HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Chart: The eight Democrat...

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:27 AM

Chart: The eight Democrats who opposed the talking filibuster

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, 2994 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 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply Chart: The eight Democrats who opposed the talking filibuster (Original 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

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:35 AM

5. I'm gobsmacked by Leahy and Barbara Boxer as a part of that list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullwinkle428 (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:37 AM

6. Yep, her, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullwinkle428 (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 04:24 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:51 AM

8. King announced he would be caucusing with the Dems

shortly after his election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:46 PM

46. Yes. King announced during his first visit to Washington DC as a Senator-elect. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:33 AM

2. 3+3+1+1 = 8

So who doesn't belong on the list?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:34 AM

4. Yeah, it's Harry Reid plus seven. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:53 AM

9. Heck....I was hoping either Leahy or Boxer were a mistake. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:34 AM

3. Baucus: That figures...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:51 AM

7. Too bad it's

Harkin who's leaving and not Baucus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:33 PM

47. Amen to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:56 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:00 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:14 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:32 PM

25. I'm working

"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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:34 PM

26. I forgot to say...

watch the *timing,* too.

When is this election?

Prosense, your feigned naivete is absolutely adorable, as always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #26)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:36 PM

27. LOL!

"Prosense, your feigned naivete is absolutely adorable, as always."

...I think your theory is a big FAIL.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:42 PM

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.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:21 PM

38. guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:56 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:00 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:23 PM

21. Why would that matter? If the Repug take the Senate

they'll kill the filibuster.

So much fail for Dems....what a betrayal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:25 PM

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....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:17 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #36)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:18 PM

37. P.S That is IF they had received such a thing, which apparently they didn't. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 04:26 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 05:39 AM

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".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:58 AM

12. Then I AM disappointed with Harry Reid, after all.

If he had been for this, the others might have come around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:00 PM

13. Only as many Democrats as are needed

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 Partyís deceitful game
By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how itís 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, itís Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, itís Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and ďbreaking with their partyĒ to ensure Michael Mukaseyís confirmation as Attorney General; then itís Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then itís Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they canít blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they donít 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:02 PM

16. "Rotating villains: That's how the game is played."

Is Greenwald going to start the revolution?

I can't wait!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:47 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:12 PM

17. Since all of them are from safe seats that means

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Third Doctor (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:19 PM

20. safe states?

Pryor is from Arkansas, Manchin from WV, and Baucus from Montana those aren't safe states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:38 PM

28. Yeah I missed that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:16 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:27 PM

22. WTF? My senator Bill Nelson supported the changes

and Boxer did not?

I officially live in Crazy World...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:30 PM

23. so much for my liberal California Senators. damn

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:30 PM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:44 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Third Doctor (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:50 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:46 PM

31. Joe Manchin, the most reliable Republican in the Democratic Party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:04 PM

34. OMG, Leahy!! :-(((((((((((((((((

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:13 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:25 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 09:22 PM

43. The first six are DLC holdouts, so no surprise there. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:11 PM

45. Even if all 55 Dems had voted for the Talking Filibuster, wouldn't it have still lost?

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/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:35 PM

48. Carl? CARL?!?

Oh boy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:48 PM

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%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread