Here's Why Senate Dems Didn't Force the Filibuster on Big Oil Subsidies

[demwing]

This came in my email today:

Dear ----,

It’s a no-brainer: Big Oil doesn’t need taxpayer subsidies.

After all, the five largest oil companies raked in profits of $32 billion in the first quarter of 2011—while Americans are paying four bucks a gallon at the pump. And yet, they continue to collect billions in tax dollar handouts at a time when we need to cut spending.

It’s unfair, and it MUST stop. But last night, Republicans derailed a Democratic bill that would end this double-fisted cash grab and save $21 billion.

The GOP has chosen to stand with Big Oil companies like ConocoPhillips, whose CEO called our bill “un-American.” With only four seats separating the Republicans from the Senate majority, has there ever been a more important time to stop their oil-soaked agenda?

Give toward our $306,909 goal right now and Democratic Senators will match it. Our May Match means you’ll be matched dollar for dollar – your $10 contribution will only cost you $5. Click here now to take advantage of this match.

The Republicans’ recent record is clear: anti-woman, anti-worker, anti-Medicare…and, now, pro-Big Oil.

But what’s also clear is that we have work to do to stop their agenda before it’s too late. We have to defend 23 seats in 2012—and they only need four to win the Senate.

And with Karl Rove’s American Crossroads already opening the floodgates on what could be a $100 million barrage of attack ads, we have no time to waste.

We’ve put Republicans on record standing with Big Oil. Now is your chance to go on record standing with President Obama and Democrats, who are fighting back. 90% of donations to the DSCC are from our grassroots supporters—and, if you act by May 31, you can give for half price.

Give toward our $306,909 goal right now and Democratic Senators will match it. You can send $10 into the field to defeat the GOP for just $5.

They might call it “un-American,” but if you’re sick of paying four dollars a gallon and then watching your tax dollars pad the profits of Big Oil when other priorities are going unfunded, the Democratic fight to take away those handouts is a no-brainer.

And if you’re sick of hypocritical Republicans claiming there’s no money for health care or job creation and then voting to protect corporate welfare for oil companies, standing with the DSCC is a no-brainer, too.

Thanks for helping us stand up to the party of Big Oil.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid

It's the bogey man factor. If the Republicans are defeated, you can't use them as fund raising tools.

Well Harry Reid, I've got a fucking "no-brainer" message for you - I DON'T HAVE $10 BUCKS TO DONATE BECAUSE IT WENT IN MY GAS TANK.

Fight for us first, and the donations will follow. I'm not playing your shell game anymore, it's rigged, and we never win...

[xchrom]

1. i concur

'I'm not playing your shell game anymore, it's rigged, and we never win...'

[joeybee12]

2. Exactly, the look how bad they are method of fund-raising.

[KittyWampus]

3. Right- so your method is to let more Republicans win next election so that bill will get passed

next session. BOY YOU ARE A GENIUS!

:sarcasm:

Ridiculous ideologues will shove reality into their little boxes no matter how mangled a mess it ends up.

But there will be plenty of fools who will recommend your nonsense.

[joeybee12]

5. So, I don't understand your sarcasm...

The OP is spot on, sorry if you don't realize it.

[demwing]

7. Sure, whatever.

Give me something to donate WITH, and then we can talk.

Give me something to donate FOR, and the donations will follow.

At some point you are defined by what you stand FOR, not what the other guy stands against. If the only thing we have going for us is that we are not Republicans, then we're fucked. People can vote for a Socialist, or a Green, or a Libertarian...none of them are Republicans either. Those parties can make the SAME claim that Dems can - "We aren't Republicans!"

The point is we won't win JUST by demonizing the other team. All that does is depress people into staying home on election day. We have got to STAND for something. We have got to give America a list of reasons to vote Democratic, even if the Republican party vanishes from the political stage.

[PVnRT]

38. Yeah, give more money to the Democrats

So that they can continue to half-heartedly fight for a few things every now and then.

I have better things to do with my cash than piss it away on politicians not interested in taking a stand.

[sharp_stick]

4. Too bad you can't force a filibuster

All you can do is make a single GOP member remain on the floor to call for quorum and then a roll call has to be done. When the quorum fails they do it again.

It's huffpost but it's still the best explanation AFAIC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

http://mydd.com/2009/2/23/the-quotmake-them-filibusterquot-myth

Nowhere near dramatic enough or punishment enough to force the pukes to actually change anything.

It's kind of like the Dems holding the Senate open during recess by having one Senator come in and bang the gavel every day to prevent Bush from making Recess appointments.

I'd love to see changes to the filibuster but nobody in the Senate really wants to do it because they know that at some point in the future they will be on the minority side and will want to use it.

[demwing]

10. Yes you CAN force a filibuster

you just can't force the bit about reading from a phone book...

So let the Republicans all go home, with one asshat there noting "lack of a quorom." Let nothing else come up till the subsidy measure comes to a vote.

Or have Reid change the filibuster rules so that they DO have to read the phone book...

Either way the outcome is the same - IF we have the fire to force it, and then POUND IT in the press, mocking the Republicans for shutting down government just to maintian oil subsidies for billion dollar companies that pay no taxes.

Yeah, that's a losing battle for the Dems... :sarcasm:

[sharp_stick]

12. You can make that argument

and it might work, depending on the public optics. If the Dems would force this the Republicans would be ready to go with the Dems are stopping the business of the Senate, until either the Republicans get sick of sending one guy in there or the Dems get sick of calling quorums.

Maybe I'm a little more cynical about the American public than you are but I don't think anyone would give a shit about it. The lack of drama would wear on the public in about an hour the media would stop covering it in about two hours and it would all just go away. I bet it wouldn't last more than a day or two before both sides just agreed to give it up.

If you think that Reid could even pull 50 votes to change the filibuster rules I'm afraid you're way less cynical than I am. I'll bet money that if that came up for a vote Reid would pull less than 35 on a change to the filibuster rules under any guise. Especially one that would make it more difficult to actually execute a filibuster.

The Senate is designed to be a place of "sober second thought" but in reality it's just a place where old people go to die. The Senate functions as a place to slow down the House of Representatives and that's pretty much it.

[demwing]

14. "The Senate is ... just a place where old people go to die"

Agreeing with that statement is like agreeing that I enjoy watching South Park. I can't disagree, but it makes me feel uncomfortable admitting it...

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Reid would have to cave in a few weeks for debt ceiling vote

The bottom line is that there are too many things the Senate needs to get done and refusing to schedule any business until this gets an up or down vote would probably end in our side backing down to take up another measure and wasting several weeks in the process.

The fact is that we essentially have a supermajority requirement to pass legislation in this country. We can talk all day about fixing this by playing chicken until the other guy blinks, but that isn't an optimal strategy for a majority party since time is precious and when that time gets used up playing chicken, it only benefits the minority who will never get anything they want passed anyway. What we need to do is get rid of the filibuster entirely. The problem is that our side is hesitant to do this since we know there's a good chance Social Security would've been privatized by now if not for the filibuster.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. The Majority Leader can tell the Sgt At Arms to bring members to the chamber, though

In order to achieve quorum. And once quorum is clearly achieved then they have to talk or the presiding officer can rule that there is no further debate on the business before the Senate and bring it to a vote. The only thing is that the Democrats would have to sit there and watch them read from the phone book.

[FBaggins]

6. There was never any possibility of winning the vote.

The House would never go for it.

The goal was to put the Republicans on the spot and force them to vote for big oil.

That goal was achieved.

[abelenkpe]

9. + 1

That is true. What's disappointing for me is that wasn't all over the news last nite with lists of those who voted in favor of Big Oil. Instead the news focused on the perverted IMF guy, Arnold and Newt's smack down by the loony self destructive libertarian/teapot wing of the republican party. So even though calling out republican's support of unneeded corporate welfare was a success it was drown out by other stories.

[Shandris]

11. The public airwaves recieve subsidies too. They're not going to bite...

...the hand that feeds them.

[abelenkpe]

24. Free Market is so inaccurate

I've never understood why behemoth corporations receive subsidies. Personally I think it'd be better, for the economy, community and environment if they were all broken up.

[demwing]

15. It's not enough to put Republicans on the spot

not anymore. we've got to give America somthing to vote FOR, not something to vote AGAINST.

[FBaggins]

17. And our guys voted to get rid of the big oil subsidies.

What's not to vote for?

You can't insist that they WIN... if winning isn't an option.

[demwing]

18. They didn't really vote on the bill, if there had been a vote, 52-48 would have won it

What they voted on whether to invoke cloture, which requires 60 votes.

At that point what the Dems should have done is push back. The Dems didn't have to move on, that could have been it. The Republicans would have either had to literally get up and talk, or get up and leave, so that one Republican could note a lack of quorom.

Of course, it would have looked exactly like what it really would have been: Republicans walking out to protect subsidies for Big Oil billionaires. Get THAT in a campaign commercial...

Instead, the Dems cave, the Republicans get their way, and Big Oil subsidies never come to a vote.

sigh...

[FBaggins]

19. It doesn't matter whether they voted on a bill or on cloture.

Everyone knows what the subject of the vote was and it has clearly been reported as a vote to kill some of big oil's benefits.

At that point what the Dems should have done is push back. The Dems didn't have to move on, that could have been it. The Republicans would have either had to literally get up and talk, or get up and leave, so that one Republican could note a lack of quorom.

So? You want them to draw a line in the sand on something everyone knows they already lost? Toward what end?

Why on earth would you spend political capital on a fight you know you've lost?


Republicans walking out

They didn't have to "walk out"... they just wait for the next vote. The news would be Democrats holding up the work of the Senate to no purpose except grandstanding.

[demwing]

20. So you think that actually voting to end subsidies for Big Oil billionaires is "grandstanding"?

if so, let's have some more of that good old fashioned grandstanding, please.

"So? You want them to draw a line in the sand on something everyone knows they already lost?"

Wait...did they lose? I thought you wrote that they won?

Which is it? A win or a loss? Does it change, depending on what you're claiming at any given moment:

1) That Senate Dems are bravely defending voters (they won the vote?)
2) That Senate Dems are helpless before the Republican minority (wait..they lost that vote, right?)

[FBaggins]

21. Did I say that?

Nope... I just re-read it and it's not in there. The "grandstanding" wouldn't be an actual vote because they can't GET an actual vote. the grandstanding would be all the... well... grandstanding trying to FORCE a vote (just a series of more lost cloture votes) when they can't do it and everyone (but you) KNOWS that they can't do it.

Wait...did they lose? I thought you wrote that they won?

Gee... I can't find that either. I clearly said just the opposite.

They can't "win" when Republicans have overwhelming control of the House and no trouble holding a filibuster. They CAN succeed in pinning the issue to republicans to use against them.

But they've already done that.

[demwing]

22. Yes, you did

You wrote:

The news would be Democrats holding up the work of the Senate to no purpose except grandstanding.

No purpose in your view. In my view, the purpose would be to use a political prybar on the Republiicans, and to-eventually-force them to either allow the vote or engage in a full on fillibuster.

[FBaggins]

26. Nope. Sounds like a reading comprehension problem.

You wrote:

The news would be Democrats holding up the work of the Senate to no purpose except grandstanding.


Right. And since I said that would NOT result in an actual vote on something other than cloture... you can't honestly spin it as saying that a vote on the bill would be grandstanding. Just as you can't reasonably claim that I said "win" AND "lose" just because it's the strawman you need for your argument.

[demwing]

27. In the end, you resort to insults

and I thought this date was going so well...

[FBaggins]

28. "reading comprehension problem"...

... Was supposed to be a clever way of saying "I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying"

No insult was intended.

That's a second date thingy.

[demwing]

29. No harm no foul

But clearly we are not going to agree with each other on this.

How about this - for the sake of argument let's assume you are correct (and I'm not saying you are), and that pushing the issue will only result in endless repeated cloture votes without resolution.

The Dems could STILL resolve this with reconciliation, and if that fails, with the nuclear option.

Reconciliation is obviously preferable, but the nuclear option will probably not be as "nuclear" as we are lead to believe, and in the end, 14, 16, 18, or some other number of Senators will come together, equally representing both parties, just as they did when Frist was majority leader, and craft some agreement that ends or reduces the subsidies, just so the Senate can avoid using the big gun.

We have the majority, we call the shots, and we are not using the tools that we have, to do the job that we need to do.

This issue is worth the fight.

[FBaggins]

32. Reconciliation?

You know that requires the House to vote on it as well.

Did Boehner switch sides?

Nor is the nuclear option an option. There are nowhere NEAR enough democrats who would support it. Have you seen how many seats we're defending this time around? These guys think they're going to need it in a couple years.

[demwing]

35. So is that the sum of all arguments?

Since the house won't pass it, why bother?

We're defending 25 seats (with the Indies), but I'm only worried about 2 - Montana and Missouri. There's a good chance will get back Massachusetts, and we may also flip Arizona, Maine, and Nevada. Of course, we'll finally get a real Dem in Connecticut as well...

2 years ago I would have been worried about Florida, but with the hate being generated by Rick Scott here, I'll bet Dems flock to the polls and vote for anything blue

I wouldn't be surprised to see a net gain of two seats.

[BzaDem]

36. Yes, basically. Since the House won't pass it, there is no point in bothering. Republicans should be

forced to vote on it (as they were). In fact, the bill itself isn't Constitutional, since bills that raise revenue have to originate in the House.

[abelenkpe]

8. Conoco Phillips?

Is that the fat cat who said Americans don't want shared sacrifice they want shared prosperity? What a tool. I wish someone had pointed out that Americans and workers particularly have already made sacrifices while they continue to prosper and that it is way past Big Oil's turn to sacrifice. That further it is absolutely grotesque that Big Oil would be so out of touch with the global economic situation that they would dare justify their continued profits and subsidies while their customers suffered paying for big Oil's record profits twice, once at the pump and again through taxpayer subsidies.

Ugh. Yes using this losing effort as a fundraiser is lame but I doubt purposeful. Honestly I think Harry Reid knows he could easily gather twice as much in fund raising if his letter stated that he was successful in standing up for the working class against Big Oil.

[demwing]

16. Exactly! "We WON (but the fight's not over)"

Beats "We TRIED...aren't those other guys scary?" any day of the week.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demwing]

23. In addition, Senate Dems can use reconcilliation

Eliminating costly subsidies is obviously a budgetary issue, use it.

[BzaDem]

30. No, they can't. Reconciliation requires reconciliation instructions in the budget, which means the

House and Senate would first have to agree on a budget with the particular reconciliation instruction in it.

[mmonk]

25. They always give excuses for not fighting for us but appearing

to oppose. It's politics over substance and there is no way they want to go against big money. I'm tired of them. Fight or go home.

[BzaDem]

31. That's like saying that gravity is an excuse for things falling down.

Maybe that is technically an "excuse," but that is incredibly misleading. The truth is that Republican control of the House (and 47 Republican seats in the Senate) makes any fight futile. It would be no more productive than fighting to turn off gravity.

[MadHound]

37. The reasons is the same as it always was,

The Dems don't have power because they're in the minority, or they don't have filibuster proof majorities, or because the public doesn't support them, or because they don't want to be mean, or because they can't fight today, or because. . .

Thank you, an insightful, and truthful post.

[KharmaTrain]

39. You Save Your Bullets Until You Need Them...

Firstly, the worst thing the Democrats could do right now is shut down the government or even threaten to do so. That's the GOTB game and one that blew up on them under Gingrich in the 90s and will again if they dare to play hot potato with the debt ceiling (which they will).

Right now the GOTB is doing a lot to hang itself...the Democrats have been handed many gifts here for next year and it appears that this isn't the time to exploit it but to build it up. Forcing the vote now has rushpublicans like Scott Brown on record of being lackeys for the big oil companies that could be used very effectively against him next year. This also applies to any future votes on the Ryan scam. Get them on record now and beat them over the head with it.

Here's the rub about polls. While we're seeing 75% of the people are against keeping these subsidies but I'll bet those numbers aren't like that in states like Texas or Louisiana or Alaska where oil is a major source of income. If your livlihood relies on these bastards, you're not going to bite the hand that feeds you no matter how oily and corrupt they are and this is what drives many of the oil state legislators.

I expect we'll see several more of these votes ahead...and depending on the price of oil and the overall economy these vots could be used against rushpublicans next year. This is all about power...

[Juche]

40. When they had 60 seats they claimed they needed 64

So meh. As long as they have the majority and control the committees, that is good enough. Even if they get 60 seats, all policy has to be watered down so the most conservative of those 60 dems will support it.