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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:41 PM Jan 2013

Tom Harkin: Filibuster Reform Failure Hamstrings Obama Agenda

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) warned President Barack Obama that he "might as well take a four-year vacation" if the Senate fails to pass real filibuster reform -- and the plan being unveiled Thursday by Senate leaders doesn't qualify, the veteran lawmaker said.

"It's a baby step. Really, it's a baby baby step," Harkin told reporters Thursday before heading into a caucus meeting on the filibuster plan.

The Senate filibuster -- in which a single lawmaker can hold up a bill unless 60 senators vote to end debate on the matter -- has become the favored tactic for stalling Senate action over the last three sessions, with nearly 400 instances.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had threatened action to change the rules, but the deal coming out Thursday only modestly limits filibusters at the start of debates and not on the bills themselves or other steps along the way.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/tom-harkin-filibuster-reform_n_2544153.html



Yep. The President is now a lame duck with a veto.

86 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tom Harkin: Filibuster Reform Failure Hamstrings Obama Agenda (Original Post) onehandle Jan 2013 OP
This is a "no shit Sherlock" moment. Someone explain it to Harry. Little Star Jan 2013 #1
Not just to Harry, but also NorthCarolina Jan 2013 #27
Don't you just xxqqqzme Jan 2013 #77
So many of them NorthCarolina Jan 2013 #78
I can certainly relate to those feelings. xxqqqzme Jan 2013 #84
Just when I was starting to believe Reid was not so bad after all. 99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #2
thank you Senator Harkin for fighting for this change for years rurallib Jan 2013 #3
but old harry was working hard wasn't he ? russspeakeasy Jan 2013 #4
HARRY REID SAVES THE FILIBUSTER! earthside Jan 2013 #5
He wont get a chance to use his veto. Kiss further appointments goodbye. nm rhett o rick Jan 2013 #6
First 'Hold" in line with be the Hagel nomination that many here will applaud while embarrassing Purveyor Jan 2013 #9
So how often is Harry going to run on reelection saying he fasttense Jan 2013 #7
He isn't going to run for re-election. He's old as the hills. n/t duffyduff Jan 2013 #40
What did they expect, with Senator Lawnchair as point man? . . . Journeyman Jan 2013 #8
Bookmarking because I know that DU will eventually blame Obama and forget about this. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #10
ROFL! That's quite an attempted vaccination woo me with science Jan 2013 #13
Obvious response coming from you. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #18
Sad but true, I suppose. n/t AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #24
A president who cannot sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #29
A president does not control the Senate. Send Biden and learn basic civics while you're at it. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #42
It's his job sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #44
No it is NOT!! Learn about civics! That is NOT how the U.S. Constitution works, dear! Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #45
The Constitution sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #47
Actually, it doesn't create a balance of power. jeff47 Jan 2013 #51
I said the Constitution sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #61
No, it doesn't. jeff47 Jan 2013 #65
Congress has to be afraid sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #71
Wow you are really into the cult of personality treestar Jan 2013 #68
I really don't care. sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #73
You're overly cynical IMO treestar Jan 2013 #76
What you said sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #81
WTF? treestar Jan 2013 #67
The balance of power sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #72
Very unfair to the judiciary treestar Jan 2013 #75
Correct me if I'm wrong, sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #80
You actually would want that? treestar Jan 2013 #66
You're right. sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #70
What's a "corrupt Congress?" treestar Jan 2013 #74
So long as politics sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #79
I wouldn't blame President Obama unless he had tried to filabuster when he was a US 24601 Jan 2013 #69
Time to replace Reid as majority leader in new Senate on point Jan 2013 #11
Time to just get rid of the Senate completely. Fuddnik Jan 2013 #39
Defeatism and Doomsaying! Dragonfli Jan 2013 #12
Woo hoo! woo me with science Jan 2013 #15
I hope the people singing Harry Reid's praises realize that they can never complain about Republican smokey nj Jan 2013 #19
As ConservaDems, those folks are far more likely to cheer NorthCarolina Jan 2013 #32
Four years? I thought a new Congress would start two years from now. Reform in two years? RickFromMN Jan 2013 #14
Yep, in two more years we will get another chance to kick the football. Lucy promised. nm rhett o rick Jan 2013 #17
And the Republican controlled states are doing everything they can to frustrate that hope. drm604 Jan 2013 #55
They just flushed The Wizard Jan 2013 #16
Too bad Tom Harkin isn't Senate Majority Leader red dog 1 Jan 2013 #20
There is nothing new in the OP other than Harkin's OPINION. No breaking news there. Tx4obama Jan 2013 #21
Good point. n/t AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #23
So Harry did you get Smilo Jan 2013 #22
Article below Tx4obama Jan 2013 #25
Well that's something - thank you Tx4obama. Smilo Jan 2013 #26
The 41 idea was much better high density Jan 2013 #34
Let's get a couple of undeniable truths out there BlueStreak Jan 2013 #28
The change in the Senate rules are a big change in my opinion. Tx4obama Jan 2013 #30
Thanks, both you and Bluestreak. I really appreciate your thoughts. Gregorian Jan 2013 #37
We shall see BlueStreak Jan 2013 #38
Thank you. People are trying to find ANY excuse to blame Obama. ODSers scare me! Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #43
This message was self-deleted by its author jeff47 Jan 2013 #52
This message was self-deleted by its author Plucketeer Jan 2013 #31
The Democratic Party sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #33
Don't give up boys..... Pauldg47 Jan 2013 #35
A Huge Mistake rjlobo422 Jan 2013 #36
Can someone explain how we move our agenda with the House controlled by repubs? onenote Jan 2013 #48
By passing laws in the Senate jeff47 Jan 2013 #53
There simply is no evidence that is the case onenote Jan 2013 #56
Go read what I wrote again. jeff47 Jan 2013 #57
Proceed with caution mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #41
Why do you think Republicans would keep these rules in place? jeff47 Jan 2013 #54
Because as far as I can tell, that's what they've done when they've been in power. mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #59
You're looking too far back jeff47 Jan 2013 #60
I'm not clear that it is ok by either side mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #62
Can't find links? jeff47 Jan 2013 #64
So what we're saying is that it was bad then, but it is good now mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #82
Yay! You actually bothered doing some research! jeff47 Jan 2013 #83
I knew something was up on.... ReRe Jan 2013 #46
4 More Years Of The Last 4 Years. blkmusclmachine Jan 2013 #49
I fucking told you Reid supporter 4dsc Jan 2013 #50
the worse majority leader of either party in the history of the senate madrchsod Jan 2013 #58
A boxer that takes a dive is a bum, he needs to loose his belt Dragonfli Jan 2013 #63
I'm wondering if this is why Harkin decided to retire... 47of74 Jan 2013 #85
I think it's pretty clear that this move woo me with science Jan 2013 #86
 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
27. Not just to Harry, but also
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:46 PM
Jan 2013

Mark Pryor, Max Baucus, Patrick Leahy, Joe Manchin, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer. They are why Reid could not get the 51 votes he needed.

xxqqqzme

(14,887 posts)
77. Don't you just
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 06:19 PM
Jan 2013

love Feinstein's 'I'm ready for my close up Mr CSPAN' announcing her assault weapons ban bill? Then makes certain it will never see the light of day by pulling this crap?

She had NO business running again. Her husband made their millions off the Iraq war. She can retire and suck up even more taxpayer funded retirement and healthcare.

xxqqqzme

(14,887 posts)
84. I can certainly relate to those feelings.
Sun Jan 27, 2013, 07:11 PM
Jan 2013

Why did I work to get Obama re-elected if spineless Democrats are going to flush it all away?

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
2. Just when I was starting to believe Reid was not so bad after all.
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:47 PM
Jan 2013

Now this.

Come On Harry!!! Please lead or get out of the fucking way.

Do the Nuke Thang

earthside

(6,960 posts)
5. HARRY REID SAVES THE FILIBUSTER!
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:48 PM
Jan 2013

That's the way this revoltin' development is being headlined on Drudge.

What a legacy Sen. Reid ... and those weak few Democratic Senators who apparently side with Mitch McConnell in doing what they can to stifle the Obama agenda.

The significance of this failure is going to be mightily profound, there is just no way to sure-coat this triumph for the obstructionists.

 

Purveyor

(29,876 posts)
9. First 'Hold" in line with be the Hagel nomination that many here will applaud while embarrassing
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:54 PM
Jan 2013

the President.

I am beyond disgusted by this 'cave'.

 

fasttense

(17,301 posts)
7. So how often is Harry going to run on reelection saying he
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:53 PM
Jan 2013

will change the filibuster rules?

Obama is never going to get anything passed through congress now. No need for the RepubliCONS to gerrymander the Senate cause they have the filibuster to abuse democracy with.

Thanks Harry!

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
13. ROFL! That's quite an attempted vaccination
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:08 PM
Jan 2013

for something that was predictable as sunrise based on *years* now of watching both Obama *and* our loyal corporate Democrats.

The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

So now we are mysteriously falling short of Democratic votes for filibuster reform.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809132

Yeah, I am sure Obama is crying in his tea over this.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
29. A president who cannot
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:58 PM
Jan 2013

control his own party is a president who chooses not to control his own party. Good lord, even George Bush Jr. could do that.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
44. It's his job
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:24 PM
Jan 2013

to try. Every American president who ever progressed American civilization has controlled the Senate. Learn something about the lessons of history before trying to school me in civics.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
45. No it is NOT!! Learn about civics! That is NOT how the U.S. Constitution works, dear!
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:28 PM
Jan 2013

Welcome to IGNORE!

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
47. The Constitution
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:16 PM
Jan 2013

creates three legally equal branches of government and the possibility of a balance of powers. It prescribes three branches of government. It does not require a balance of power. That should be obvious. Is IGNORE some kind of acronym for close minded?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
51. Actually, it doesn't create a balance of power.
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:38 PM
Jan 2013

Congress has WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more power than the other branches.

The President can't do jack shit about the vast majority of the problems we face. All he can do is say "Hey Congress! You should do something about this!"

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
61. I said the Constitution
Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:13 AM
Jan 2013

creates the possibility of a balance of power and that in fact their is always an imbalance. As for the President being unable to do jack about our problems, I'd refer you to Lincoln, FDR and even LBJ. They ruled majorities in the Senate with iron fists. When a weak president leaves the exercise of power to the dildos in Congress, governance becomes a joke and a threat at the same time.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
65. No, it doesn't.
Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:51 PM
Jan 2013

The Constitution explicitly grants Congress much, much, much more power than the other two branches. That's not a balance of power.

I'd refer you to Lincoln, FDR and even LBJ. They ruled majorities in the Senate with iron fists.

No, they had mostly compliant Senators, and senators from the opposing party that didn't filibuster everything. There is no magic power a president has to make Congress do his bidding. Congress has to want to do it.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
68. Wow you are really into the cult of personality
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:18 PM
Jan 2013

Who do you admire most? Those who can persuade others or those who can threaten others? If only Obama would get some dirt on someone and blackmail them with it? Really?

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
73. I really don't care.
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:29 PM
Jan 2013

Because I don't care, your "cult of personality" comment is strange. I am no respecter of politicians and there is not one of them I even admire. As far as I'm concerned their business is to get the things done they campaigned to get done. If that requires playing hardball with members of congress, so be it. What's the problem?

treestar

(82,383 posts)
76. You're overly cynical IMO
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:21 PM
Jan 2013

If you respect none of them, even when they are freely elected, you may as well say you don't respect the voters, don't care who they chose to represent them and we may as well have an inherited monarchy.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
81. What you said
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:00 PM
Jan 2013

pretty much describes me up to the part about the monarchy rackets. I find the idea of "noble" people as offensive as I do chosen ones. H.L Mencken once said that: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." I tend to agree with that sentiment. I'm also of the same opinion as Mark Twain. He once said that, "There is no distinctly native American criminal class except congress." I hold that position also.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
67. WTF?
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:17 PM
Jan 2013

That balance of power protects us from tyranny!

Why don't you as well say the President should control the Judiciary?

Sounds like you'd prefer a dictator. They can get things done.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
72. The balance of power
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:23 PM
Jan 2013

would protect us from tyranny if it worked. The Judiciary is the gate keeper of the status quo. The President doesn't need to control it. We already have a plutocracy to which all three branches of government are beholden. They get things done, but not for most of us. I am unwilling to make any kind of excuse for President Obama because of a recreant congress. No one drafted him.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
75. Very unfair to the judiciary
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:19 PM
Jan 2013

Which branch decided Roe v. Wade? Applied to commerce clause so as to let the civil rights laws stand? Decided the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment without extraordinary circumstances?

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
80. Correct me if I'm wrong,
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:51 PM
Jan 2013

but wasn't each of these decisions rendered prior to 1974, the last time there was a moderate majority on the Court? That was a longtime ago.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
66. You actually would want that?
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:16 PM
Jan 2013

A President who controls the Senate? That is not how it is supposed to be.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
70. You're right.
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:08 PM
Jan 2013

That's not how it is supposed to be, and I would not wish it. That's just the way it is. Given the choice between a strong executive in control of a corrupt congress and a corrupt congress in control of the country, I'll go with the strong executive every time, unless it's a Republican of course.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
74. What's a "corrupt Congress?"
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:18 PM
Jan 2013

60 corrupt members? 51 corrupt members? Better to work at state level and get good Senators.

I'm a fan of realism but not at this cynical level, we need to at least try. Corruption somewhere is inevitable but we don't want to give into it.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
79. So long as politics
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:38 PM
Jan 2013

is a pay to play game, so long as politicians are permitted to gerrymander their districts, so long as millions of voters are disenfranchised, and politics is more profitable than working for a living, congress at every level will remain thoroughly corrupt. Fix these things. Forget about working to get good senators under such a system. Good representatives will remain as rare as zinc pennies.

24601

(3,938 posts)
69. I wouldn't blame President Obama unless he had tried to filabuster when he was a US
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:24 PM
Jan 2013

Senator.

If so, he was part of the problem, not the solution.

Fuddnik

(8,846 posts)
39. Time to just get rid of the Senate completely.
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:51 PM
Jan 2013

Completely dysfunctional.

Face it. Democrazy is dead in this country.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
12. Defeatism and Doomsaying!
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:06 PM
Jan 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022253002


Do not listen to defeatists and doomsayers. Some of them are not even on your side, despite their use of the word lefty or left in their screen names. Some do not wish for Obama to succeed.

Harry is doing a heck of a job we, should support him in this!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022253002#post16
unfortunately, only the Democratic leadership, and far too few of the Democratic electorate, realize this.


You know, in the real world,
realists know Harry had no choice or something
fixing the filibuster was always unattainable, I am sure he got a handshake promise.
They could have demanded a 67 vote cloture, Harry saved us, it could have been worse if not for this deal.

This is really a win!

smokey nj

(43,853 posts)
19. I hope the people singing Harry Reid's praises realize that they can never complain about Republican
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:23 PM
Jan 2013

obstruction ever again.

 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
32. As ConservaDems, those folks are far more likely to cheer
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:05 PM
Jan 2013

preserving Republican obstructionism, than they are to give credence to the Liberal/Progressive Democrats who fought to restore filibuster rules. Blame not just Harry Reid, but also Mark Pryor, Max Baucus, Patrick Leahy, Joe Manchin, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer.

The Wizard

(12,467 posts)
16. They just flushed
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:13 PM
Jan 2013

the 2014 midterms down the crapper. They gave themselves a convenient excuse for not getting anything done. The Republicans still control both houses despite the majority voting for Democrats. The minority now controls the House, Senate and Supreme Court. Say goodbye to any remnant of democracy. It's all over but the shouting.
Reid is an epic failure.

red dog 1

(27,575 posts)
20. Too bad Tom Harkin isn't Senate Majority Leader
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:24 PM
Jan 2013

From the article (OP)

"A group of lawmakers led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) had hoped to re-institute the talking filibuster, in which a lawmaker who wanted to obstruct something would have to take the floor to sustain an objection instead of literally phoning it in."

I'm no fan of Harry Reid; but I don't think he deserves all the blame here.

If President Obama really wanted a return to the "talking filibuster", he could have instructed Reid to push for it, instead of (again) caving to the GOP.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
21. There is nothing new in the OP other than Harkin's OPINION. No breaking news there.
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:29 PM
Jan 2013

The clue that the article is NOT LBN is that the word 'IF' is in the first sentence.



Smilo

(1,944 posts)
22. So Harry did you get
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:26 PM
Jan 2013

a quickie from McTurtle? You must have gotten something you liked, because you just sold out the country again.

I can't find it - does anyone know if Senators are still allowed to make anonymous objections and stop Bills dead?

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
25. Article below
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:36 PM
Jan 2013


-snip-

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.

-snip-

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



high density

(13,397 posts)
34. The 41 idea was much better
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:09 PM
Jan 2013

Let's have 41 Republicans putting their names on a filibuster. It sounds like we still have a system where one crazy person can hold up the entire process of the body.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
28. Let's get a couple of undeniable truths out there
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:53 PM
Jan 2013

1) This has absolutely nothing to do with keeping rules in place for the day when Dems do not have a majority in the Senate. The GOP will make up their own rules and they won't ask the Dems' opinion. We know that because they did exactly the same thing the last time they had a majority. When the Dems used the filibuster a little too much for the GOP's liking, they threatened to end the filibuster rule altogether, and in the end the Dems had no choice but to accept a grossly curtailed filibuster practice. Why does nobody even mention this now? Why has Reid not held McConnell to that same rule that the GOP imposed on the Dems?

2) It is inconceivable that a newly reelected President could not prevail on his Majority leader to make this chance if the President wanted that. This is not Reid being a wuss. He is doing what Obama wants.

So it is beyond any debate that BOTH Reid and Obama are perfectly happy with the status quo where the GOP locks up the Senate with filibusters on every major bill, and refuses to move on dozens of key appointments.

There can be an interesting debate as to WHY Obama and Reid refer this, but there can be no doubt that this is what they want.

My opinion on the latter point is that Obama figures he can't get anything meaningful past the House, so he might as well give the Senate GOP an opportunity to continue to make asses of themselves, at least leaving an opportunity to run against th4e "do nothing Congress" in 2014 and 2016.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
30. The change in the Senate rules are a big change in my opinion.
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:02 PM
Jan 2013

Two of the things that Reid has been fighting will be eliminated by the new rules.

I think even though these are modest changes they are going to be a big improvement
I've been following the judicial nominations for several years and the new change is going to be a HUGE help in getting them confirmed faster.

"... post cloture time for non appellate judges will be cut from 30 hours to 2 ... "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251280012



Also there will be NO more 'anonymous' holds/objections


-snip-

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.

-snip-

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







Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
37. Thanks, both you and Bluestreak. I really appreciate your thoughts.
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:30 PM
Jan 2013

I've been fuming about this. So much so that I actually felt a great deal of apathy rising. It helps to know a little bit about things before giving up. And for that, I thank you.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
38. We shall see
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:33 PM
Jan 2013

I don't deny that Reid may have negotiated some incremental improvements, and that perhaps they might make some slight difference. But I don't think anybody could argue that this agreement will slow down the GOP abuse of the filibuster in any significant way. We will still see hundreds of filibusters each session compared to a small handful, which was the practice before the modern GOP began this pattern of abuse.

And in particular, they will still be able to block all of Obama's initiatives, except ones that might somehow slip through under reconciliation rules. And without forcing a talking filibuster, the GOP pays no price at all for obstruction.

What is sad is that the talking filibuster was both good democracy and good politics. We will get neither.

Response to Tx4obama (Reply #30)

Response to onehandle (Original post)

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
33. The Democratic Party
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:06 PM
Jan 2013

is no longer an instrument for reform and hasn't been for a long time. It has, however, mastered the the best play in its political campaign playbook, which is "Fake left. Go Right." Liberals fall for it every election cycle.

rjlobo422

(29 posts)
36. A Huge Mistake
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:17 PM
Jan 2013

Harry Reid made a huge mistake with this agreement.

First off, I thought a majority means a majority. We should be able to move our agenda with 51 votes when we control the Senate, and live with it when the Repubs are in charge. The use of fear to justify this piece of crap by saying that we wouldn't have Roe Vrs. Wade if we had 51 votes is nonsense. Yes, in a perfect world, we would have lots of gentleman"s agreements and understanding that one side wouldn't screw the other, but let's get real here. This ain't your father's Senate, and it is the crazy ass Republicans we are talking with here. Making a gentleman's agreement with Mitch McConnell is like a gazelle with a newborn calf making an agreement to pass safely through the territory of the local lion pride.

We should have jumped on this one with both feet. We had the momentum of Obama's reelection, a working majority in the Senate, and the approval of the American public at our backs. Now I am afraid that the next four years will be very close to the last, with Republicans blocking far more of the President's agenda than they should be able to do. I'm afraid we can say goodbye to things like meaningful gun control.

I want to congratulate Sen. Harkin, Sen. Merkley, and others in the Progressive Caucus who had the balls to stand up for meaningful change. I'm getting real fucking tired of hearing lectures on the sasuage making process from moderate Democrats who are just too scared of their shadow to make a move. If not now, when?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
53. By passing laws in the Senate
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:48 PM
Jan 2013

That applies much more pressure on the house. With things like universal background checks running at 96% approval, it becomes quite hard for members of the House to get re-elected while blocking that.

With such things not even passing the Senate, the pressure is greatly reduced. Each house of congress can point at the other as the source of the problem.

onenote

(42,296 posts)
56. There simply is no evidence that is the case
Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:34 AM
Jan 2013

I wish it was, but as someone who spends a lot of my time up on the Hill working on legislative matters, I can tell you its not. If a bill has bipartisan support in the Senate, maybe it gives some of the House repubs cover to jump ship. But you've got to get 17 repubs and hold onto all of the Democrats, which is a high hurdle these days. And if the bill passes the Senate without bipartisan support, the repubs, have more to fear from a primary than from Democrats due to gerrymandering, will feel little pressure to jump ship and go with the Democrats.

Its just wishful thinking to think that, until we recapture the House (or narrow the margin to just a couple of votes), that getting a bill through the Senate with fewer than five republicans would put any significant pressure on House repubs to compromise.

There is a saying up on the Hill these days: McConnell has to herd cats. But Boehner has to herd feral cats.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
57. Go read what I wrote again.
Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:39 AM
Jan 2013

You don't get these laws passed in this Congress.

You use the fact that the House failed to pass these popular laws as a cudgel in 2014.

Yes, gerrymandering helps the Republicans hold the House, but that's why we needed additional pressure to help overcome that bias.

mostlyconfused

(211 posts)
41. Proceed with caution
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:52 PM
Jan 2013

Every one of these potential changes should be viewed with this in mind...how comfortable will you be with these new rules in place if/when the republicans are in control of the senate again. Each of these baby steps take away tools that the democrats would have available to try to stop a future republican agenda. Are you good with that?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
54. Why do you think Republicans would keep these rules in place?
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:49 PM
Jan 2013

The filibuster will be gone as soon as a Republican majority takes over.

mostlyconfused

(211 posts)
59. Because as far as I can tell, that's what they've done when they've been in power.
Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:45 AM
Jan 2013

I've been doing some searching to see if I could find stories of either Dole or Frist pushing for filibusterer reform and so far am coming up blank. Cloture didn't exist until 1917, and at that time it was pushed for by Woodrow Wilson and required 67 votes. In 1974 it was Democrats in the majority that pushed to get it down to a 60 vote requirement for cloture.

I think the biggest reason to suspect that if the republicans control the senate again they might try to make changes that weaken the hand of the minority, is that the Democrats are the ones currently trying to open Pandora's box. Once it is open, who knows what other rules changes we'd see. The senate is a body that is supposed to be more deliberative, where it is supposed to be much harder to pass a bill without a lot of serious compromise from both parties. That is by design, and is a design that has served us well for a couple of hundred years.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
60. You're looking too far back
Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:53 AM
Jan 2013

Since the Republicans were threatening to get rid of it during W's administration. The only reason they didn't is Democrats promised not to use it.

I think the biggest reason to suspect that if the republicans control the senate again they might try to make changes that weaken the hand of the minority, is that the Democrats are the ones currently trying to open Pandora's box.

The Republicans are the one who started the "let's get rid of the filibuster" plan. And now that Republicans have normalized massive abuse of the filibuster, they're well aware of what Democrats could do to them.

It's gone.

mostlyconfused

(211 posts)
62. I'm not clear that it is ok by either side
Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:22 AM
Jan 2013

If you have some links referring to the repubs trying to get rid of it under W, I'd happily read them. I seem to vaguely remember some of that talk, but haven't found the articles yet.

It needs to not be gone. The rights of the minority need to be preserved, because one day the Democrats will be in the minority again.

A lot of the outrage over repub filibusters is being created by Reids actions. More than any majority leader he has filed for cloture on the same day bills are introduced and then blocked amendments offered by the other side. If/when a repub majority leader does that in the future in order to prevent Democrats from having any say in a bill, or having the ability to debate it, or the ability to offer amendments...damn straight I'd expect the Democrat minority at that time to filibuster and fight at every turn.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
64. Can't find links?
Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:45 PM
Jan 2013

Seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Bush_appointments:_2001.E2.80.932006

It needs to not be gone. The rights of the minority need to be preserved, because one day the Democrats will be in the minority again.

I'm not arguing for it to go away. I'm arguing that it should be harder to do. Because after these milquetoast reforms, the Republicans will simply get rid of the filibuster the next time they have a majority.

More than any majority leader he has filed for cloture on the same day bills are introduced and then blocked amendments offered by the other side.

....So you've spent exactly 0 minutes actually researching Senate history then?

mostlyconfused

(211 posts)
82. So what we're saying is that it was bad then, but it is good now
Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:56 PM
Jan 2013

Frist was abusing his power and looking to use the extreme nuclear option to brush aside the minority party, which was clearly upsetting. In the case of judicial nominees it would have allowed the repubs to push through any nominee, no matter how extreme, and remove any ability for the Democrats to stop them. This was a bad thing.

Now Reid wants to pretty much do the same thing so the obstructionist minority party cannot stop the progress of legislation or nominees which it deems to be extreme, and what we have here on DU are people upset that he's not going far enough.

My view is more that if a majority leader abuses his/her power in an attempt to eliminate the voice of the minority, that's a bad thing regardless of whether there is a D or an R next to his/her name.

Regarding my point about the number of cloture votes, it is quite easy to verify that there have been more of them under Reid than under every former Senate majority leader.


jeff47

(26,549 posts)
83. Yay! You actually bothered doing some research!
Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:33 PM
Jan 2013
So what we're saying is that it was bad then, but it is good now

No. Not even close.

The filibuster is a tool to use in extreme circumstances. That used to be enforced by tradition, but the Republicans have abandoned tradition. So the rules need to be written so that it takes a lot of effort. That way it will only be used in extreme circumstances.

Reid's changes don't do that. The filibuster continues to be trivial to use. Today's Republicans will not allow the Democrats a trivial-to-use veto over their agenda.

We're talking about people proudly proclaiming their gerrymandering success and their plans to cheat in the electoral college. They are not yesterday's Republican party.

Now Reid wants to pretty much do the same thing so the obstructionist minority party cannot stop the progress of legislation or nominees which it deems to be extreme, and what we have here on DU are people upset that he's not going far enough.

Utterly false. Even Udall/Markley would still let the minority filibuster. The changes would require the minority to actually put forth effort to do so.

Under Reid's compromise, it's actually harder for the minority to vote on a bill than filibuster a bill - only one of them has to show up for the filibuster.

Regarding my point about the number of cloture votes, it is quite easy to verify that there have been more of them under Reid than under every former Senate majority leader.

And once you begin to understand how the Senate works, you might start figuring out how those votes aren't Reid's fault. See, the way the Senate used to work, the minority would just let bills come up for a vote via unanimous consent. So they didn't have to do cloture votes. McConnell and company refuse to give unanimous consent, so the next step in the normal way of doing things is a cloture vote.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
46. I knew something was up on....
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:46 PM
Jan 2013

...Inauguration Day. I thought Harry Reid was not going to make it to the balcony. Did anyone else notice? It was like he could hardly make it. I thought he was going to collapse, out of breath. Then at the luncheon after the Inauguration, he made a toast for the President and didn't even finish with a click of his wine glass.... He sat his wine glass down at the first of his toast and then walked off and left it. Not a smile. Nothing.

And now, we learn that he has caved on the filibuster. Fuck Harry. And all who went down the way with him. Fuck them all. Good will and good faith out of Mitch McConnell?????????? what a wimp Harry Reid is. Wimp, Wimp, Wimp! I'm so mad I can't see right now... Damn!

 

blkmusclmachine

(16,149 posts)
49. 4 More Years Of The Last 4 Years.
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:44 PM
Jan 2013
It's what the DC "Democrats" wanted, apparently. How bad are they wanting to lose in 2014/16 ??

madrchsod

(58,162 posts)
58. the worse majority leader of either party in the history of the senate
Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:01 AM
Jan 2013

obama won with a clear mandate of the american people. his final term means he does`t have to kiss any republican`s ass to get what he wants. harry the wimp kisses at least the next two years good bye.



we`ll have to work our asses off to make sure we keep the senate in the next election cycle

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
63. A boxer that takes a dive is a bum, he needs to loose his belt
Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:14 PM
Jan 2013

He throws the fight for the other side's promoter each and every time.

 

47of74

(18,470 posts)
85. I'm wondering if this is why Harkin decided to retire...
Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:34 PM
Jan 2013

...seeing the rather spineless Senate Democratic leadership in action again probably made him figure it's better to enjoy his golden years than pissing them all away since Reid isn't doing anything.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
86. I think it's pretty clear that this move
Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:11 PM
Jan 2013

will help ensure the continued implementation of Obama's priorities...and those of every other Democratic and Republican corporatist in Washington.

They are exceedingly effective at getting their agenda through.


Obama, Democrats Push to Make Bush Spying Laws Permanent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084702

The Enemy Expatriation Act - another attack on legitimate protest and dissent like NDAA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022072450

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Domestic Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022061578

NDAA 2013 - Indefinite detention without trial is back
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014342985

Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014348022

Democratic-controlled US Senate approves...new $633 billion war bill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022060449

Purposely aiming bombs at children: "It kind of opens our aperture."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931748

The Pentagon's New 30,000-lb MOP Bomb Is Ready To Go
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022200058

Obama Administration To Offer More Than 20 Million Acres in Western Gulf of Mexico for Oil/Drilling
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1896005

Obama's (Corporate) Education Reform Push is Bad Education Policy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x221922

Obama's 'Race To The Top' Drives Nationwide Wave of School Closings, Teacher Firings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2183810

Trans Pacific Partnership is NAFTA On Steroids
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1914478

NYT slams the government for choosing not to prosecute HSBC top-bankers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021965407

Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022065493

Obama: "Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid

Surely every American must realize any cuts hereinafter made to social security, Medicare, or Medicaid...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022191730

Health insurers raising rates by double digits
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014358823

So now we are mysteriously falling short of Democratic votes for filibuster reform.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809132

Why Harry and the Democrats gave away filibuster reform
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022251878

Nine Democrats signed letter urging quick approval of Keystone XL pipeline
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022250081
.....


The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/


Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Tom Harkin: Filibuster Re...