HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why Harry and the Democra...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:17 PM

Why Harry and the Democrats wimped out on filibuster reform?

Harry made a deal with Mitch to more or less keep the status quo on filibusters. They can still maintain the "silent" filibuster.

It appears the reason they did it is because two years from now the Democrats may be in the minority and they don't want to be denied the same rights as the Republicans now utilize. As if they would ever be so daring.

So it appears that the Senate has more or less tied the President's hands for the rest of his term. So much for a "progressive" agenda. Cowardice won the day.

Perhaps someone sees it differently?

69 replies, 3602 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Harry and the Democrats wimped out on filibuster reform? (Original post)
kentuck Jan 2013 OP
russspeakeasy Jan 2013 #1
Recursion Jan 2013 #2
villager Jan 2013 #6
Recursion Jan 2013 #7
russspeakeasy Jan 2013 #8
Recursion Jan 2013 #9
leftyohiolib Jan 2013 #22
kentuck Jan 2013 #23
Recursion Jan 2013 #34
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #10
Recursion Jan 2013 #11
Segami Jan 2013 #17
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #31
earthside Jan 2013 #3
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #12
kairos12 Jan 2013 #13
adamaree Jan 2013 #25
sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #4
leftstreet Jan 2013 #5
onenote Jan 2013 #48
patrice Jan 2013 #53
kentuck Jan 2013 #14
adamaree Jan 2013 #30
Marr Jan 2013 #15
woo me with science Jan 2013 #18
Marr Jan 2013 #20
jsr Jan 2013 #36
octoberlib Jan 2013 #43
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #32
Recursion Jan 2013 #51
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #52
Recursion Jan 2013 #55
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #57
Recursion Jan 2013 #58
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #60
Recursion Jan 2013 #61
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #63
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #65
Marr Jan 2013 #54
woo me with science Jan 2013 #16
avebury Jan 2013 #19
adamaree Jan 2013 #27
tularetom Jan 2013 #21
bigtree Jan 2013 #24
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #33
meow2u3 Jan 2013 #26
msongs Jan 2013 #28
0rganism Jan 2013 #42
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #29
earthside Jan 2013 #35
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #38
earthside Jan 2013 #40
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #46
cascadiance Jan 2013 #44
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #45
Recursion Jan 2013 #59
bvar22 Jan 2013 #62
EastKYLiberal Jan 2013 #37
onenote Jan 2013 #49
0rganism Jan 2013 #39
Vinca Jan 2013 #41
Recursion Jan 2013 #50
onenote Jan 2013 #56
Vinca Jan 2013 #69
dmosh42 Jan 2013 #47
woo me with science Jan 2013 #64
fadedrose Jan 2013 #66
woo me with science Jan 2013 #67
libtodeath Jan 2013 #68

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:19 PM

1. Here is how I see it. Harry has never, ever, seen a fight

he wouldn't run away from. I'm sick of the guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russspeakeasy (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:20 PM

2. You know the Senate doesn't involve actual physical confrontations, right?

At least not since the caning of Sumner. He can't actually walk up to Senators and knee them in the crotch until they vote the way he wants. You do know that, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:22 PM

6. If only it would involve legislative confrontations by Democrats!

That itself would be a great leap forward....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:23 PM

7. Like what?

I'm still missing some step that people who keep wanting Reid to "fight" seem to know about that I don't. What is this "legislative confrontation" you're talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:24 PM

8. Harry is a self proclaimed Dem and has a job to do.

You do know that, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russspeakeasy (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:25 PM

9. He's doing his job. Particularly the important part of counting votes.

Seriously, do you want him to take a cane and start beating Baucus until he agrees to filibuster reform? I mean, I would certainly pay to see that, but it's not what his actual job is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:53 PM

22. are u suggesting that there is no amount of arm twisting that the dems can do to gain votes

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:55 PM

23. Just like LBJ used to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:25 PM

34. LBJ had moderate Republicans to replace his conservative Democrats

not to mention a majority about 4 times as large as Reid's. This notion of him "persuading" Senators is mostly a myth.

He knew where some bodies were buried, so he could twist a few arms; mostly he just had the numbers going in. And he still couldn't get a greater percentage of Democrats to vote for the Civil Rights Act than Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:26 PM

10. C-Span rating would go through the roof

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:26 PM

11. I would certainly pay to watch (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:32 PM

17. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:21 PM

31. Perhaps you have forgotten the 6 years of "keeping our powder dry"?

 

Harry is my Senator and the only reason I voted to keep him in office was because the republicans put an insane woman up as the alternative. He is useless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:21 PM

3. 'The same rights'

Humph.

If the Repuglicans ever get a majority again they will change the filibuster rule faster than you can shake a stick.

Repuglicans believe in 'majority rule' when they have a majority, and they believe in 'tyranny of the minority' when they are a minority. How come some Democrats, like Harry Reid and other Democratic 'silent' filibuster supporters, are so dumb they can't see that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:27 PM

12. +4,390

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:29 PM

13. Agree With This--The Rethugs will use the nuclear option to change the rules

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:03 PM

25. adamaree

The Democrats do what they do best, nothing. In the last 16 years they have caved and it is always the same people. Why do we re-elect these people? We need the filibuster to pass President Obama's agenda, mainly the job bill. Without that it will be the same old thing. Senator Barcus is always going to be conservative, always have been, and believe it or not Senator D. Fienstein is as well. She call it bipartisan, I call it caving. I am surprise at Senator Boxer, she is one of the hold outs on voting for the filibuster bill, as first presented. I agree, if the Republicans get the majority in the Senate they will vote to continue as they all ways have. I am looking at all of the California Senators who are not during their job for the people, Is it because they want to hold their jobs? Who is to say that the Democrats will every get a chance to be the majority again and if they become the minority they will still do as always, cave. We must remember the election when all the Blue Dogs voted against the party agenda, and guess what most of them lost their jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:21 PM

4. From what I read, the deal does eliminate the filibuster on 'motion to proceed'

votes. That's at least progress in we might actually get to arguments on a bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:21 PM

5. Same shit, different Congress. Obama gets a 4 yr vacation n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:19 PM

48. I missed the news. When did the Democrats capture the House?

A couple of posters have suggested that because the Senate failed to adopt stronger filibuster reforms, the President gets a "4 year vacation" and that the President's hands are "tied" for the rest of his term.

I'm curious what legislation isn't going to reach the President's desk that would have had the stronger reforms been adopted?

And I'm curious how Harry Reid is supposed to convince Democrats who don't support stronger reforms (i) because they don't see where they would produce any legislation because the House will still block measures and (ii) they worry about what happens when the shoe is on the other foot. You and I and even Harry might disagree with those Senators, but holding a vote on stronger reforms and losing that vote hardly helps anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:49 PM

53. All of which Reid would know, so this whole "filibuster reform" run was just a temperature check? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:29 PM

14. They don't even respect you enough to tell you which Democrats were for it and which against...

They will just keep it close to their vests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:21 PM

30. adamaree

kentuck,
yes they do. look under Google and search what Democrats not voting or holding out on supporting the filibuster bill as first presented. Here are 7 of the senators; Baucus, Boxer, Feinstein, Heitkamp, Hirono, Leahy and Reed. Thats a start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:29 PM

15. Complicity won the day.

The self-imposed filibuster straightjacket is really the only excuse our own party's leadership has left for not advancing a progressive economic agenda. Of course they're not going to let it go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:37 PM

18. This is the correct answer,

of course.

The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:41 PM

20. Yep-- Rockefeller is a perfect example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:29 PM

36. Excellent description of how to play Third Way chess and prosper

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:39 PM

43. Too much money and corporate influence

I'm disgusted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:23 PM

32. You got it. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:27 PM

51. The filibuster reform failed because conservative Democrats don't like the leadership's agenda

If you'd rather they be Republicans, nominate someone more liberal for Montana and Arkansas. We'll have a more unified caucus in the minority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:38 PM

52. A unified minority is working very effectively for the republicans....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:08 PM

55. I wasn't kidding; if you'd rather have that, just do what the Republicans did and nominate...

... more partisan people in swing states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:43 PM

57. Nor was I kidding.

What good is a 'majority' when you can't get anything accomplished? Perhaps more to the point, what good is having 2 parties when it is difficult to tell the difference between the 2 of them? The only apparent differences, pro-choice v anti-choice, a new found voice on LGBT equality, and a halfhearted support of immigration reform.

Ask yourself this question..."If my wages had remained stagnant for 30 years and one party may want to raise my taxes and the other doesn't, and I don't give a rat's ass about gays, Blacks or abortion rights, would I really vote for the party that may raise my taxes?" If you are honest, you know what your answer would be. Dems have done absolutely nothing for the working class...just look at our minimum wage....nor do you hear them raising a ruckus about t. A Dem signed NAFTA and Obama will no doubt sign the damned TPP...which is an abomination that Australia baked away from. Australia , btw has a $15.51 an hour minimum wage.

So a 'majority' of make believe Democrats is not doing us much good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #57)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:45 PM

58. So, "just" women's bodily autonomy and LGBTQ issues?

I'm glad I'm privileged enough that I can elide those into a subordinate clause, personally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #58)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:54 PM

60. I was trying to make the point that the Democratic party has become too moderate...

If you think it is, in its current incarnation, progressive, then perhaps I am much older that you.

I never used the word 'just' nor am I demeaning those issues....think in terms of only. Also, think in the terms of the full post. I know those are issues important to me...but they are not important to everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:55 PM

61. I think the Democratic party is as far left as it can be and win elections in a lot of districts

Many on DU disagree; I understand that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:45 PM

63. But there are meat and potato issues

which Dems can win...that is my point. I understand your position very well and have been stoned here on DU for saying pretty much the same thing. I am a pragmatist myself. Many Americans understand the damage done by outsourcing and 'globalization' so where are the Dem voices calling daily for a revision of the trade agreements that have crippled the middle and working classes? Why has no one in congress attacked the TPP? Where is the call for a 'living wage" ? To many working class voters, we are the party of Gays, minorities and abortions...but can you blame them? Most people don't follow politics as devotedly as DUers...they don't even watch Fox News or listen to Limbaugh. But they would sit up and take notice if we began to regularly attack the policies that have so diminished the quality of life of average Americans. Republicans have attempted how many bills to overturn Obamacare...32 at last count with Bachmann looking to file the 33rd. Why haven't the Dem senators done the same with wages or trade agreements?

Social justice follows prosperity.... Had Obama not needed the support of the LGBT community and their families, do you think he would have come out in favor of same-sex marriage? I wouldn't want to bet the ranch on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:25 PM

65. Maybe on the wedge shit but on economics and war they are stuck in neoliberal lala land

and lag behind the population.

Few are in love with free trade or military adventures or making sure Wall Street doesn't miss a beat.

If folks really wanted such, there is always a TeaPubliKlan to vote for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #51)


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:30 PM

16. ...



So now we are mysteriously falling short of votes for filibuster reform
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809132

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:38 PM

19. Democrats are their own worse enemies.

I have reached the point where I don't hardly watch the TV news shows anymore. I have also started to stay away from most of the political threads. If the Democrats don't begin to stand up and get in the face of the Republicans then they will be a hindrance to President Obama's second term. Republicans are playing the long game on the state level and Democrats need to get as much done on the national level before Republicans write them off on the state level. There is absolutely no secret about what the Republicans are doing and Democrats need to stop rolling over for the Republicans. Harry Reid has no business being the Senate Majority Leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avebury (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:07 PM

27. adamaree

I agree avebury, The Democrats are their worst enemy, always has been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:42 PM

21. I don't think Reid had the votes but he should have tried anyway

There were 9 Democrats who voted in favor of the Keystone pipeline for crissakes. I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that these timid souls would have voted against filibuster reform as well.

That being said, Reid should have forced the issue and made these DINO's come out publicly in opposition to filibuster reform. Maybe some of them could face some primary opposition the next time they are up for reelection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:59 PM

24. I think he should have offered to box Dems for their votes

. . . or, maybe arm wrestle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:25 PM

33. He was a very good boxer back in the day. But he's all about keeping the owners happy now. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:04 PM

26. They're afraid the rethugs might use those rules to ram through bad laws

if they get the majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:13 PM

28. repubs will do that anyway. unlike many dems, repubs at least honor their own beliefs nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:39 PM

42. if they get the Senate majority, filibuster reform will be the first thing they do

that's how they roll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:16 PM

29. I'm bookmarking this thread. Why? Because most assuredly, there are DU members quick to blame Obama

for the impasse in getting anything progressive passed.

I just want to be sure that we can refer back to this thread before pointing the finger at the president.

Just sayin'...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:28 PM

35. Of course, we'll probably never know ...

... but one would hope that Pres. Obama is engaged in this persuasion.

He is a former member of the U.S. Senate.

His agenda will rise or fall based on how obstructionist the Repuglicans in the Senate chose to be.

The President ought to be bending the arms of the Democratic pro-silent filibuster Senators so far back that they are screaming in pain (metaphorically speaking, of course).

If he isn't ... then "pointing the finger at the president" when gun safety reform et la. is filibuster will still have credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:35 PM

38. We make too many assumptions here on DU. We have absolutely no clue what goes on behind

closed doors.

The president has very little influence on what goes on in the Senate. That's really more Biden's area, but I hear what you're saying.

At any rate, my argument stands, however. Harry Reid and the other Democratic leaders have a role. Don't blame the president if they either can't or won't do their jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:38 PM

40. They are all in this together.

I'm not letting any of them off the hook ... accountability, that's what representative democracy is all about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:56 PM

46. True. I certainly agree with that. But we also have to be realistic and not let the Democrats

off the hook, either.

The biggest problem Bill Clinton had was not the Republicans. It was within his own party. The same is true of President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:42 PM

44. And our NOT knowing IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM! It is NOT a Democracy when that happens!

We need to know why the government is being "made" to not work. They work behind the scenes to make it "not work" so that they can throw up their hands later and claim "Don't blame me! I 'wanted' to do the right thing, but wasn't able to with the current status quo". And I believe perhaps that both Reid and the administration might be behind this the way the lobbyists rule everything these days now and what these people get paid when they leave office (or NOT paid if they don't play by the lobbyists' rules!). We need to ramp up the primary process of next election, and put the *bought* Democrats that didn't vote for these fundamental changes on notice that they will be replaced for selfishly working for lobbyists instead of their voting constituents!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:55 PM

45. You make a valid point. I often think Democrats refuse to stand up so that they can later

make an excuse for not doing what their constituencies want.

The Right fears its base.
The left HATES its base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:46 PM

59. Is it *really* all that hard to guess?

Roll Call will have it tomorrow morning, if you're still wondering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:37 PM

62. You support the Weak President Theory for Inaction?

You believe that the President and Leader of the entire Democratic Party has
no influence over what Harry Reid does in The Senate???!!!

I've never though that the Weak President Rationalization was good for President Obama OR The Democratic Party.

My Take on Harry Reid's behavior:
The LAST thing the Democratic Party Leadership wants is a clear legislative majority in the House OR The Senate.
That would ruin the Kabuki Theater,
and completely pull back the curtain.
There would BE No More Excuses.

"The Arkansas primary fight (2010) illuminates some unpleasant though vital truths about the Democratic establishment "
"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.

<snip>

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, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:33 PM

37. Sen. Reid is a weak, pathetic little weasel. He has squandered our President's 2nd term. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:22 PM

49. I'll ask again: what legislation isn't reaching the President's desk that would have done so

had the stronger reforms been enacted? Does anyone think the House was simply going to roll over because the Senate was able to overcome a filibuster?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:37 PM

39. the day the republicans take the majority in the Senate...

there will be filibuster reform. Believe it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:39 PM

41. We need to replace Harry. The man is pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:26 PM

50. Right! And his replacement will have magical powers of hypnosis to change Senators' votes!

Why haven't we thought of this before???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:11 PM

56. And how do "we" do that?

My guess is that the majority of the Democratic caucus has no interest in replacing Reid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #56)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 07:28 AM

69. Then the majority of the Democratic caucus isn't representing the majority of Democrats.

If we wanted to keep Republican obstruction, we could have voted for Republicans in November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:06 PM

47. I have a feeling Reid couldn't get enough of our 'brave' senators to vote for tougher rules.

And part of his job is NOT to put the other Dem senators on the spot by making them vote in public against the Merkley plan. It always comes down to the weasles in the senate having the upper hand. We can now write off any chance of progressive legislation going anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:59 PM

64. Welcome to corporate term #2,

by design.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:34 PM

66. I think what I heard were proposed changes, not actual ones

But like that wonderful Tom Harkin said, anything they do is better than what we got.

I would love to see filibusters, the way it should be done. Arguments, not an empty senate room waiting and wasting time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:18 AM

67. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:43 AM

68. Handed the other team the ball again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread