HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I called Sen. Reid's offi...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:29 PM

I called Sen. Reid's office today and talked with a staffer. I asked why

he did not push for stronger filibuster reform. The staffer said, "that's Sen Reid's opinion." I asked the staffer to share my opinion with the Senator: "you, sir, did nothing good for the country today, and are a coward."

And, yes, I called before the vote, as well.

41 replies, 2664 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 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply I called Sen. Reid's office today and talked with a staffer. I asked why (Original post)
rateyes Jan 2013 OP
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #1
fadedrose Jan 2013 #2
Ptah Jan 2013 #3
rateyes Jan 2013 #5
FarPoint Jan 2013 #11
rateyes Jan 2013 #12
demwing Jan 2013 #41
rsmith6621 Jan 2013 #4
rateyes Jan 2013 #7
benld74 Jan 2013 #6
fadedrose Jan 2013 #9
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #8
rateyes Jan 2013 #10
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #13
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #14
rateyes Jan 2013 #15
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #39
onenote Jan 2013 #16
rateyes Jan 2013 #17
onenote Jan 2013 #18
rateyes Jan 2013 #19
onenote Jan 2013 #20
rateyes Jan 2013 #21
onenote Jan 2013 #23
rateyes Jan 2013 #24
onenote Jan 2013 #26
rateyes Jan 2013 #22
onenote Jan 2013 #27
rateyes Jan 2013 #28
onenote Jan 2013 #33
rateyes Jan 2013 #25
rateyes Jan 2013 #30
onenote Jan 2013 #34
rateyes Jan 2013 #36
onenote Jan 2013 #40
KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #35
Freddie Stubbs Jan 2013 #38
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #29
rateyes Jan 2013 #31
Matariki Jan 2013 #32
mnhtnbb Jan 2013 #37

Response to rateyes (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:30 PM

1. Good for you! Way to go, rateyes! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:32 PM

2. Now, Honeycombe8 and rateyes, that a real interesting couple....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:34 PM

3. Insults and invective.

Meh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ptah (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:35 PM

5. insults, invective, and

the fucking truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:04 PM

11. Foolish and impotent behavior.

You accomplished nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:14 PM

12. Foolish, impotent...probably....

but, still the fucking truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:26 AM

41. You cant know that

so your criticism can as easily be directed toward yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:34 PM

4. Ill Bet The Farm....



....that staffer did not deliver that exact message without softening it up alot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:36 PM

7. Even though he said he would, I bet you are right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:36 PM

6. Ed Show is going to cover exactly that coming up,,,,,,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benld74 (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:40 PM

9. Thanks, Rachel will cover too..

Best thing since sliced bread.

It's almost like Michael Renny got off the Ufo and addressed the Senate and told them to stop screwing around or he'll do a nuclear option, one that they can't filibuster by phone....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:37 PM

8. Senator Reid got the majority of what HE wanted.


See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022254993#post3

Reid got a lot of good stuff in the deal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:43 PM

10. It isnt about him. Its about the country. He is a failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:18 PM

13. and so is Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein who opposed Reform. Jack Reed, a liberal from R.I.

also opposed reform. Why didn't you call their offices?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:19 PM

14. Why didn't you call Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, and Jack Reed? All opposed reforms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:22 PM

15. Because he is the LEADER, and wouldnt get them on record.

And, he said yesterday he had the votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:55 AM

39. Yes, call him, but also call those senators. We need to put pressure, not only on the *LEADER* but

on those who directly represent us. Reid is in the position he's in because Dem senators put him there. That does not absolve us from contacting them, too, and holding them accountable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:23 PM

16. I keep asking, but no one answers: what difference would it make

in terms of getting legislation passed. Bills still have to pass the House and the Senate and nothing the repubs don't want is passing the House and getting to the president's desk.

So I ask again -- what practical difference would we see if the fiilbuster rule was changed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:25 PM

17. Really? Nothing the repubs dont want isnt getting to Obama's desk?

The wealthy just got a tax increase, signed by Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:28 PM

18. And it got there without filibuster reform. Because enough repubs

viewed it as the best they could get. But if you think there is a situation in which the Senate is going to filibuster something that would pass the House you are dreaming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:32 PM

19. There is a better chance of it passing if it can get out of the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:34 PM

20. give me an example of a bill that could pass the House but was filibustered

Just one will do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:35 PM

21. The public option.

This in 111th Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:45 PM

23. Care to back that up? The public option wasn't killed by a filibuster

It was killed in Committee even though the Democrats controlled the Senate.

Plus, we controlled the House then. We don't control it today, which is why the rending of garments about this decision seems overblown.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125424025772149687.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:49 PM

24. See the next post. As for p.o.

it would have been filibustered had Harry had the balls to bring it up for a vote, and could have passed it under reconciliation..Another example of Harrys spinelessness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:52 PM

26. It couldn't be brought up because it didn't get out of Committee

How a bill becomes a law 101.
If the majority leader can bring up any bill he wants, why have committee votes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:44 PM

22. Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act...on its way to passage in House,

killed in Senate with the filibuster after a majority was in favor. this in 112th Congress with a repub majority.

One will do, you said. I have more if you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:54 PM

27. What evidence is there that it would have passed the House?

A companion bill to the Senate version was never even introduced in the House. Why didn't the supporters of the bill bring it up in the House to create pressure on the Senate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:56 PM

28. It wasnt brought up in House because the Senate killed it with a filibuster...I now refer you to my

next post about the DREAM act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:14 PM

33. Again, how a bill becomes a law

Far more commonly than not, when a bill is introduced in the Senate, a companion bill is introduced in the House. There are several reasons, both political and procedural for doing this. Your Dream Act example is a good one -- its been introduced several times in both the House and Senate. In fact, its passage in the House came AFTER a companion version was blocked in the Senate. Once it passed the House, it went back to the Senate again and came much closer to getting through the filibuster than it had previously.

I will concede that the Dream Act is an example of a bill that passed the House but was blocked in the Senate. But that was when the Democrats controlled the House and the situation today is much different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:52 PM

25. The DREAM Act had already passed the House, and would be law today had the

Senate not filibustered it. Want more?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:02 PM

30. Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act. Passed Repub House with large majority...

died in Senate to filibuster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:31 PM

34. When did the Emergency Sr. Citizens Relief Act pass the House?

You may be right, but I don't recall it and I can't find any record of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #34)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:45 AM

36. 2011

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Reply #36)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:04 AM

40. I believe you are mistaken

There is no record of the Emergency Senior Citizens bill having even been introduced in 2011, let alone passed in the House. Two versions were introduced in the House and one in the Senate in 2009 and none of them got out of Committee. Two versions were introduced in the Senate in 2010 -- one stayed in Committee and the other was filibustered. No House action at all in 2010. And no House or Senate action at all in 2011 or 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:41 PM

35. Also...

...it prevents some of the batshit crazy bills the rushpublicans passed out of the House from reaching the Senate floor.

The change is supposed to cut back on the number of silent holds...especially for judicial and other nominations so that the backlog in the courts can be cleared up (a big thing as it means appointing Democratic judges) as well as forcing the person who puts the hold to come to the Senate floor instead of hiding. Incremental changes, but change.

The hang up here is the Democrats have teo protect more seats in 2014 than rushpublicans have and could easily lose the majority if Democrats stay home again like they did in 2010. Then those who wanted the nuclear option would cry about not having the filibuster...it's always whose ox is being gored...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:20 AM

38. Nominations which must be approved by the Senate (but not the House)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:01 PM

29. I called his office many times today and never could get through

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:02 PM

31. I was on hold for 10 mins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:06 PM

32. I REALLY don't get this

I remember seeing him talk about pushing filibuster reform and changing the 60 vote thing. He seemed so farking earnest.

This is from 2010:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:43 AM

37. Too bad Hillary couldn't have loaned her cojones to Reid for the day.

I do not understand why the Dems don't replace him with someone
who has some spine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread