General Discussion

bigtree

(85,986 posts)

33. it'll never be clear now whether he had the 51 votes or not

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:03 PM

Jan 2013

Like you say, Reid says he used that claim as a bargaining chip to push republicans into accepting the 'compromise.' If they believed he had 51 votes to proceed without them, they would (presumably) be more inclined to deal.

If they had rejected the compromise, we would have found out soon enough. Still, it's not clear to me that he had 51 and it wouldn't be the first bluff put over in the Senate.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Reid caved -- AGAIN?? [View all] gateley Jan 2013 OP

Do you mean Reid? Mass Jan 2013 #1

Gee, I don't know, what do you think? gateley Jan 2013 #2

Reid did NOT cave. He got the majority of what HE wanted. Tx4obama Jan 2013 #3

Actually, Reid said he had the votes for a 41-vote filibuster yesterday jeff47 Jan 2013 #4

We as activists need to make it very difficult for them to retake the majority. LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #15

Not going to be easy with Reid tying our hands. (nt) jeff47 Jan 2013 #16

OK, Tx4obama -- I'll hunker down and find out whether my knee-jerk reaction needs to gateley Jan 2013 #5

Okay -- read them all and I'll change "caved" to really dropping the ball, really gateley Jan 2013 #10

Unless there is something I haven't read I think the change will work. LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #17

Not difficult enough. Republicans are liars and Reid is a spineless fool if he thinks catbyte Jan 2013 #28

Did Reid have the 50 or 51 votes needed to get it passed? LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #31

it'll never be clear now whether he had the 51 votes or not bigtree Jan 2013 #33

Who were the likely Senators against or on the fence for the Merley-Udall-Harkin rule? LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #35

I had heard before that Reid didn't reallly want to end fillibustering, or reform it much, because Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #6

I don't understand that -- do you? gateley Jan 2013 #7

think of a different majority bigtree Jan 2013 #20

Ah.... I see, good point. It's never as cut and dried as we out here think it is, is it? Thanks! gateley Jan 2013 #22

There are 100 different minds in the Senate and 435(8) in the House. LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #36

The minority party has been doing that for years. Just not this much, is the issue. Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #26

I think the filibuster should remain. LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #34

In case you missed some of the coverage...here from "Think Progress." KoKo Jan 2013 #8

ALSO: KoKo Jan 2013 #9

I'm not as familiar with the others, but with Boxer I would assume it's because she's gateley Jan 2013 #13

Thanks - I'll check it out. gateley Jan 2013 #11

The gerrymandered House speaker will not pass shit anyway. RedCloud Jan 2013 #12

These guys can NOT be trusted. I don't understand how many times we have to gateley Jan 2013 #14

I feel the SAME as you, M.E.! jillan Jan 2013 #18

I've really tried to see it from both sides as presented in the gateley Jan 2013 #19

After watching Rachel and Ed Union Scribe Jan 2013 #21

Exactly. gateley Jan 2013 #23

I really have never been a Harry Reid fan, and I never understood jillan Jan 2013 #27

I'm disgusted, disappointed and down right sick over it dem4ward Jan 2013 #24

Yes there SHOULD be, but it'll never happen gateley Jan 2013 #25

The no pay crap is unconstitutional. aquart Jan 2013 #29

It's unconstitutional that dem4ward Jan 2013 #30

I'm sorry but why would Boxer and others going to vote Nay? LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #32