HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why did Reid fold on fili...

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:26 PM

Why did Reid fold on filibuster reform?

Frankly, I suspected the jig was up when I saw the story that he was consulting with Mitch McConnell.

After Republicans in the Senate's performance under Obama, it should be clear to the most casual observer that their word is worth less than nothing.

My question is why he folded this time. Did he make the best of a weak hand or was it just a token effort and Senate Dems are glad to have the GOP to play bad cop to give them an excuse not to do what Democratic voters expect and deserve?
17 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Reid did not actually have the votes to do filibuster reform, so he bluffed and got some concessions from McConnell
11 (65%)
Reid puts Senate etiquette ahead of results, being careful about which fork to use even if Republicans will steal it and stab him in the eye with it
0 (0%)
Reid did not want filibuster reform because he knows about a new, untapped reserve of angry old white people the GOP can tap into for a comeback, so Dems need filibuster for future as minority
0 (0%)
Reid did not want filibuster reform because he and Blue Dogs in Senate mostly agree with GOP and are glad to let them obstruct more progressive policies
6 (35%)
Reid is dumber than the party that thinks Jesus rode dinosaurs, global warming is caused by cow farts, and rich people can screw us as hard as they want without going the way Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
0 (0%)
other (please explain)
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

19 replies, 1222 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 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why did Reid fold on filibuster reform? (Original post)
yurbud Jan 2013 OP
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #1
yurbud Jan 2013 #2
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #4
yurbud Jan 2013 #14
annabanana Jan 2013 #15
samsingh Jan 2013 #3
limpyhobbler Jan 2013 #5
onehandle Jan 2013 #6
stultusporcos Jan 2013 #8
yurbud Jan 2013 #9
Still Sensible Jan 2013 #7
yurbud Jan 2013 #11
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #10
yurbud Jan 2013 #12
msongs Jan 2013 #13
melm00se Jan 2013 #16
Proud Liberal Dem Jan 2013 #17
Zorra Jan 2013 #18
yurbud Jan 2013 #19

Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:28 PM

1. Other.

I opened the thread thinking it might have a bit of seriousness. It did not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:30 PM

2. you could add the serious in your response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:31 PM

4. Will you modify your poll if I give you a serious option?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 08:22 AM

14. yes, if it's truly different from what I have up there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 08:24 AM

15. What would have been "serious"?. . . n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:31 PM

3. he should not have given in

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:33 PM

5. You said the answer in the OP...

"Dems are glad to have the GOP to play bad cop to give them an excuse not to do what Democratic voters expect and deserve."

This way they can give voters the appearance of supporting progressive policies, and claim the bad guys obstructed because they had less than 60 votes.

They can tell their corporate donors not to worry, they can vote any which way to appease the voters, because it's not going to pass anyways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:37 PM

6. Probably the first one, but those with long memories, may stay home on election day 2014.

That's a bad gamble, Dems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:00 PM

8. Don't stay home vote

 

you will have other choices that are Democratic too they may not win but at least you will have particpated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:33 PM

9. clearly, that prospect doesn't bother them as much as potentially crossing big donors

They didn't seem to shed too many tears when they lost the House in 2010, especially since Obama's bipartisan shtick didn't make much sense when Dems controlled both chambers of Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:51 PM

7. I believe Reid failed because up to six democrats

or at least six folks that have (D) by their names, looked at the 2014 landscape with vulnerable democratic seats up for election and feared it would backfire.

I still contend that at the very least he should have made sure to switch the onus to the minority to 'produce' the 41 votes instead of leaving it to the majority to get 60 votes for cloture. How many times were democrats in recent history unable to get to 60 because of circumstance? I remember during Sen. Kennedy's illness and Sen. Byrd's infirmity, for example. Make them get the necessary votes to the floor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Still Sensible (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:44 PM

11. what the Blue Dogs look at is who writes the checks for their campaigns and will write them for

their jobs as lobbyists, CEO's, do noting board members, and corporate lawyers when they leave office.

Part of the myth of the Blue Dog living in fear of Republican voters was shattered during the health care debate when overwhelming majorities in their states wanted the public option and they wouldn't even discuss it.

They are quite simply high priced whores and we don't have enough money for them to even acknowledge our existence let alone service us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:40 PM

10. It's just another example of the 3rd Way of doing things. Aka..triangulation..aka..sell out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:47 PM

12. triangulation is the greatest misnomer ever

it's more like rebranding Republican ideas to confuse Democratic voters long enough to enact them.

Health Care "Reform" that followed the Heritage Foundation, Romneycare model being the best example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:48 PM

13. your 3rd sentence should be one of the choices.... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 08:25 AM

16. one possible reason that I didn't see anyone pick up on

That the day may come where the Democratic Party may find itself in the reverse situation and they don't want to take this bullet out of their legislative gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 08:34 AM

17. Sounds like he didn't have the votes he needed

and took what few concessions that he could get. Plus, thinking ahead to 2014 and the prospect of not holding on to the majority in the Senate after 2014. While the Republicans- if they get control of the chamber- might change the rules to favor themselves in some way or another, Reid probably thought that it would be harder to avoid any dramatic rule changes under them if he were to adopt any harsh rule changes now. We might be able to get more done during the next two years by adopting stronger rules but it may backfire on us if and when the Republicans get back in the majority. I'm sure that there were a lot of political calculations that went into the final outcome. I seriously doubt some claims that it had to do with trying to be "buddies" with the GOP and/or not wanting to get anything done. At the end of the day, I just think that it had to do with not giving the GOP any reason(s) to adopt harsher rules if and when they get back into power (which could happen as soon as 2015- hopefully not but maybe).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 08:41 AM

18. The game is rigged, and wealthy private interests hire numerous Democratic senators

in order to help ensure that the US political system remains under their complete control.

Reid's little act in the halls of the Congressional Grand Kabuki Matrix Theater was just another little play used to maintain the illusion of democracy among the naive and gullible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:43 PM

19. I tend to agree. It's all about procedure and checks and balances when regular folks want something

and gosh darn it, we just can't find a way to get it done within those complicated rules.

But when the rich want something, there are no rules and just one procedure: get it done NOW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread