Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:21 PM
cali (80,157 posts)
Harry Reid explains why he killed filibuster reform
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have come to a deal on filibuster reform. The deal is this: The filibuster will not be reformed.
“I’m not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold,” Reid (D-Nev.) told me this morning, referring to the number of votes needed to halt a filibuster. “With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn’t and shouldn’t be like the House.” What will be reformed is how the Senate moves to consider new legislation, the process by which all nominees — except Cabinet-level appointments and Supreme Court nominations — are considered, and the number of times the filibuster can be used against a conference report. You can read the full text of the compromise, which was sent out to Senate offices this morning, here (pdf). But even those reforms don’t go as far as they might. Take the changes to the motion to proceed, by which the Senate moves to consider a new bill. Reid seemed genuinely outraged over the way the process has bogged down in recent years. <snip> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/harry-reid-explains-why-he-killed-filibuster-reform/
|
60 replies, 2905 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| cali | Jan 2013 | OP | |
| Enrique | Jan 2013 | #1 | |
| Atman | Jan 2013 | #4 | |
| PoliticAverse | Jan 2013 | #2 | |
| Atman | Jan 2013 | #3 | |
| Matariki | Jan 2013 | #22 | |
| daleanime | Jan 2013 | #26 | |
| Botany | Jan 2013 | #5 | |
| Enrique | Jan 2013 | #11 | |
| grasswire | Jan 2013 | #6 | |
| gkhouston | Jan 2013 | #7 | |
| Liberalynn | Jan 2013 | #55 | |
| cascadiance | Jan 2013 | #8 | |
| Purveyor | Jan 2013 | #17 | |
| earthside | Jan 2013 | #9 | |
| ann--- | Jan 2013 | #10 | |
| msongs | Jan 2013 | #12 | |
| 2naSalit | Jan 2013 | #13 | |
| watch the sky | Jan 2013 | #14 | |
| Purveyor | Jan 2013 | #15 | |
| butterfly77 | Jan 2013 | #16 | |
| The Link | Jan 2013 | #18 | |
| still_one | Jan 2013 | #19 | |
| Coyotl | Jan 2013 | #20 | |
| Puglover | Jan 2013 | #21 | |
| kentuck | Jan 2013 | #23 | |
| Oilwellian | Jan 2013 | #24 | |
| Matariki | Jan 2013 | #25 | |
| leftstreet | Jan 2013 | #40 | |
| Dragonfli | Jan 2013 | #27 | |
| rhett o rick | Jan 2013 | #29 | |
| KoKo | Jan 2013 | #33 | |
| woo me with science | Jan 2013 | #47 | |
| bbgrunt | Jan 2013 | #54 | |
| Doctor_J | Jan 2013 | #28 | |
| rhett o rick | Jan 2013 | #31 | |
| BainsBane | Jan 2013 | #30 | |
| patrice | Jan 2013 | #32 | |
| rhett o rick | Jan 2013 | #34 | |
| d_b | Jan 2013 | #35 | |
| stklurker | Jan 2013 | #36 | |
| uponit7771 | Jan 2013 | #37 | |
| cascadiance | Jan 2013 | #38 | |
| Skidmore | Jan 2013 | #39 | |
| Demo_Chris | Jan 2013 | #41 | |
| Matariki | Jan 2013 | #44 | |
| Demo_Chris | Jan 2013 | #46 | |
| Atman | Jan 2013 | #52 | |
| grasswire | Jan 2013 | #60 | |
| Scuba | Jan 2013 | #42 | |
| Myrina | Jan 2013 | #43 | |
| Matariki | Jan 2013 | #45 | |
| woo me with science | Jan 2013 | #48 | |
| bvar22 | Jan 2013 | #49 | |
| DemocracyInaction | Jan 2013 | #50 | |
| WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Jan 2013 | #51 | |
| woo me with science | Jan 2013 | #57 | |
| WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Jan 2013 | #59 | |
| theaocp | Jan 2013 | #53 | |
| Chisox08 | Jan 2013 | #56 | |
| annabanana | Jan 2013 | #58 |
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:24 PM
Enrique (22,598 posts)
1. "Reid seemed genuinely outraged..."
|
yeah whatever
|
Response to Enrique (Reply #1)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:25 PM
Atman (26,052 posts)
4. Reid "genuinely outraged?"
|
What does that mean? He issued a press release saying "I'm genuinely outraged." This guy has to go.
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:24 PM
PoliticAverse (5,535 posts)
2. Talking filibusters still could require 60-votes to stop...
|
Every bill in the Senate shouldn't require a super majority.
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:24 PM
Atman (26,052 posts)
3. Wow, didn't see THIS coming.
|
Spineless Harry. He'd screw up a free hand job. |
Response to Atman (Reply #3)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:51 PM
Matariki (14,993 posts)
22. I'm changing my assessment of 'spineless' to 'complicit'
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:25 PM
Botany (36,033 posts)
5. God Damn it Harry how many times must Lucy (Mitch McConnell) pull the ball
|
away from you before you learn?
![]() |
Response to Botany (Reply #5)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:35 PM
Enrique (22,598 posts)
11. I think Reid is Lucy too
|
and anyone who believed we were getting filibuster reform is Charlie Brown.
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:30 PM
grasswire (36,692 posts)
6. why was a deal with McConnell necessary, or desirable?
|
I thought he said he was going to move with or without "permission" from McConnell.
|
Response to grasswire (Reply #6)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:32 PM
gkhouston (21,642 posts)
7. Shh... we're not supposed to remember that. n/t
Response to grasswire (Reply #6)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:49 PM
Liberalynn (5,547 posts)
55. Yeah what happened to the Nuclear option Harry
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:33 PM
cascadiance (14,040 posts)
8. So... Who's the new Senate Majority leader in 2014 which MUST change hands then!
|
Senator Merkley? Senator Harkin? Senator Udall?
Or maybe Elizabeth Warren, to help her prepare credentials for a run for president or be a VP selection in 2016, though that might be hard to do being in that position at the same time! We should start campaigning NOW for a change that will happen then! We should keep a record of every successful obstruction that the "happy" Mr. McConnell gets away with now and remind the rest of the Senate then that we don't need to keep this record of failure that has kept our government from functioning since Reid's been in charge of the Senate. |
Response to cascadiance (Reply #8)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:40 PM
Purveyor (13,177 posts)
17. With this 'leadership', it is probable we won't even have the Majority come 2014. Thank your
|
lords that we will still have the White House.
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:34 PM
earthside (4,630 posts)
9. It's worse than we thought.
|
This is so depressing.
Our representative form of government is just flat, plain broken. We, the people, never had a say in creating a 'super majority' U.S. Senate ... it just kind of evolved and now we are stuck with it. Chances of Democrats keeping the Senate and recapturing the House in 2014 just got much worse. The cynicism towards Washington is going to ratchet up as gridlock continues. |
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:35 PM
ann--- (564 posts)
10. What an
|
idiot. Dems are as bad as gopers.
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:35 PM
msongs (30,478 posts)
12. so Reid wants dems to be neutered and spayed yet again? Obama can kiss HIS plans goodbye nt
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:36 PM
2naSalit (1,661 posts)
13. So much for
|
Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:37 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) all the reverie over Obama's re-election and his fabulous speech.
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:37 PM
watch the sky (104 posts)
14. a reversal from what he said earlier this week
|
I wonder if this is what he thinks is best, to keep the focus on the GOP and to keep the Senate deliberately slow. That's the only explaination, this is no deal.
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:37 PM
Purveyor (13,177 posts)
15. "Senators will remain able to place holds, and the holds will have to be broken with 60 votes"
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:38 PM
butterfly77 (16,765 posts)
16. As I have said many times before..
|
why is Harry Reid the majority leader he is weak.
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:41 PM
The Link (286 posts)
18. Very disappointed in Reid.
|
I watched an interview with Bernie Sanders last night and he was genuinely perplexed by Reid's behavior.
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:42 PM
still_one (31,075 posts)
19. This is why the democratic leaders in congress are losers. They could have
|
Required a filibuster to require a physical appearance, but they did not even do that
It really is way past due for new people in the Democratic Party to take over The Democrats in congress mostly all talk and no action |
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:44 PM
Coyotl (5,153 posts)
20. It was a dog and pony show all along.
|
All talk, no action, a big distraction.
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:49 PM
Puglover (14,588 posts)
21. This is so disappointing.
|
As John Nichols said. President Obama may as well pack his bags and go to Hawaii for 2 years. Hopefully they can get some stuff done however who really thinks they can get 5 Pukes to cross over and vote for a transaction tax on Wall Street.
Just soooo disappointing. Thanks loads Harry. |
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:54 PM
kentuck (66,161 posts)
23. I'll bet that Mitch promised to be more "bi-partisan"?
|
And not to act like he has for the last 4 years?
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:54 PM
Oilwellian (9,281 posts)
24. I'm wondering...
|
Can't we file FOIA's on these Republican Senators secret motions? Perhaps a little sunlight on their obstruction is needed?
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:54 PM
Matariki (14,993 posts)
25. Complicit
|
com·plic·it
adjective choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, especially with others; having complicity. |
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:07 PM
Dragonfli (5,051 posts)
27. It's official, THE DEMOCRATS THAT PRETEND TO SUPPORT US WANT OBSTRUCTION TOO
|
It is a bipartisan agreement that the GOP has been doing a great job with the rules as is.
It will successfully stop anything "not right wing" from being passed, the ruse is over, only slightly watered down Republican dogma will be allowed to pass now, regardless of the theater presented for the working class! Our party just endorsed the blocking of all those laws and appointments that are not center-right to right. I am changing my registration tomorrow (Democratic Socialist probably), there is no actual Democratic party anymore, just employees of the GOP that serve to give the appearance of opposition to get us to believe we the people are represented. I don't know if real Democrats will be allowed to post here anymore, so be honest with me and tell me if I will get TS'ed. The party I joined in '72 only exists as Democratic Socialists now (it appears that's what the kids are calling FDR/LBJ Democrats now) I will no longer be manipulated into supporting the GOP agenda by supporting their right wing partners that now control the party named "Democrats" (an increasingly ironic rather than accurate label), while serving the Heritage foundation via political puppet shows with pre-determined outcomes. |
Response to Dragonfli (Reply #27)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:16 PM
rhett o rick (26,650 posts)
29. They are just playing good cop, bad cop and when pushed into a corner
|
guess what, the good cop is really bad.
|
Response to Dragonfli (Reply #27)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:20 PM
KoKo (69,512 posts)
33. I know exactly how you feel...
|
Thanks for the good fight, though. At least the manipulations are being exposed for what they are. The reality of what's going on can be faced. Maybe that's some progress, at least. |
Response to Dragonfli (Reply #27)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:21 PM
woo me with science (19,552 posts)
47. Well said. The complicity with corporate Republicans is right in front of us.
|
There never was any interest in filibuster reform, and those who have been paying attention called it from the start.
So now we are mysteriously falling short of votes for filibuster reform http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809132 The oligarchs could not be expected to give up their very best excuse for ensuring that legislation will continue to favor corporations and shaft the rest of us. |
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:14 PM
Doctor_J (26,327 posts)
28. the president's speech scared some people
|
that the US might actually move away from the fascist hellhole that it's become. So the Big shots put the kibosh on the filibuster reform so we can once again have "gridlock".
|
Response to Doctor_J (Reply #28)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:18 PM
rhett o rick (26,650 posts)
31. The oligarchs dont give a damn what the President says.
|
They control Congress. There never was a plan to fix the filibuster. If you notice that whenever a close vote comes up, the few Democrats that side with the REpublicans changes. They take turns being the bad guys.
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:17 PM
BainsBane (9,320 posts)
30. I knew it
|
the coward
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:20 PM
patrice (47,312 posts)
32. Did he kill the vote because it would have succeeded? Time for NEW younger leadership!! nt
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:21 PM
rhett o rick (26,650 posts)
34. Those that want to pin this on Sen Reid are fooling themselves. He isnt in this
|
Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:22 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) alone. He was voted to lead the Senate Democrats for a reason. IMO they are more than happy with the status quo. No one can blame them for shit.
And the President can say whatever he wants because it wont happen w/o the HOR and Senate. |
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:30 PM
d_b (6,671 posts)
35. times like these i'm glad i'm no longer a democrat
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:35 PM
stklurker (173 posts)
36. Reid... and Pelosi
|
I have said several times, and take flack for it... Reid and Pelosi are NOT getting the job done.. public posing, fine, but they HAVE to be the ones behind the scenes pulling the strings, majority or minority and making things happen... Just sitting back and hoping the president can deal with Congress is NOT how its supposed to work....
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:41 PM
uponit7771 (16,143 posts)
37. This is all Obama's fault, the bashers will have a field ..4 yrs
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:41 PM
cascadiance (14,040 posts)
38. Self delete
|
Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:44 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2) wrong thread... sorry
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:45 PM
Skidmore (29,007 posts)
39. Governance shouldn't be about what he wants personally.
|
And he should read Senate history. The fillibuster isn't what it used to be or was intended to be, nor is the use of a "majority."
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:53 PM
Demo_Chris (2,317 posts)
41. Senators (often) are not like Representatives, and Reid is a smart man
|
Rather than a betrayal, I think that this is a move by BOTH Reid and McConnell to ensure that the safety net against extremism remains in place. I think both are concerned about radical Republicans grabbing a simple majority and going absolutely freaking nuts with no one able to stop them.
Until these guys finish their self-destruction this is probably a good thing. And yes, I think McConnell is concerned as well. I think a LOT of people in Washington are concerned. |
Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #41)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:12 PM
Matariki (14,993 posts)
44. This doesn't make sense since the Senate rules can be changed every year
Response to Matariki (Reply #44)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:20 PM
Demo_Chris (2,317 posts)
46. Okay... then I really don't understand why Reid caved
Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #41)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:57 PM
Atman (26,052 posts)
52. I think you're out of your mind.
|
You left out the puppies and unicorns.
|
Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #41)
Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:35 AM
grasswire (36,692 posts)
60. oh brother nt
|
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:57 PM
Scuba (26,686 posts)
42. Meanwhile, the "loyal opposition" is blatantly trying to rig the next Presidential election ...
|
... and we're giving them a tool to stop us from preventing it.
Jeezus H. Krist on a trailer hitch. |
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:01 PM
Myrina (8,913 posts)
43. "blah blah powder blah blah expedient blah dry blah blah blah "
|
Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:02 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:14 PM
Matariki (14,993 posts)
45. Wouldn't want to lose the convenient excuse for their inaction.
|
That's the REAL explanation.
|
Response to Matariki (Reply #45)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:22 PM
woo me with science (19,552 posts)
48. +100000
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:34 PM
bvar22 (29,503 posts)
49. The LAST thing our "Centrist" Party Leadership wants...
|
..is a clear majority in either the House or the Senate.
What would they do without these excuses: *We didn't think we would have the votes, so we didn't try *Its nor OUR fault. We didn't have 60 votes. *It was ALL Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln's fault. *Damn that Joe Lieberman. He was a Superman who single handedly RUINED it for everybody. There was nothing we could dooooooooo. It was horrible. "So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln. Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure. Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests. The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.
Ordinarily, when Party leaders support horrible incumbents in primaries, they use the “electability” excuse: this is a conservative state, the incumbent has the best chance to win, and the progressive challenger is out-of-step with voters. That excuse is clearly unavailable here. As Public Policy Polling explained yesterday, Lincoln has virtually no chance of winning in November against GOP challenger John Boozman. And while it would have also been difficult for Halter to beat Boozman, polls consistently showed that he had a better chance than Lincoln did. That’s unsurprising, given how much better non-Washington candidates are doing in this incumbent-hating climate than long-term Washington insiders. And it’s rather difficult to claim that Halter is out-of-step with Arkansas given that they elected him their Lt. Governor. Whatever the reasons Washington Democrats had for supporting the deeply unpopular Lincoln, it had nothing whatsoever to do with electability. What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, " <more> http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/ But, HEY! All we have to do is elect more Progressives to the House & Senate so that President Obama can enact his agenda! Right? I was in Arkansas for the Democratic Primary 2010. The Grass Roots and Organized LABOR did everything right to give the White House "more Progressives" to work with. Turns out, our biggest enemy wasn't the Republicans, it WAS the Obama White House. When the White House was asked about its support for the woman who campaigned as the one who derailed the Public Option, the only response we received was from a "white House Spokesman" ridiculing our efforts for "wasting 10 $Million Dollars" by supporting a Pro-LABOR/Pro-HealthCare Democrat. We still haven't received an appropriate explanation from the White House, but it will be a LONG time before the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR forget Obama's Oval Office Endorsement of Blanche LIncoln in the Arkansas Democratic Primary. You will know them by their WORKS, not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses. Solidarity99! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:49 PM
DemocracyInaction (2,495 posts)
50. Snort...and you thought the Kochs lost
|
Silly people ...now do you understand what they bought? We are neither Charlie nor Lucy. We are the brainless football.
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:53 PM
WhaTHellsgoingonhere (2,199 posts)
51. Just wondering, who's the REAL leader of the Democratic Party?
|
This isn't the first time I thought the boss (POTUS) has always been calling the shots. Part of the 3 dimensional chess game. Reid's hands always seem tied.
|
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #51)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:52 PM
woo me with science (19,552 posts)
57. Wall Street.
|
They own both.
|
Response to woo me with science (Reply #57)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:46 PM
WhaTHellsgoingonhere (2,199 posts)
59. And...checkmate
|
I just think it's ridiculous that people think Harry Reid has anything to do with anything important. He's a tool, just not a top shelf tool. That would be POTUS.
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:02 PM
theaocp (1,603 posts)
53. Reid is full of shit
|
and it is arguable that he has been from the start. There is no justification for this, unless you just don't want to read the damn tea leaves. This wasn't even a lay-up. He blocked his own shot and threw it into the upper seats. What a lion!
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:54 PM
Chisox08 (1,595 posts)
56. Our elected Democrats don't know how to wield power.
|
I hope Reid wasn't thinking that when the Republicons eventually to back the Senate that they would be so kind to leave the filibuster rules the way they are. Look at Republicon history when they are in charge the fix the rules in their favor, the ram through what ever they want and they dare the Democrats to say something about it. For at least the next two years expect filibuster after filibuster until Obama's term is over or they take the Senate. Nothing has changed.
|
Response to cali (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:57 PM
annabanana (45,559 posts)
58. And what is his explanation for no "talking" filibuster?
|
Could it be that Senators are just, you know, lazy?
|


