I read that Reid has 51 votes for filibuster reform, but not for a full talking filibuster.

[Stinky The Clown]

Does that mean what I think it means?

Is that bullshitspeak for "We're gonna look like we're reforming while not actually changing anything?"

I *really* want to be wrong about that.

[Tx4obama]

1. Info below

-snip-

Senate aides say lawmakers could compromise as soon as Thursday on modest limits on filibusters, which a party in the minority uses to kill legislation. If no deal is reached, Democrats may push a package of changes that would place mild restraints on the practice.

Some newer Democratic senators want to require filibustering lawmakers to talk continuously as Stewart did in the 1939 film. But No. 2 Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin says Democrats lack the votes for that aggressive change.

Politico reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) are close to reaching a scaled-down deal. According to the report, Reid's proposal to McConnell does not require 41 votes to maintain a filibuster, which would shift the burden on to the minority. Under current rules, the majority must get 60 votes to end a filibuster.

"That was never a real possibility for the McConnell talks," a Senate Democratic aide told The Huffington Post of the 41-vote threshold. If talks between Reid and McConnell breakdown, shifting the onus onto the minority would be a central part of the package Democrats attempt to push through with 51 votes on the Senate floor.

The aide continued: "We will be a more efficient Senate; we'll be able to get on bills without having 60 votes and without having to spend a week to do it. We are getting the ability to confirm certain nominees who have objections against them. Instead of taking a week to confirm them, it'll take a few hours ... That's all Reid ever really wanted."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/filibuster-reform_n_2538309.html

[jeff47]

2. The reforms he was talking about are still good reforms

They put the onus on the minority to sustain the filibuster instead of requiring the majority to break it.

So instead of needing 60 votes from the majority to break it, they need 41 votes from the minority to sustain it.

So, Senator gets sick and is in the hospital. Under the current system, that senator effectively helps the filibuster continue. Under the new system, he would hurt the filibuster.

In addition, the majority could keep calling for votes, keeping the minority tied up while members of the majority can do other things.

So they would be very good changes. Not as good as the talking filibuster, but way better than the status quo.

However, there's some reports out tonight that Reid and McConnell are close to agreeing to something similar to the McCain/Levin proposal, which is close to nothing.

[russspeakeasy]

3. "MODEST LIMITS" ARE BULLSHIT.

Typical Harry.

[HERVEPA]

4. The short answer to your question. Yes.

[davidpdx]

5. A small number of Ds killed this

by saying they won't support it. They are too afraid to say it in public, but we know who they are. Doing so will hamstring the Senate and the president.

Don't expect anything to come of this. It is DOA.

[abelenkpe]

6. That is really disappointing :(

They should have to talk.

[gkhouston]

7. Sadly, that's what it looks like to me, too.

I wish I were surprised about this, but I'm not.

[bigtree]

8. first you report that he doesn't have the numbers he needs for the talking fili

. . .then you ignore that reality to imply Reid is 'bullshitting.'

What is it about counting the votes that you don't understand?

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Hi!

[Stinky The Clown]

10. See, here's the deal . . . . I repeat/question/comment upon/post stuff I hear on the nooz.

As we all know about the nooz, sometimes its right, sometimes its not.

But you go ahead and snark if that's good for you, okay?

[bigtree]

11. it's not just snark, Stinky. I have too much respect for you to just pick at you

. . . but knocking on the leadership is probably misguided. Reid would carry the bill to the president's desk if he was allowed to. It's just a handful of Democrats preventing him from getting his way. He's a tenacious fellow, so, I'm not buying into the notion that he's caving or weak or whatever. He just doesn't have the votes to pass his proposal. that's a pretty common reality in the Senate.

on edit: he says he has 51, so, we'll never know if the compromise passes. We'll soon find out if it doesn't.