Skip to main content

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) (R) is photographed as he talks to reporters about the senate's vote on debt ceiling legislation at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, August 2, 2011. Congress buried the specter of a debt default by finally pass
Sen. Harry Reid
Hissy fits by Sen. Mitch McConnell and pearl-clutching by the punditry (and a handful of stubborn Democrats) have so far not deterred Sen. Harry Reid from continuing to push filibuster reform.
“There are discussions going on now, but I want to tell everybody here: I’m happy, I’ve had a number of Republicans come to me and a few Democrats,” the Democratic majority leader told reporters Tuesday afternoon. “We’re going to change the rules. We cannot continue in this way. So I hope we can get something Republicans will work with us on.

“But it won’t be a handshake,” Reid added. “We tried that last time; it didn’t work.”

He has additional momentum in this new National Journal poll, which shows a plurality of voters, 49-42, in support of Senate reform.
Chart showing results from National Journal poll on filibuster reform. 12/2012
With public support, and the new Democratic senators joining the caucus in January, Reid's confidence in being able to enact reform is pretty well-founded.

Help make the filibuster a real, talking filibuster. Sign our petition.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 01:16 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  He's no Nancy Pelosi, but he's the Majority Leader (6+ / 0-)

      that we've got.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 01:24:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's be clear on what we need. (16+ / 0-)

        We need Reid to call a vote on reforming the filibuster.

        If it passes, that's great. But we need a vote so that we get all Senators on record.  "Pro-filibuster Senators" will be targeted in upcoming election cycles bay Americans of all political stripes.

        Reid does not need anyone's permission or help to call this vote. As Majority Leader, he can do it himself at the start of any session.

        If there's a vote (win or lose) I'll be a Harry Reid Fan. If not, no excuse, deal, "gentleman's agreement", or 3-D Chess analogy will convince me that he's not part of the problem.

        Vote?

        Or not?

        That's the only question here.

        •  MM - doesn't Reid need 51 votes at the start (0+ / 0-)

          of the 113th Congress to reform the Senate rules regarding filibuster? I don't think there are 51 Dem Senators who will vote for serious filibuster reform. I think all the Dems in the Senate will vote for some type of reform, but not dramatic reform.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 03:59:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes. Exactly. (13+ / 0-)

            If there are Pro-Filibuster Democrats, I want them outed and on record, too. SO that I can remember them in 2014 and 2016 when they send me those beggar's emails asking for cash.

            What I don't want is some sneaky non-vote maneuver designed to give them cover.

            Let's have a vote. Maybe we get 51. Maybe we get 40. Maybe we get 10.

            No matter what, we will have learned something...!

            •  I think "pro-filibusterer"... (10+ / 0-)

              is poor messaging on our part. No one in Washington wants to get rid of the filibuster, but I think w all want to make the filibuster actually be a filibuster, so they have to stand up, make their case and be seen doing it.

              I am pro-filibuster. I think it's an important tool to have when used properly and with restraint. The current rules allow filibustering without actually having to DO anything. THAT is what we have to change, and what Reid is proposing we change. We should sell it that way. It's a hard sell to say "get rid of it altogether", but it's a much much easier sell to say "Lets reform it, back to how it was in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

              Most people don't even realize it isn't like that anymore, but once they find out they are quick to agree it should be like that again.

              if anything, the republicans are "anti-filibuster" in this, they don't want to actually have to filibuster, they just want to be able to threaten to filibuster and keep the senate from getting anything done.

              "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." -Henry Ford

              by sixeight120bpm on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:13:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  why do you say that? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                StrayCat, Laconic Lib, ManhattanMan
                No one in Washington wants to get rid of the filibuster
                what is this statement based on?

                I would imagine that some want to get rid of it. And why not? It's not a good thing.

                An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                by mightymouse on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:13:50 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  What's wrong with the filibuster? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mightymouse, catfood

                  I'm not in support of eliminating it.  I just want them to have to talk and keep talking to maintain it.  In my view, the real problem is they are doing it quietly without even having to go on record as to why.

                  Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

                  by yet another liberal on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:39:33 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  and that wasn't even the poll question (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    catfood

                    that question was about eliminating the filibuster entirely, and that is not at all what Reid is pushing. Nobody in the Senate is, to my knowledge.
                    It still gets a majority of support. If the question were about the actual reform proposed, I would imagine support would skyrocket everywhere (except inside the Senate. Seriously, DiFi, WTF?)
                    All we need to do is make them actually filibuster. That alone will deter the abuse, while preserving the 'sacred' tradition of Mr Smith.

                    Stand for something, or you'll fall for anything - Malcolm X via Skindred

                    by kamarvt on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:47:37 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  what's wrong with the filibuster - (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ManhattanMan

                    it defeats majority rule. it makes government more dysfunctional. Most governments do not have such rules.

                    but that wasn't my question - my question was, why was the previous commenter so sure that no one in DC wants to get rid of it?

                    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                    by mightymouse on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 09:29:55 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Not many want to completely eliminate it...maybe (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sixeight120bpm

                  no one wants to completely get rid of it.  It has its purpose and place...and there may come a time when our side may need it.  

                  It just needs to be reformed so that the mere rumor of filibuster means that everything stops dead in its tracks.  It was not meant to work in this manner.

                  No, filibuster should be in place but it should be reformed to work as it was originally intended to work.  

                  •  filibuster always meant to block the majority (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    a2nite, ManhattanMan

                    I don't see why people think that is a good thing.

                    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                    by mightymouse on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 09:30:56 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Because sometimes even the majority can screw up (0+ / 0-)

                      If by happenstance in 2016, they won the Presidency and Senate and kept the House....would you be comfortable with them having complete free reign with no minority objection rights...or rights that would actually stop something that was dangerous or bagger crazy asinine?  

                      I wouldn't.

                      •  minority can always object (0+ / 0-)

                        but they should not be able to endlessly postpone a vote that the majority wants to have.

                        ending the filibuster ≠ silencing the minority.

                        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                        by mightymouse on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 04:36:09 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  It thwarts the majority (0+ / 0-)

                        It thwarts the will of the majority. It undermines democracy. That's what's wrong with it.

                        One of the scariest things about democracy is that the majority has the right to make mistakes. And in practicing democracies, they often do.

                        As the filibuster is used today, it makes governing impossible. Yes, I would hate for the Republicans to take over and pass all their policies, but if they were fairly elected by the majority to do that, then that's just the democratic process. If the people are fed up by the next election, then they can vote in a new crowd that can change all those policies.

                  •  Maybe there... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...are many Senators who like the filibuster.

                    Maybe not.

                    Only one way to find out...let's vote.

                    Because it doesn't matter what Senators like, it matters what voters like. When voters see that their Senator is pro-filibuster, that will cost that Senator, I'm sure.

                •  I say that because it's true. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  chuck utzman, catfood

                  No one in the senate, or anyone else in Washington to my knowledge, is pushing for the elimination of the filibuster. Just it's reform. The filibuster, properly implemented provides a tool for a dedicated minority to make a principled stand, make their argument and be heard. Majority rule is a good thing, the filibuster should not prevent it, but it SHOULD keep the majority from running roughshod over the minority without hearing their arguments.

                  The Senate as an institution is based on protecting the minority. That's why every state gets two senators, regardless of that state's population. True majority rule would not have a senate like we do, they would just have the house or possibly a second body to perform the senate's duties, but with it's members chosen based on population.

                  The problem with the senate now, the problem that everyone agrees IS a problem once they understand the situation, is that a minority can threaten to filibuster and stop a bill in it's tracks without 60 votes. They don't have to make their case, they don't have to stand up and be seen, they just have to make the threat. There is no principle involved, no cost, and no benefit to the nation as a whole. Just blind obstruction because they can. THAT is what we need to get rid of, and what Reid's plan looks like it will do by making would-be obstructionists back up their threats with action, stand up, make their case, and be seen doing it.

                  "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." -Henry Ford

                  by sixeight120bpm on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 10:27:19 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you said no one in DC wants to get rid of it. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ManhattanMan, sixeight120bpm

                    my point is there is no way for you to know that.

                    1) there are a lot of people in DC. :-)

                    2) even in the Senate (much smaller group), we still don't know what they really want. A Senate opponent of the filibuster will probably publicly support any reasonable reform, likely the best that will come out of that body.

                    Another point - I don't think your argument for the filibuster is well-taken. You say:

                    The filibuster, properly implemented provides a tool for a dedicated minority to make a principled stand, make their argument and be heard. Majority rule is a good thing, the filibuster should not prevent it, but it SHOULD keep the majority from running roughshod over the minority without hearing their arguments.
                    A filibuster rule is not necessary to allow a minority of the Senate to make its case. Any decent parliamentary procedure allows a minority to make its case before a vote is taken.  Roberts Rules, e.g., allows for setting a reasonable time for debate prior to bringing a question, extending time before a vote, postponement (as you would want if new info comes forward), etc.

                    What the filibuster allows for, what makes it unique, it is allows for ENDLESS debate. It means the majority can never close debate and come to a vote. Thus it defeats majority rule. It is an underhanded way to block a motion a majority has the votes to pass. The very word "filibuster" reveals this underhanded nature - it comes from the Dutch word for "piracy."

                    If one supports majority rule, one can't support the filibuster. The two concepts are antithetical.

                    Lovers of the filibuster should recall its use in US history. Apparently a filibuster was used to block a vote to allow Woodrow Wilson to arm ships in WWI. It's most famous use was in blocking civil rights legislation.

                    I really don't get the affection for this procedure we see even around here. The Senate is a problematic body, and the filibuster makes it even worse.

                    I can understand people saying, "let's support the proposed reforms since they're the best we can get"; what I don't get is people really believing the filibuster is a good thing.

                    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                    by mightymouse on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 11:19:57 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Filibuster only rneeds 6% of popular vote! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sixeight120bpm

                    At the Founding, there were concerns about minority rights (no, not those minorities, lol. Political minorities). The Senate itself was the compromise.

                    The 51 smallest states have only 20% of the US population.

                    That means 11% of voters, if they hang together, can elect 51 Senators and block anything.

                    Isn' this enough protection? But no, we need a filibuster. That means that the smallest 20 states with only 11.5% of Americans can block anything. If only 6% of Americans want to, they can theoretically elect 40 senators in the smallest states and block all three branches of government.

                    No nominations to the Judiciary.
                    No funding for the Executive.
                    No legislation.
                    No treaties.

                    This is madness. The invention of the Internet only makes it worse, because it is possible for smaller groups to co-ordinate more closely and wreck more havoc. Look at the dammed Tea-Party.

                    The Senate is broken, and it's because of the filibuster.

                    I don't see how the filibuster is a good thing. I'm anxious to here why I'm wrong, and if you're willing to talk me down off the ledge, I suggest you do it in a Diary, because it will take a lot of talking...

                    •  fair enough (0+ / 0-)

                      You and  Mightymouse have convinced me, I'v tried to think out an argument in favor of the filibuster, but between the two of you you've preempted everything I  had considered. I'm going to blame an overdeveloped sense of drama. There is something compelling about the 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' style filibuster where it is used to the benefit of the american people. You are correct though, that is not the reality, never was, and the possibility that it might be is not worth the evils to which it has been applied in the past and could be in the future.

                      That still leaves the fact that there is no one in Washington (and by that I mean the common use of the phrase to refer to officials inside the federal government) actively pushing for anything stronger than reform. Some want more reform, some less, but I haven't been able to find anyone in any position to effect change trying to get rid of it. My original statement stands, the dems aren't trying to get rid of the filibuster, and the GOP are trying to avoid actually having to carry out anything more than the threat of filibuster.

                      "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." -Henry Ford

                      by sixeight120bpm on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 04:58:56 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  That's what the vote is for (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, StrayCat

            the 50+Biden votes needed will be attained.

            Reid needs to call the vote. IIRC, only he can do so.

            --
            Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

            by sacrelicious on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 04:58:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Relax, It won't be radical reform. (9+ / 0-)

            Reid has a fine line to walk on this one.  First, he needs and I believe wants to change the filibuster rules.  Why?  It is the responsibility of the Majority party to govern.  Failing this they expect to be replaced.  (This cycle was different, Republicans used the rules that gave the minority voice and tried to stop governance, too many people realized that, Dems are +2 to prove it).   They also lied to Reid, that he will make them pay for.

            Second, Reid has to look to the future and protect his own interest should he find himself in the minority in two years.  He will want to be heard.  

            So, reform will not be radical, but possibly something akin to the Harkin plan, which allows for delay, yet with delay, it becomes easier for a smaller majority to pass a piece of legislation.  The Minority is heard, yet legislation moves forward.  

            I would also expect the filibuster to become much more labor intensive for those who want to filibuster, it will be break out the phone book time.   I've seen Reid get up and do the hard work of a filibuster, reading his book at the lectern when he was in the minority and wanted to be heard.  

            Expect reform to be something that neither side will like, but there will be reform.

            ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

            by NevDem on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 05:29:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  NevDem - it will be interesting to see where (0+ / 0-)

              Reid has 51 votes and what is settled on. I think what you are suggesting will likely be very close to the final answer. It will not be what many here would like, a system that mirrors the House.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 05:53:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  It's the responsibility of the minority party to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite, catfood

              govern, too. We elect our representatives to do the job of governing.

              But this minority has decided not to do the job that they were elected to do and furthermore, to stop everyone else from doing theirs.

              They need to be slapped down.

              I am progressive. I am liberal. I make no apologies. - Kos

              My political compass: - 8.38,-6.97

              by pucklady on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 09:02:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Still its a threat to Social Securtiy (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              catfood

              and pretty much any environmental regulation you want to name. The current filibuster system protected what meager environmental laws we have in place from the contract with America and the early Bush years. Maybe the Dems will be willing to talk ad infinitum in defense of Social Security or Medicare, but what about the Clean Water Act, or Mine Safety laws? The GOP is more than willing to completely alter the social contact with a 51 vote parliamentary style rule.

              I'm afraid we're going to get severely fucked by this within the decade.

              "Buying Horizon Milk to support organic farming is like purchasing an English muffin in an effort to prop up the British economy." -Windowdog

              by Windowdog on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 11:25:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  I hope I am wrong.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          StrayCat, polecat

          but I have seen the Senate bail on reforming the filibuster rules so many time that I still remain highly doubtful that when push comes to shove this time, they will actually do it.

          Reid sounds sincere, but a lot of good old boys in the past, including people I respect like Chris Dodd, wouldn't go along when they tried it earlier.

          Senators LOVE their perks and things like special holds and cloture die hard, even if they are crippling the ability of Congress to function.

          Republicans LOVE it too because it gives them power they don't otherwise have even though the electorate has rejected their policies (such as they are.)  It's a tough battle.

          Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

          by dweb8231 on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:18:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Don't be fooled (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, LOrion, mightymouse

      reserve judgement until after the game.

  •  Would be great if it was enacted and Boehner had (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    homo neurotic, a2nite

    to eat sh*t.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 01:23:40 PM PST

  •  Please, Please let it happen ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    homo neurotic, ciganka

    All I want for Christmas is REAL Filibuster Reform!

    A mind like a book, has to be open to function properly.

    by falconer520 on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 01:25:08 PM PST

  •  Reid's like his old boxing self these days (5+ / 0-)

    Remaining as Majority Leader with a bigger and more liberal caucus will do that to a guy.

    Interesting note; since Reid's assured of being Majority Leader through 2014 at least, he'll be one of the longest serving Majority Leaders in history. He's got staying power.

  •  Get the People's Work Done! (3+ / 0-)

    We're sick of holdups for the 1%.

    It's up to you, Harry, to make it happen.

  •  That was a LOUSY poll question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    winsock, yet another liberal

    because it didn't ask about the reforms that are being proposed.

    Legislation has ALWAYS been passed by a simple majority in the Senate.

    And 41 senators will STILL be able to block passage of a bill.

    The major change being proposed is that it will actually take all 41 senators to block the bill.... not one anonymous Senator saying 'I object'.

    That's not what the filibuster was intended to do, and I support returning it to it's rightful place and purpose.

    Cheers.

    Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

    by databob on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:16:22 AM PST

    •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      yet another liberal

      The poll essentially asks if the filibuster should be eliminated entirely.  Reid doesn't support this.  Few are even considering it.

      Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

      by winsock on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:23:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The filibuster was never intended at all (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      databob, Laconic Lib, chuck utzman

      It's an accident of history that came about because a rule that at the time seems superfluous was abolished. IIRC, it took over 20 years before anyone realized what the consequences of that were.

      Of course, this doesn't change anything in the present, but it is good to remember when you are tempted to refer to the "intent" or "purpose" behind the filibuster. The truth is there was none.

      "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

      by Drobin on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:31:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  All Reid has to do... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    myeye, TheLizardKing

    Is point to the UN Treaty for the Disabled vote to show how batshit insane the GOP is.

    'Goodwill' between the GOP and the President is as abundant as unicorn farts - Me'

    by RichM on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:23:18 AM PST

  •  "The will of the people" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib

    What are five words you're not going to hear from Republicans for the next two solid years?

    "Correct, gratuitous! Select."

    I'll go with Midget Porn for a thousand, Alex.

  •  Labels on graph (0+ / 0-)

    The next-to-last label should be "Democratic" instead of the somewhat pejorative adjective "Democrat".  The other labels are all adjectives, so this one should be too.  And do not say the other labels could be interpreted as nouns, for in that case they would be in the plural.

    •  What are you? (0+ / 0-)

      1a. Male
      1b. Female

      2a. White
      2b. Nonwhite

      3a. Republican
      3b. Democrat
      3c. Independent

      The respondent would not be a Democratic.  He or she would be a Democrat.

      Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

      by winsock on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:45:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is getting ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

      A person can be a "male" or a "female" which is a noun in that case.  This "Democrat" vs. "Democratic" offense is getting really old.

      Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

      by yet another liberal on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:53:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Filibuster is a legislative tool that has been (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    winsock

    ...useful at times in the past for both parties, but in the wrong hands:  Like the current obstructionist, uberpolitical republicans in today's Senate, it becomes a destructive and obstructive weapon rather than a legitimate legislative tool.

    An occasional filibuster might be expected.  However, the republicans have decided that their mission is to prevent anything at all being done by the Democratic majority. So they threaten constant, endless filibuster, over essentially every meaningful bill.  They would rather debate--and investigte--than legislate.

    Meanwhile, the US taxpayer has been paying both houses of Congres to Do Nothing.

    This has to stop. Since the republican Senators have proven time and time again that they are too childish, stubborn, obstructive, and just plain hateful to put the good of the country before the good of the Party with regard to using the filibuster in the way it was intended.  

    So, they they can just blame themselves if it is changed in ways they don't like.

  •  Lately (0+ / 0-)

    Reid has been looking like Lyndon Johnson these days ... Master of the Senate!

    "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

    by TLS66 on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:34:26 AM PST

  •  Push polling (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    winsock

    It's the only way to go.  But I'm wondering why they didn't call it the "Nuclear option" so that they could be really objective.  I guess they have to sound one notch more unbiased than the TV and radio.  They're pollsters!

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:35:59 AM PST

  •  I think that graphic's question should include (0+ / 0-)

    ....."so that legislation is passed by a simple majority, as stated in the Constitution."

    Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

    by Sirenus on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:39:52 AM PST

  •  "Filibuster" comes from describing piracy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    winsock, catfood

    --- taking possession of that which is not yours.  

    The too much lauded Boston Tea Party --- was an act of piracy by tax protesters who disguised as Indians to evade penalty for their crimes.

    I applaud some forms of civil disobedience ---- when normal channels have failed to achieve justice.    BUT --- I always stress that one should not disobey law without expecting to pay a penalty.

    If Senators don't have courage of their convictions  ----> at least enough to publicly be the monkey wrench in the governance machinery  ----> they should not get respect as embattled freedom fighters.   Remove their cloaking devices and make them speak.

    De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

    by Neon Mama on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:43:59 AM PST

  •  Hopefully we all realize that this (0+ / 0-)

    will likely be used to push Social Security and Medicare cuts through the Senate.  And I say that without shock or outrage - filibuster reform is necessary, but we should be aware of and prepared for how it will be turned against us.

    In Roviet Union, money spends YOU!

    by Troubadour on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:44:47 AM PST

  •  Love the headline (0+ / 0-)

    Democrat sticks to his principles, we the people approve.  

    I want to see this for the next 4 years (at least, longer would be better.)

  •  Harry Has A Spine! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catfood

    "Reid sticks by filibuster reform promise, has backing of the public"

    Barak Obama has definitely shown signs that he has discovered his backbone.  Possibly so has Harry Reid.  I am still skeptical, but maybe on this issue Harry means what he says.

    But as a whole, I am still skeptical about the Democrats.  The fact that they sucked up to Joe Lieberman after Pal Joey went out and campaigned for John McCain in 2008 is the foundation of my sikepticism about them.  MAYBE I will be proven wrong.  I hope so.

  •  As few as 41 Senators? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GeoffT

    Poll question should be more accurately be reworded: ...allows as few as ONE (1) Senator to block the majority.

  •  Never forget: the filibuster adds insult to injury (0+ / 0-)

    Because every state gets two votes in the Senate, it's possible for Senators representing as little as 1/9 of the U.S. population to block any legislation with a filibuster.

    But even without the filibuster, Senators representing as little as 1/6 of the population can form a 51-vote majority.

    Further note: due to population differences, citizens of Wyoming get 66 times as much clout in the Senate as citizens of California.

    Remember the infamous "Gang of Six" Senators who controlled crucial aspects of the negotiations on the Affordable Care Act? All together, their states had about 3% of the U.S. population.

    More than half of all Americans live in the 10 most populous states—which together account for 20 of the Senate’s 100 votes. 50+% of the people get 20% of the votes!

    What is valued is practiced. What is not valued is not practiced. -- Plato

    by RobLewis on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 09:23:37 AM PST

    •  I did a bit more math (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini

      (using 2011 population estimates)

      Turns out the 9 largest states now have 51% of the people. So half the people actually get only 18% of the Senate votes. And their Senators would still be 5 votes short of a filibuster.

      The other, smaller, half of the people get 82% of the votes.

      Because some halves are more equal than others.

      What is valued is practiced. What is not valued is not practiced. -- Plato

      by RobLewis on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 09:53:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  IF he doesn't STAND & FIGHT he's done as leader (0+ / 0-)

    he should have stood up to Bush in Jan 2007 and stopped the IRAQ WAR that year.

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up !

    by Churchill on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 09:36:48 AM PST

  •  Awesome. (0+ / 0-)
    Hissy fits by Sen. Mitch McConnell and pearl-clutching by the punditry (and a handful of stubborn Democrats) have so far not deterred Sen. Harry Reid from continuing to push filibuster reform.
    Next step: Pass a rule that requires pundits that engage in pearl-clutching to wear actual pearlstrings, and clutch them as they bloviate.
  •  The wording of that question! (0+ / 0-)

    "...for most legislation to pass."

    That's exactly the problem. The use of the filibuster on "most legislation." That's crazy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site