Is This True About Harry Reid? Is this what he really wanted?

[orleans]

i found this excerpt from another post here:

Although Kerry’s announcement Friday, made while the he was on a trip to Switzerland, stating that he would champion liberal calls for a filibuster, won praise from hard-line Web loggers and left-leaning activists, it prompted significant hand-wringing by party officials.

Democratic aides in the Senate said that many within the party were particularly surprised, since Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had asked his colleagues not to attempt a filibuster, arguing that the party would be better served by focusing on the GOP’s recent spate of ethics controversies and by trying to frame today’s State of the Union address in a favorable way.... “The story would have been that Reid kept 90 percent of the Democrats together, which would have been a great story,” this source said.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2426194#2426251

This is extremely troubling to me. my initial reaction is that harry reid is leading us no where except down the road of complacency

when they voted for cloture i heard the woman's voice say "reid of nevada aye." then i heard a man shout NO and the woman said "reid of nevada no". (i even posted it here on the alito cloture vote thread--but i don't know how to access it now so i can't link to it) was that why? because he was planning on voting for cloture? and someone kicked him in the shins and he ran and changed it quick!

am i over reacting? this really pisses me off!

[Dr Fate]

1. "Reid kept 90 percent of the Democrats together" as a "story?"

And is the moral of this "story" supposed to be that DEMS can indeed "show backbone"- so long as it is against Kerry and the Democratic activist base?


I hope its not true.

[orleans]

2. check out this thread that i just found:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2424604#top

reid's tough stance on the patriot act. (cough)

[orleans]

3. cough.

[orleans]

4. sneeze. anyone?

[orleans]

5. ?

[depakid]

6. Reid has worn out his welcome

even here on DU.

Took a while for everyone to catch on....

Let's hope he can find a graceful way out.

[UDenver20]

7. Yes... you're over reacting

We need to do a better job picking our battles. Alito was not a winnable battle. And it was a stupid battle to (try to) fight with a fillibuster.

A bad leader is one who can't calculate which battle fields to march onto and which ones not to go anywhere near. Sometimes the story should be about avoiding the enemy trap, not about how how horrible they are because you walked into it, barely survived it, and found yourself seriously wounded as a result.

1. A (successful) fillibuster for Alito = nuke = no more fillibuster = total GOP control
2. Oldest justice = Stevens (born 1920)
3. Stevens retirement, death, incapacitation before Democrat control = 6-3 court
4. Next oldest justice = Gibsburg (born 1933)
5. Ginsburg retirement, death, incapacitation before Democrat control = 7-2 court

Also, I don't know the specifics about the whole cloture thing, but occasionally a pre-determined party member who opposes an issue will vote with the opposition when its a losing battle. Procedure dictates that in order to make a motion "to reconsider" a vote, one has to have actually voted for a motion the first time around. Its a procedural play in those cases, but honestly couldn't tell you if that's what Reid was going for.

[wisteria]

8. Disagree, you mention all hypothetical. Alito's pedigree said

danger. With his vote there are no more swing votes. The court is now conservative and enough so that many states have ready challenges to the Roe-vs Wade decision.
The filibuster was winnable "if" Reid would have rallied the other senators them and pushed for it.

We were told BY REID that he was going to fight this one. Roberts we didn't fight.

We have no way of knowing what would have happened if we filibustered. They may just be playing a game of chicken with the nuclear option.

Reid and Shumer made a decision that they thought would help the Red state Senators get reelected on the premise that they weren't obstructionists.
They encouraged the Senators to vote no on the nominee but yes to end debate. Thus making it look like we did all we could, but couldn't fight the majority Repubs off.
Then they announce they are NOW going to be watching Alito and will fight any possible decisions that would affect the causes near and dear to our hearts. Of course, all the while sending us mail and e-mailing us for more money to help fight Alito and the conservative court.

They thought no one was watching too closely and we wouldn't figure it out.

[Laelth]

10. There are 44 Dem Senators.

It takes 41 to filibuster. We could have won that fight.

I agree that as the minority party, we need to pick our battles carefully, but I, for one, agree with Ted Kennedy on this one. "What's more important than a Supreme Court nomination?"

-Laelth

[karynnj]

18. If this were true, the GOP would have used it to do the following:

Per some reports there were 37 people committed to the filibuster until it was clear that it would fail. Senator Ensign was in the hospital. So, only 3 more were needed. Senator Hagel also didn't vote - though I don't know the reason. What if 3 of the more Libertarian Senators were told by the administration to oppose it on privacy, Unitary President etc? Then assume after they spoke the Democrats held firm.

Then the filibuster would win. We would then end up in your situation 1. It wouldn't even look contrived. In reality, a significant number of Republicans fear the nuclear option - so it's unlikely to happen. It's like the terror terror terror stuff - only scaring the Senate is the game.

[Laelth]

9. I heard the clerk ...

... and I remember exactly what you remember. She said "reid of nevada aye" and then, about 6 seconds later she said "reid of nevada no." (Aye meant for cloture, and no meant against cloture.)

There are a couple of explanations. One is that the clerk mistook Harry's hand-signal (I didn't hear him announce), but he corrected her. Another possibility is that the clerk thought she knew how he was voting in advance. This would support your theory (that Reid had already assured the Senate that he would prevent the filibuster).

Regardless, I'm not pleased by the result.

-Laelth

[LittleClarkie]

12. Or it was the wrong Reid, or Reed rather.

The only thing wrong with that story up top there, is that Kerry wasn't on "a trip to Switzerland", like it was a vacation or something.

He was at an economic conference with members of the Senate Finance Committee, one also attended by Chertoff and Gonzalez. McClellan (sp?) tried to make him sound like an elitist on that one. But if he is, so are they.

[Laelth]

13. Um ... no.

Last I heard, there was only one "Reid of Nevada." The clerk said "Reid of Nevada, aye" and then, about 6 seconds later, she said, "Reid of Nevada, no." I don't necessarily believe that this means a sinister plot was afoot, but I'd swear under oath to what I heard.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--corrected error so kindly referenced below.

[LittleClarkie]

14. No, I heard it too. Just wondering how they could have got confused

Just thinking out loud.

But I heard it too.

[TheVirginian]

15. Richard Byran?

The other Senator from Nevada is John Ensign who, as Reid himself pointed out before the vote, was in a car accident that morning on the way to the airport and didn't make the vote.

While there is no other "Reid" in the Senate, there is a Jack Reed from Rhode Island, whose name is pronounced the same way as Harry Reid's. She can't have confused the two votes, though, since Jack Reed also voted against cloture.

What likely happened is a miscommunication between Reid and the clerk, or simply a mistake on the clerk's part. This is actually pretty common; corrections are made all the time to the Congressional Record, whether its immeadiately to the presiding officer (as in Reid's case) or after the fact. Since it was inconsequential and since no one from Reid's office, or any Senator for that matter, has even mentioned it, it was likely one of the many simple mistakes that people make, and there's absolutely no reason to read anything into it, unless you like the way tin foil feels on your head.

[Laelth]

16. Whoops.

Thanks for the correction. It's late on the east coast. :hangover:

-Laelth

[orleans]

17. see if this video on fox is still up with harry reid/click on link at

right, "angry left"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183387,00.html

"as far as im concerned, at this stage it's too early to talk about impeachment. we'll have to see if there's more to this" --reid

then they show jonathan turley (my hero!) at the conyers hearing

"this type of violation should be a textbook example of an impeacment issue because not only is it a federal crime but it violates the doctrine of seperation of powers."

voice over: but reid says he's not sure he agrees.
reid: "i can't speak of that. i don't know the area of law well as professor turley."

reid: "i'm not a big fan of impeachment. i think it should only come when all other avenues have been exhausted and that certainly hasn't been the case here."

(i posted this at another thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2078261&mesg_id=2078461
anyway--my point--i guess--is that reid is starting to make me nervous)

[Cocoa]

11. you're trying really hard to be pissed off

you will succeed if you want to.