Did Rand Paul Reignite Filibuster Reform?

     John McCain fears that it did:

     " Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on Thursday excoriated Sen. Rand Paul's (R-KY) filibuster talkathon the previous day both for its substance and the fear that the spectacle could embolden the cause of reforming the filibuster."

       "What we saw yesterday is going to give ammunition to those critics who say that the rules of the Senate are being abused," he said on the floor. "I hope that my colleagues on this side of the aisle will take that in information."

        "McCain co-authored a scaled-back rules change that preserved the filibuster and became the basis for the bipartisan deal, defeating a more far-reaching reform proposal."

         "We were able to put a side of the there was another effort just at the beginning of this Senate to do away with 60 votes and [go] back down to 51, which in my view would have destroyed the Senate," he said Thursday. 'A group of us worked very hard for a long time to come up with some compromises that would allow the Senate to move more rapidly ... and efficiently, but at the same time preserve a 60-vote majority requirement on some pieces of legislation."

      http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/03/john_mccains_confusion.php?ref=fpblg

     This worry may seem to have validity. Democratic Senators Jeff Merkeley-a big filibuster reform proponent-and Dick Durbin are now talking about the need for more reform. Now Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid is talking about reform again. Yet, Brian Beutler thinks he McCain misses the point:

    "John McCain is worried that Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster will embolden reformers who want to change the Senate rules.

     "As one of the guardians of the mess that is today’s Senate he’s right to be worried, but not for the reasons he thinks."

      "McCain believes — or appears to believe — that Paul reignited the filibuster reform movement because his scene on the Senate floor somehow embodies everything reformers hate about the Senate. This is precisely backwards."

      "In reality, Paul’s performance proved the minority can move the needle on big issues not by hiding behind quiet super-majority requirements, but by mobilizing public opinion from the well of the Senate. Filibuster reformers aren’t invigorated today because they have another data point for Senate dysfunction. They’re invigorated because they liked what they saw.

     http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/03/john_mccains_confusion.php?ref=fpblg

     Harry Reid's reaction seems to show McCain was right to worry but Beutler may be onto something in terms of what inspired Reid:

     "On the Senate floor Thursday, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) capitalized on Paul’s talkathon to invoke the importance of a traditional filibuster where obstructing senators occupy the floor and speak until one side gives in.

      “We should all reflect on what happened yesterday as we proceed with other nominations, including a number of judicial nominations,” Reid said. “This can be a Senate where ideas are debated in full public view — and obstruction happens in full public view as well. Or it can be a Senate where a small minority obstructs from behind closed doors, without ever coming to the Senate floor.”

        "Ironically, on the same day as Paul’s talking filibuster, Senate Republicans quietly filibustered the judicial nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the coveted D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, by withholding the votes to let her move forward. Reid used the juxtaposition to go after the GOP’s practice of filibustering in the dark."

         “My Republican colleagues love to extol the virtues of ‘regular order.’ If only we could get back to the days of regular order, they say, the Senate would function again,” Reid said. 

         “Yesterday we saw both sides of that. On one hand my Republican colleagues did not practice regular order. Instead they demanded a 60-vote threshold for confirmation of a qualified nominee, Caitlin Halligan, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Republicans hid behind a cloture vote — a filibuster by another term — to prevent a simple up or down vote on this important nomination. They took the easy way out.”

          “On the other hand, one Republican senator did return to regular order. And, as is his right, he spoke for as long as he was able,” he said. “That is a filibuster.”

         "The Democratic leader’s remarks were more subtle than the explicit threats Wednesday from Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), the leading supporter of filibuster reform, to revisit the cause. But Reid’s comments unmistakably express his view that the bipartisan rules reform enacted earlier this year has not brought Republicans to end their practice of silently filibustering."

     http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/mccain-rand-paul-giving-ammunition-to-filibuster-reform

     Reid's main criticism is of the filibuster of Haligan the normal way with no talking filibuster. So could this bring back serious discussion of the talking filibuster? To be sure, the impact of the talking filibuster is debated. Some think it's very important-some think it would go too far even and cripple the Senate, there are some-notably Jon Bernstein-who don't think it would have much impact. 

     "today's live filibuster shows again just how easy it is to hold the Senate floor for an extended period. I continue to believe that Jeff Merkley's talking filibuster suggestion is not only misguided (because, in part, it puts more emphasis on that public exhibition thing) but just wouldn't work. Essentially, Paul is willing to do this because he believes in the cause and because it plays well with his constituency. A talking filibuster showdown under Merkley would mean that every single Senator in the minority party would be fighting, the very first time they did this, for their future leverage in the Senate -- and surely that would play extremely well with the constituency they care most about."

     http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/03/rand-paul-talks.html

     P.S. Part of why McCain didn't like Paul's filibuster, calling it 'ridiculous' is he didn't like the topic-the drone program 

       "To somehow allege or infer that the President of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda, or somebody who disagrees with the policies, is a stretch of imagination which is, frankly, ridiculous," McCain said on the Senate floor. McCain said he agrees with Paul that more discussion on targeted killings is needed, but he said he does not believe that American citizens have reason to fear for their lives.

      "So we've done a, I think, a disservice to a lot Americans by making them believe that somehow they're in danger from their government," McCain said. "They're not. But we are in danger. We are in danger from a dedicated, longstanding, easily replaceable leadership enemy that is hellbent on our destruction. And this leads us to having to do things that perhaps we haven't had to do in other more conventional wars."

      Lindsay Graham however, makes a good point:

    

       "Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who often moves lock-step with McCain on many issues, also directly called out many of his Republican colleagues who joined Paul's filibuster last night for not taking such a bold stand during the previous administration."

        "This is an important issue," he said on the floor. "We should be talking about it. I welcome a reasoned discussion. But to my Republican colleagues, I don't remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone."

      http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/mccain-criticizes-rand-pauls-ridiculous-filibuster-claim?ref=fpa