflipoff", "Filibird"

********************************************************

********************************************************

love the free association...proof that it really does work! fillibird..haha