Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:27 AM
ProSense (98,305 posts)
Chart: The eight Democrats who opposed the talking filibusterLast edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:36 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Clarification, it's eight, including Reid. It was reported that seven Democrats opposed the bill.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/27/1182524/-This-chart-will-make-filibuster-reformers-feel-optimistic
|
49 replies, 1843 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| ProSense | Jan 2013 | OP | |
| sadbear | Jan 2013 | #1 | |
| bullwinkle428 | Jan 2013 | #5 | |
| sadbear | Jan 2013 | #6 | |
| Bake | Jan 2013 | #41 | |
| Sekhmets Daughter | Jan 2013 | #8 | |
| bluestate10 | Jan 2013 | #46 | |
| Sekhmets Daughter | Jan 2013 | #2 | |
| ProSense | Jan 2013 | #4 | |
| Sekhmets Daughter | Jan 2013 | #9 | |
| backscatter712 | Jan 2013 | #3 | |
| ProSense | Jan 2013 | #7 | |
| red dog 1 | Jan 2013 | #47 | |
| Bonobo | Jan 2013 | #10 | |
| ProSense | Jan 2013 | #15 | |
| woo me with science | Jan 2013 | #18 | |
| ProSense | Jan 2013 | #25 | |
| woo me with science | Jan 2013 | #26 | |
| ProSense | Jan 2013 | #27 | |
| woo me with science | Jan 2013 | #29 | |
| patrice | Jan 2013 | #38 | |
| WI_DEM | Jan 2013 | #11 | |
| randome | Jan 2013 | #14 | |
| demwing | Jan 2013 | #21 | |
| magellan | Jan 2013 | #40 | |
| patrice | Jan 2013 | #36 | |
| patrice | Jan 2013 | #37 | |
| Bake | Jan 2013 | #42 | |
| BlueCaliDem | Jan 2013 | #44 | |
| randome | Jan 2013 | #12 | |
| woo me with science | Jan 2013 | #13 | |
| ProSense | Jan 2013 | #16 | |
| whathehell | Jan 2013 | #32 | |
| Third Doctor | Jan 2013 | #17 | |
| dsc | Jan 2013 | #20 | |
| Third Doctor | Jan 2013 | #28 | |
| derby378 | Jan 2013 | #19 | |
| demwing | Jan 2013 | #22 | |
| TeamPooka | Jan 2013 | #23 | |
| JEB | Jan 2013 | #24 | |
| Third Doctor | Jan 2013 | #30 | |
| woo me with science | Jan 2013 | #33 | |
| 1-Old-Man | Jan 2013 | #31 | |
| patrice | Jan 2013 | #34 | |
| patrice | Jan 2013 | #35 | |
| patrice | Jan 2013 | #39 | |
| NorthCarolina | Jan 2013 | #43 | |
| red dog 1 | Jan 2013 | #45 | |
| MrScorpio | Jan 2013 | #48 | |
| Zorra | Jan 2013 | #49 |
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:32 AM
sadbear (4,220 posts)
1. So is Angus King officially caucusing with the Democrats?
|
It's a shame to see Patrick Leahy's name in red at the top of that list.
|
Response to sadbear (Reply #1)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:35 AM
bullwinkle428 (11,384 posts)
5. I'm gobsmacked by Leahy and Barbara Boxer as a part of that list.
Response to bullwinkle428 (Reply #5)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:37 AM
sadbear (4,220 posts)
6. Yep, her, too.
Response to bullwinkle428 (Reply #5)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 04:24 PM
Bake (21,707 posts)
41. FEINSTEIN?? HARRY FUCKING REID HIMSELF????
|
WTF????
I just give the fuck up. No one--not ONE of our so-called Democrats--gives two fat shits about us. It's a game to them. Fuck them all. Bake |
Response to sadbear (Reply #1)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:51 AM
Sekhmets Daughter (7,121 posts)
8. King announced he would be caucusing with the Dems
|
shortly after his election.
|
Response to sadbear (Reply #1)
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:46 PM
bluestate10 (8,579 posts)
46. Yes. King announced during his first visit to Washington DC as a Senator-elect. nt
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:33 AM
Sekhmets Daughter (7,121 posts)
2. 3+3+1+1 = 8
|
So who doesn't belong on the list?
|
Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #2)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:34 AM
ProSense (98,305 posts)
4. Yeah, it's Harry Reid plus seven. n/t
Response to ProSense (Reply #4)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:53 AM
Sekhmets Daughter (7,121 posts)
9. Heck....I was hoping either Leahy or Boxer were a mistake. n/t
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:34 AM
backscatter712 (19,856 posts)
3. Baucus: That figures...
|
Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:36 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) ![]() |
Response to backscatter712 (Reply #3)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:51 AM
ProSense (98,305 posts)
7. Too bad it's
|
Harkin who's leaving and not Baucus.
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:56 AM
Bonobo (20,566 posts)
10. Correction: The 8 who it was determined could take the hit with least damage.
|
...or it was their turn to take the hit for the rest. Collusion.
|
Response to Bonobo (Reply #10)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:00 PM
ProSense (98,305 posts)
15. Harkin and Rockefeller are retiring.
|
"Correction: The 8 who it was determined could take the hit with least damage."
Why let two Democrats who are remaining in the Senate "take the hit"? It would also be easy to let Democrats in red states "take the hit." Theory falls apart. |
Response to Bonobo (Reply #10)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:14 PM
woo me with science (19,681 posts)
18. Yep. Always watch who is up for re-election,
|
who is vulnerable, who has taken a hit lately...
It's a very slick game, and professionally played. |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #18)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:32 PM
ProSense (98,305 posts)
25. I'm working
|
Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:33 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) "Always watch who is up for re-election, who is vulnerable, who has taken a hit lately..."
...through this conspiracy. Up for re-election... for: Durbin, Franken and Landreiu against: Baucus, Levin and Pryor |
Response to ProSense (Reply #25)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:34 PM
woo me with science (19,681 posts)
26. I forgot to say...
|
Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:34 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) watch the *timing,* too.
When is this election? Prosense, your feigned naivete is absolutely adorable, as always. |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #26)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:36 PM
ProSense (98,305 posts)
27. LOL!
|
"Prosense, your feigned naivete is absolutely adorable, as always."
...I think your theory is a big FAIL. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #27)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:42 PM
woo me with science (19,681 posts)
29. *MY*....."theory"? Wow, I'm honored.
|
I never got credit for simple, observed reality before.
Did you notice my sunrise this morning? It was killer. |
Response to Bonobo (Reply #10)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:21 PM
patrice (47,437 posts)
38. guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:56 AM
WI_DEM (32,524 posts)
11. I think Boxer and Leahy and maybe Reid feel that might need the filibuster if
|
after 2014 the GOP takes the senate, which is a possibility.
|
Response to WI_DEM (Reply #11)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:00 PM
randome (12,766 posts)
14. A change in the balance of power is ALWAYS a possibility. Fear should not be used to do nothing.
|
Or next-to-nothing, as apparently occurred.
|
Response to WI_DEM (Reply #11)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:23 PM
demwing (10,983 posts)
21. Why would that matter? If the Repug take the Senate
|
they'll kill the filibuster.
So much fail for Dems....what a betrayal. |
Response to demwing (Reply #21)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:25 PM
magellan (12,547 posts)
40. Why bother? The Dems don't use the filibuster that much anyway.
|
Because as we all know, the Dems like to keep their powder dry.
They have mountains of dry powder.... |
Response to WI_DEM (Reply #11)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:17 PM
patrice (47,437 posts)
36. How might their calculation in that matter be affected by MASSIVE phone call-ins
|
supporting filibuster reform?
They CAN do the demographics on those phone numbers, you know. |
Response to patrice (Reply #36)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:18 PM
patrice (47,437 posts)
37. P.S That is IF they had received such a thing, which apparently they didn't. nt
Response to WI_DEM (Reply #11)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 04:26 PM
Bake (21,707 posts)
42. IF they'd act like DEMOCRATS instead of fucking politicians,
|
they wouldn't have to worry about losing the Senate.
I fucking give up. Bake |
Response to Bake (Reply #42)
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 05:39 AM
BlueCaliDem (5,291 posts)
44. ^^^This!^^^
|
You're 100% correct! As other posters here have mentioned, this is a game to prevent any and all progressive legislation that might benefit the average American from passing.
We're looking at four more years of gridlock by the Republicans, thanks to those eight "Dems". |
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:58 AM
randome (12,766 posts)
12. Then I AM disappointed with Harry Reid, after all.
|
If he had been for this, the others might have come around.
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:00 PM
woo me with science (19,681 posts)
13. Only as many Democrats as are needed
|
Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:01 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2) will vote against it.
Rotating villains: That's how the dirty little game is played: http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game By Glenn Greenwald Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played: ... The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation. The corporatists who work in both parties are very, very slick at what they do. |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:02 PM
ProSense (98,305 posts)
16. "Rotating villains: That's how the game is played."
|
Is Greenwald going to start the revolution?
I can't wait! |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:47 PM
whathehell (11,460 posts)
32. I find this theory disgustingly plausible...What can we do?
|
We're being played like violins and I'm damn sick of it
We need to crack this nut....Any suggestions? |
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:12 PM
Third Doctor (1,025 posts)
17. Since all of them are from safe seats that means
|
Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:15 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) that the lobbyists they pander to got what they wanted. Reid, lied on more than one occasion I see. If this was a effort to preserve the Fillibuster in case of a minority it wont work. The Repubs have no problem of using their majority (unlike the Dems) and will either pass a measure similar to what these Dems refused to do or get rid of it all together. This is political cowardice added with corporate pandering mixed with it.
Reid treated the minority party leader like a equal and even negotiated with him. Why? They have a lot of the same interests. We don't like the repubs and do not want to see a repub majority in the senate but all we have been getting is a watered version of them from the senate. They want to try to keep the chamber in 2014 after pulling this shit? We liberal voters are not stupid (unlike a lot of the GOP votes) and we see exactly what's going on. With the recent retirements and this crap I really doubt it. |
Response to Third Doctor (Reply #17)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:19 PM
dsc (39,396 posts)
20. safe states?
|
Pryor is from Arkansas, Manchin from WV, and Baucus from Montana those aren't safe states.
|
Response to dsc (Reply #20)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:38 PM
Third Doctor (1,025 posts)
28. Yeah I missed that.
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:16 PM
derby378 (28,492 posts)
19. I'm especially surprised to see Feinstein on the list
|
More robust filibuster reforms could have made it easier to pass her gun ban in the Senate. She's a tough cookie to figure out sometimes.
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:27 PM
demwing (10,983 posts)
22. WTF? My senator Bill Nelson supported the changes
|
and Boxer did not?
I officially live in Crazy World... |
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:30 PM
TeamPooka (3,304 posts)
23. so much for my liberal California Senators. damn
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:30 PM
JEB (612 posts)
24. When Pukes had the senate
|
Dems wouldn't use the filibuster for fear the Pukes might eliminate it. When the Dems are in majority the Pukes go nuts abusing the filibuster and the Dems are too chickenshit to enact meaningful reforms. ARGH!
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:44 PM
Third Doctor (1,025 posts)
30. As a start the upper Senate leadership
|
needs to go imo. Next (just dreaming) we need to address the power of lobbies. The sheer cowardice of it is galling. Reid, went on the Rachel Maddow show and plus stood up on the senate floor and said that he supported significant reform just to turn around and vote against it?
|
Response to Third Doctor (Reply #30)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:50 PM
woo me with science (19,681 posts)
33. They lie, and lie, and lie...
|
You are right. It is well past time to smack down these corporate-sucking clowns, hard.
We need serious, permanent reform of this corrupt system, because they are literally selling our country out from under us. |
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:46 PM
1-Old-Man (1,485 posts)
31. Joe Manchin, the most reliable Republican in the Democratic Party
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:04 PM
patrice (47,437 posts)
34. OMG, Leahy!! :-(((((((((((((((((
|
Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:04 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:13 PM
patrice (47,437 posts)
35. I wonder how many supporting phone calls they received. My impression was that they
|
weren't very busy.
Considering some of the strange bed-fellows Obama's Centrism has created, I'm wondering if the fact that there were not enough supporting senator votes wasn't due to the fact that what calls itself "the Left" did not materialize on this issue . . . now, why would that be? Hypotheses, anyone? Interesting that this filibuster issue came to this particular nexus right as, and immediately after, we all started seeing the research about Right Wing gun-worshipping revolutionaries seeking opportunities to demonstrate their "rights" in armed confrontation with government. You know the information about those eager to water the tree of their own fascism with the blood of others recruited from behind various masks. That all got much more outed right concurrently with the decision about filibuster reform, which, for some reason, didn't have the votes that Harry Reid (a very careful person in these matters) thought that it might. Now why is that? |
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:25 PM
patrice (47,437 posts)
39. More simply put: If they didn't have the votes, we should consider if we are looking at a fracture
|
in what calls itself "the Left" here, which, consequently didn't deliver the MASSIVE demographics needed to make a filibuster reform more of a possible win, after 2014, than it apparently added up to, so the Senate regressed to the status-quo position on this.
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Mon Jan 28, 2013, 09:22 PM
NorthCarolina (6,765 posts)
43. The first six are DLC holdouts, so no surprise there. nt
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:11 PM
red dog 1 (709 posts)
45. Even if all 55 Dems had voted for the Talking Filibuster, wouldn't it have still lost?
|
Last edited Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:31 PM USA/ET - Edit history (3) Weren't 60 votes needed to bring back the Talking Filibuster?
Bernie Sanders also voted against it http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022273458 Even if both Sanders and King had voted with the Dems, wouldn't it still have been 3 votes short of the 60 necessary? Why didn't the President push hard for a return to the Talking Filibuster? I don't think Harry Reid deserves all the blame here. "Unlike Senator Jon Tester, who was a loud and proud co-sponsor of filibuster reform, Max Baucus helped kill the measure behind closed doors, resulting in the fake 'reform' that won't fix the broken United States Senate." http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022281122/ |
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:35 PM
MrScorpio (55,317 posts)
48. Carl? CARL?!?
|
Oh boy.
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:48 PM
Zorra (18,806 posts)
49. They take turns screwing us, so the same traitors don't have to be
|
bad boys and girls every time a pro-democracy/human/labor bill comes up for a vote.
This enhances the illusion of democracy to the masses. 1% for all, and all for 1%. |


