HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » You could say that Reid j...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:17 PM

You could say that Reid just didn't have the votes to pass the talking filibuster---

but that would be bullshit. Harry made it clear he didn't WANT the talking filibuster and that insured that he didn't have the votes.

You could say that the Republicans surely won't risk being seen as obstructionists during the President's second term---but that would be bullshit. They don't CARE how they are perceived; they don't have to worry about winning elections as long as they are allowed to buy and steal them.

You could say that we may be in the minority in the future and we might want to use the GOP's tactics against them---but that woud be bullshit. The Democrats are just too damn "nice" to play smash-mouth politics.

Harry Reid should step down as leader for the good of the Democratic Party and the nation. THAT'S not bullshit.

33 replies, 2030 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 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply You could say that Reid just didn't have the votes to pass the talking filibuster--- (Original post)
Atticus Jan 2013 OP
patrice Jan 2013 #1
bvar22 Jan 2013 #12
patrice Jan 2013 #14
bvar22 Jan 2013 #18
The Wielding Truth Jan 2013 #2
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #3
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #4
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #7
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #8
Atticus Jan 2013 #9
politicaljunkie41910 Jan 2013 #13
LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #26
davidpdx Jan 2013 #32
onenote Jan 2013 #5
Atticus Jan 2013 #11
onenote Jan 2013 #15
Atticus Jan 2013 #16
Hippo_Tron Jan 2013 #33
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #6
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #10
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #22
budkin Jan 2013 #17
doccraig67 Jan 2013 #19
budkin Jan 2013 #29
trueblue2007 Jan 2013 #20
ancianita Jan 2013 #21
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #23
ancianita Jan 2013 #30
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #31
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #24
Sunlei Jan 2013 #25
LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #27
dmosh42 Jan 2013 #28

Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:18 PM

1. So why did he let it get this far??????????????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:06 PM

12. The Drama makes for better Kabuki Theater,

....and maintains the illusion of a controversy.
The theater might even result in more votes and donations if it appears that The People almost won something.

Imagine how droll Washington would be if all the Done Deals were simply announced as Done Deals at the beginning of every session.
What would FOX and MSNBC have to talk about 24/7 ?

Remember how exciting and dramatic the year long Public Option Kabuki was?
Now THAT was some great scripting!
For a while there, I actually believed we had a chance.






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 bvar22 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:15 PM

14. That's one theory. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:27 PM

18. I know. How could we find out For Sure?

To test my "theory",
we would have to have solid evidence of something like the Party leadership agreeing to ditch the Public Option in a private agreement with the Republican Leadership,
while insisting In Public that they were still fighting for it.

Now, if we had evidence something like THAT,
then the above speculation moves beyond mere theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:46 PM

2. He better get the votes! Unless it's to late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:49 PM

3. You always start out talking about more than what you want, then negotiate.


The deal Harry Reid got is actually a good one

===



-snip-

Under the agreement, the minority party will be able to offer two amendments on each bill, a major concession to Republicans. This change is made only as a standing order, not a rules change, and expires at the end of the term.

The new rules will also make it easier for the majority to appoint conferees once a bill has passed, but leaves in place the minority's ability to filibuster that motion once -- meaning that even after the Senate and House have passed a bill, the minority can still mount a filibuster one more time.

Reid won concessions on district court nominations as well. Under the old rules, after a filibuster had been beaten, 30 more hours were required to pass before a nominee could finally be confirmed. That delay threatened to tie the chamber in knots. The new rules will only allow two hours to pass after cloture is invoked before a nominee is confirmed.

The two leaders agreed that they will make some changes in how the Senate carries out filibusters under the existing rules, reminiscent of the handshake agreement last term, which quickly fell apart. First, senators who wish to object or threaten a filibuster must actually come to the floor to do so. And second, the two leaders will make sure that debate time post-cloture is actually used in debate. If senators seeking to slow down business simply put in quorum calls to delay action, the Senate will go live, force votes to produce a quorum, and otherwise work to make sure senators actually show up and debate.

The arrangement between Reid and McConnell means that the majority leader will not resort to his controversial threat, known as the "nuclear option," to change the rules via 51 votes on the first day of the congressional session. Reid may have been able to achieve greater reforms that way, but several members of his own party were uncomfortable with the precedent it would have set. And Reid himself, an institutionalist, wanted a bipartisan deal for the long-term health of the institution. Reid presented McConnell with two offers -- one bipartisan accord consisting of weaker reforms, and a stronger package Reid was willing to ram through on a partisan vote. McConnell chose the bipartisan route.

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-mitch-mcconnell-filibuster_n_2541356.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:11 PM

4. Didnt Sen Reid make an "agreement" with McDipShit this same time last session.

If you fool Harry once shame on you, if you fool......... ah shit, McDipShit should be able to fool anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:17 PM

7. Last time it was a handshake deal, this time there'll be a bill/vote and Rule 22 ...


will be officially changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:19 PM

8. Thanks, good news. No more handshakes with republicans. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:57 PM

9. I respectfully disagree that this is a "good" deal.

I agree that is makes some slight improvements, but it is far less than what he was in a position to deliver IF he wanted to.

He didn't want to.

And, it is that weak sister attitude that makes him unfit to continue in the leadership position.

He rewarded the obstructionists and that is difficult to overlook or forgive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:13 PM

13. Reid also doesn't want to do gun control. He just wants to sit in the Senate and grow

old like Strom Thurman while doing nothing to advance his party's causes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:42 AM

26. We don't know if he had the votes to make it happen.

He needed at least 50 Democrats and there were too many that were either not supporting it or on the fence. The Democrats had 53 of their own and 2 Independents in their caucus.

Someone else on a different site suggested that there should had been a vote on the Udall/Merkley/Harkin resolution first. If that vote had failed then Reid's rule change would had gone poof because he wouldn't had had the bargaining chip. The Republicans were in a position of either agreeing to Reid's rule or take the chance that the U/M/H resolution would had passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #26)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:04 PM

32. I personally think he didn't have the votes and didn't call a vote to give cover to the 7 Ds

That had their asses on the barbwire fence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:12 PM

5. You could say that no legislation is going to be prevented from reaching the president's desk

that would have gotten there had the broader deal on filibuster reform been approved. And that is an undeniable fact.

The House, not the Senate, is what blocks the President's agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:02 PM

11. I believe that is an unrealistically optimistic assessment and FAR from "undeniable fact". nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:59 PM

15. Its "optimistic" to acknowledge that the repubs hold the House?

What's probably unrealistically optimistic given gerrymandering is to imagine that the Democrats will control the House after 2014. We can hope, but the odds are against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:38 PM

16. Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I meant!

Hopefully, you're better than this post would indicate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:13 PM

33. The Senate has the power to confirm (or not confirm) the President's appointments

The Republican minority believes that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ought not to exist, therefore they filibustered any person appointed to that position so that it's legally unable to function.

The Republican minority believes that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms ought not to exist, therefore they filibuster any person appointed to be the director of that agency and its been run by an acting director for years.

The Republican minority believes that the National Labor Relations Board ought not to exist, therefore they filibuster the President's appointees to the board. The President made recess appointments that were today invalidated by a court.

The Republican minority has not only the power to block legislation, they also have the power to stop the executive branch from functioning by abusing the power of the filibuster to keep the President from appointing people to key positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:13 PM

6. I agree with you except the last sentence. Sen Reid is doing exactly what the party

wants him to.

By the way, was this "agreement" included in the Senate rules or just a handshake deal with McDipShit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:00 PM

10. Last time it was a handshake deal, this time there'll be a bill/vote and Rule 22 ...


... will be officially changed.

They've been debating it on the Senate floor - the vote will be probably be tonight.

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:53 AM

22. Good news, thank you. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:47 PM

17. All talk Harry as usual. Nothing has really changed at all.

GOP can still block any bill it wishes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:12 AM

19. For the next two years, the Republicans still have the House.

So basically now they will be able to easier get judges and appointments through. If they find themselves in the minority next election, well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doccraig67 (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:09 PM

29. Getting the House back will be extremely difficult until the next census

Gerrymandering fucked us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:03 AM

20. TAKE THE LEADERSHIP AWAY FROM HIM

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:25 AM

21. Who is likely to fight to take it away from him? Sanders? Certainly not that milquetoast, Durbin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:53 AM

23. Sanders isnt a DEmocrat. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:59 PM

30. Thanks, but I already knew that. I was being sarcastic about the low probability for replacements.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:00 PM

31. Sorry, I often stumble on sarcasm. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:54 AM

24. I think the Senate Democrats are more than happy with his

performance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:30 AM

25. filibuster can NOT be anon. anymore, we will know who obstructs by name, we citizens will smash 'em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:43 AM

27. And there is a limit on how long the filibuster lasts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:54 AM

28. Reid fits in well with the Dem senators, most of whom are sacks of shit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread