Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Republicans can NOT put 'anonymous' holds/objections on nominees or bills anymore. [View all]Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)7. While its not what many had hoped for, the timing was awful!
Even if they had included a talking filibuster, Republicans in the house would have killed anything that made its way through the Senate.
Harry should not have made the promise that he did, people now feel deceived... If he were to make that promise it should have been in a year that he new that we would control both houses of Congress.
There is good stuff in here, Thanks Tex!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
41 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Republicans can NOT put 'anonymous' holds/objections on nominees or bills anymore. [View all]
Tx4obama
Jan 2013
OP
Exactly. Utterly disgusting yet utterly predictable. We suck. No wonder the GOP sees us like a joke
catbyte
Jan 2013
#39
Still 60, the new normal until Republicans regain the Senate, then it will go back to 51
Dragonfli
Jan 2013
#12
It was a proposal by Merkley, it is not anything that Reid really wanted to do. n/t
Tx4obama
Jan 2013
#20
''senators who wish to object or threaten a filibuster must actually come to the floor to do so"
Tx4obama
Jan 2013
#18
Do we know yet if this is just a hand-shake, or if this is actually in writing?
xxxsdesdexxx
Jan 2013
#27