Remember that history lesson about the filibuster from a couple of days ago, where I lamented the modern nature of the filibuster, and wished it would return to the contest of endurance where the dissenting minority had to back up the sincerity of their opposition by actually talking things to death?

Well, stuff like that occasionally still happens. It got really close this week, with the actions of Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY). Senator Bunning has, for the last several days, been using procedural tricks* to hold up the passage of a bill extending emergency short-term unemployment benefits, citing an opposition to deficit spending.

As this gambit went on, he drew the ire of both the Democratic majority and the leadership of the Republican minority, almost all of whom noted that it was bad for the country (not to mention politically damaging all around) to cut off unemployment checks and stall several job-creating federally-funded works projects when the unemployment rate is hovering around ten percent.

This time, however, instead of assuming the procedural filibuster and moving on, the Senate leadership called Bunning’s bluff, threatening an all-night session and using further tactics to force Bunning to actually filibuster the unemployment insurance bill in order to block it.

In the end, Bunning backed down, took a deal that was offered and rejected earlier, and the bill passed 77-19; crisis averted.

Now, I’m firmly of the opinion that Bunning was on the wrong side of this one, even if his general feeling on "pay-as-you-go" is a good idea. When the economy’s as awful as it is, though, you don’t cut off people’s unemployment insurance checks and stall federal projects that actually create jobs – in this case, it was a genuine emergency.

However, I can’t help but admire the guy’s conviction** to try, even if I believe the principle he’s supporting seems more like simple obstructionism than a committment to fiscal responsibility (after all, Bunning had no problem with deficit spending when a Republican administration proposed it in relation to war or tax cuts).

Really, this is all I was looking for, a system that puts these sort of specatcles where the public can see them; I want my representatives to get out there and own their issues, and to back up their words with actions. With passion and well-conceived arguments, their case will be made. Conversely, if their heart’s not really in it, that case will be made as well.

____________

* – Just to note, this whole business doesn’t fit the classical definition of "filibuster", though it’s close enough as a procedural tactic that the term, while technically incorrect, isn’t entirely inappropriate, and the media’s using it as kind of a shorthand. Sadly, it still does muck up people’s understanding of the concept, and reinforcing part of the point I made last time about people not understanding how government works.

** a conviction probably supported in large part because Bunning is retiring, and doesn’t have to worry about re-election. I imagine that’s a freeing place to be, not to having to worry about keeping your job. Probably makes a lot of decisions a lot clearer for Senator Bunning. It’s too bad he’s decided to be an asshole about it.