General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy are so many prominent Progressives giving Harry Reid a pass?
He promised reform, promised something he never delivered.
So what the heck is going on with all these prominent Progressives giving him a pass on this.
51 votes, including the vote of the VP of the USA is all he had to deliver on Fillibuster reform! Instead he compromises with the most arrogant and foolish of idiots in the U.S. Senate? When a few other Republican Senators could have delivered a vote or two or three?
Is Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader only because he is there for more years and days than any other Democratic Senator? Or is he there only because the Senate Dems vote for a compromising candidate?
Why is Harry Reid, a man of such timidity, the Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate. Please explain it to me!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dkf
(37,305 posts)
Protalker
(418 posts)Bernie Sanders was the only discenter. The rest know that a vote on assault rifles would make tough races in red states too tough. Bow to the NRA.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)On second thought, 
I don't know if it's can't, or won't.
tritsofme
(17,374 posts)I think Reid has good judgement here.
msongs
(67,394 posts)you can't get something unless you go for it. acting like you want it without action is cowardly
bigtree
(85,986 posts). . . talk about courage and leadership, but the reality of all of that abandon is the very likely prospect of the tables turned on our minority party if/when we lose the Senate majority or the WH. It's a sort of anarchic argument that equates courage with abandoning the Senate's strategic position; their ability to slow the legislative process down and to block majority legislation (from a republican majority) that is harmful or contrary to OUR OWN party's interest or benefit. That courage would soon be revealed as idiocy if the balance of power shifts and we're left with no independent way to block harmful legislation that's one vote away fro a republican president's signature.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)'welfare reform'.
As to the latter, Clinton ended welfare as we know it. Woo-hoo! Now 1 in 5 American children lives in poverty. That's some reform there.
tritsofme
(17,374 posts)Welfare Reform was passed through a Reconciliation bill. requiring only 50+1 votes to pass the Senate, but received 78 votes in final passage.
NAFTA got 61 votes in the Senate.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)that according to current rules requires 60 votes to stop debate and end the filibuster).
What I meant is that when measures that proved deeply injurious to a defenseless populace (children) were before the Senate, the filibuster didn't stop a thing. In fact, I don't think a filibuster was even threatened or mounted for either of the two measures I referenced.
bigtree
(85,986 posts). . .to stop initiatives on abortion, SS, nuclear weaponry . . . more. Then, there's the dynamic of just asking for a mirrored response if republicans manage to gain the WH or Senate again. I think he had to strike some balance; that, and the fact that he's not a dictator there and is limited by what his caucus decides; more directly, what 51 Democrats can agree on.
0rganism
(23,937 posts)That means Boehner stops house versions of those bills from coming to the floor, or (better yet) they have to vote against popular ideas. It would have turned the house into the chamber of inaction, instead of the senate, which would have helped us in 2014.
How much would it have done for us? Shucks, guess we'll never know now.
tritsofme
(17,374 posts)No more than Reid has to consider House passed bills.
The risk of unified Republican government in 2017 is too great to ditch the filibuster with little gain now. If Democrats were to retake the House in 2014, I think it may a worthwhile discussion.
0rganism
(23,937 posts)and doing either to a popular senate bill would be helpful in our efforts to, as you say, "retake the House in 2014". Right now, with all the gerrymandering that's happened, we'll be lucky to retake the house in 2028.
Berserker
(3,419 posts)Understands the big picture. Toss him a crum.
dsc
(52,155 posts)He is leader because his fellow Democrats vote for him. It is the President Pro Tem of the Senate who is the longest serving of the majority party (that is Leahy). Two, the fact is he is likely not the one at fault here. There were several Senators who have repeatedly said they were unwilling or at least skeptical about going it alone on filibuster reform. Both of California's Senators, Pat Leahy, Senator Levin, Senator Pryor to name several.
WHY ....Is Harry Reid our leader in the Senate? He's been had by McConnell over and over again and he's laughing at Reid. Reid's a loser, I guess he just likes to have his belly rubbed by McConnell. When ever he speaks he damn near puts me to sleep. I guess that's how he won in boxing, lulled his opponents to sleep. Reid reminds me of Pat Paulson from Laugh In. His speech pattern is exactly the same.
He just threw away the next 4 years of Obama's presidency. I hope he's happy because he will have shit for a Senate legacy. And now he's leaving the Senate at the end of this term. I hope he enjoys the rather comfortable retirement we the people will be providing to him for being a spineless coward. Go Harry, get the fuck out, in fact, get the fuck out now. The sooner the better. Go now and let someone else with an emotional level with something a little more active than watching Jello wiggle take over and actually fight these assholes.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)I haven't heard anything about him leaving.
Also, don't forget that the Republicans are in control of The House.
The Senate rules have NOTHING to do with The House.
Even IF the senate were to 'extremely' change their rules it would have NO affect on The House.
The House would still continue to be obstructionist as they have been the past four years.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Btw 73 is NOT that old in the senate.
There are 13 senators older than Harry Reid.
List here by age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators_by_age
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)After listening to Senator Sanders and digging deeper into my progressive nature, I have concluded
that the Senate is really a thorn in the side of democracy.
They are no more special than the House or the Executive. They do not deserve the right to have
a 60/100 vote requirement to pass a bill.
We have the House, the Senate, and the Executive for a reason - three bodies to determine if
a bill is worthy. A Senate minority has *no right* to kill a bill.
Please ignore my thread from last night.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Personally, I'm more pissed off at Feinstein, Leahy, Levin, etc. because they were undermining the process.
And is it just me, or did Feinstein really shoot herself in the foot? She's one of the most passionate advocates for firearms regulation, but because she couldn't bring herself to do something helpful about the filibuster, she pretty much guaranteed she's not going to see one iota of firearms regulation get passed into law. Nice job!
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)It's why they're prominent, and the temper tantrum crew is not.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)It should be obvious by now that the majority in both parties in Congress want there to be gridlock in Washington--they will do NOTHING to help the vast majority of voters who put them there.
It's all about what the economic elites want.
The system is broken almost beyond repair.
Cha
(297,123 posts)clue about what they're talking about. This is how shit gets set in stone. Repeat it enough and it becomes "true".. regardless of the freaking facts.
Message from Bernie Sanders on how many votes Reid had for Filibuster Reform
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251280680
But, why deal in facts when using Harry as a punching bag satisfies the blood lust?
