Skip to main content

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is pictured on Capitol Hill in Washington February 28, 2013. REUTERS/Jason Reed

Harry Reid is very disappointed.

Senate Republicans will use any procedural roadblock or stall tactic to deny the President qualified nominees. This cannot continue.
@SenatorReid via TweetDeck

What brought on Harry's disappointment this time? A new tactic from Republicans. Call it a pre-filibuster.

All eight Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are boycotting today’s vote by the panel on Gina McCarthy’s nomination to head EPA — and say the committee won't have enough members present to take action on the high-profile appointment.
How creative of them. If only there was some way the Democratic majority could put and end to Republican procedural roadblocks and stall tactics on nominations. If only there was a way the Senate Majority Leader could break the filibuster on nominees and break the Republican wall of obstruction.

Of course, there is a way. A simple majority vote by the Senate could do just that, if Reid really wants to make it happen. It's time he stops with the empty threats to Republicans and start twisting some arms in the Democratic caucus to get that vote.

Keep the pressure on Reid to do real reform. Sign our petition urging him to reopen rules reform.

8:24 AM PT: Might this be the final straw for Democrats? Well, for some of them, anyway.

“You know why some of us are going to be in favor of reforming the rules of the Senate? It's because of abuses like this,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said during an Environment and Public Works Committee meeting that convened well after its scheduled 9:15 a.m. start time and was bereft of any GOP members.

“This has nothing to do with Gina McCarthy,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who charged that the boycott has more to do with a desire to obstruct EPA’s role in climate change regulations. “I think we understand where our colleagues are coming from — the question is what we do in response.” [...]

“Gina McCarthy is going to become the poster child of their obstructionism,” said Boxer, who revealed that she had already delayed Thursday's scheduled vote for three weeks at Republicans' request. “Gina McCarthy is a woman who deserves this promotion.”

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu May 09, 2013 at 07:55 AM PDT.

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

  •  Same Cure as for Filibuster: (9+ / 0-)

    Permit these tactics, but limit them to X number per year or term.

    That way both parties when in the minority retain the ability to block extremism of the other party, without ceding overall governance to the minority.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:01:39 AM PDT

  •  When Harry killed the filibuster reform (36+ / 0-)

    I said that I wouldn't listen to or consider any complaints about the obstruction.  

    I do think they might do filibuster reform eventually, but they will do it when it's needed to block progressives or someone like Bernie Sanders from filibustering cuts to "entitlements".  That's my bet.

    The filibuster is the Dem leadership's tool for making excuses about why they can't pass decent legislation or represent the American people, despite having a majority for going on seven years now. When they had a filibuster proof majority, they still did a terrible job and did not represent the people.  


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:03:02 AM PDT

    •  ^---100% true (9+ / 0-)

      Particularly the bit about saving their precious entitlement cuts, that's something Reid wants.

      •  I think it was during the run up to the election (7+ / 0-)

        Harry Reid was saying he was against cutting Social Security.  But I haven't heard him say it since.  Same with Biden.  And Obama played the parsing game saying he would not "slash" Social Security.  A lot was done to fool the people into thinking that the Dems would continue to protect Social Security. But once the election was over, all bets were off.


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:23:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Reid's the symptom, not the disease (19+ / 0-)

      As I recently noted here.  This is the same caucus that voted better than 3:1 to allow JoeMentum to keep his cherished Homeland Security Chair after he spent months bashing Obama's security credentials.  The WH and Reid concurred in this utter cowardice:

      "I know that my colleagues in the Senate Democratic caucus were moved not only that Sen. [Harry] Reid said about my longtime record, but by the appeal from President-elect Obama himself that the nation unite now to confront our very serious problems," Lieberman said in the Capitol as those colleagues nodded in agreement behind him.
      As I also noted, Blanche Lincoln was another case in point.  Pierce likes to speak about David Brooks and the Young Fogies Club.  The Senate is a not so young fogies club that puts the interests of its members first and the country second.

      LBJ's ways are as foreign to the current party leadership as FDR's economic approach is.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:17:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But, Joan, they don't have 100 votes (5+ / 0-)

      really, and if they did, they wouldn't, because some blue dog would seize the opportunity to dramatically take a stand against the majority just because.

    •  "The filibuster is the Dem leadership's tool for (6+ / 0-)

      making excuses about why they can't pass decent legislation or represent the American people."

      In other words, Democrats cleverly plotted to have Republicans block every legislation the President and Democrats put up.....

      Hmmm...if this isn't an example of unfathomable loopiness...I don't know what is....

      •  How you get this: (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon, rlochow, ferg, rabel, Eric Nelson
        In other words, Democrats cleverly plotted to have Republicans block every legislation the President and Democrats put up.....
        from this:
        "The filibuster is the Dem leadership's tool for (0+ / 0-)

        making excuses about why they can't pass decent legislation or represent the American people."

        is beyond me.

        Your statement is about what Republicans are doing.  The original statement is about what Democrats are doing.

      •  The Republicans (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ferg, Aunt Martha, Eric Nelson

        in the Senate are entirely predictable.  You know it and I know it and the Dem leadership knows it.


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:58:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  More to the point: the Democrats too are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greenbell

          entirely predictable, and the Dem leadership knows this too.  

          Ned, the Democrats don't have to "plot" anything.  When a piece of somewhat-progressive-seeming legislation comes up, and the Dem leaders don't want it to pass because (secretly or openly) they agree with the Repubs, and they hold a vote which comes to more than 50 in favor but fewer than 60, they can throw up their hands and say, "See?  It's the filibuster.  Nothing we can do.  Our hands are tied."  The leadership can even cast the expected Yea votes, and thus (they think) preserve the illusion of their support of the proposed measure, all the while gloating over its defeat.

          If simple majorities carried the day (as they're supposed to), the Dem leadership would have to make their support for Republican positions open and explicit.  They don't want to do that, because those positions are usually unpopular.  Thus they rely on the filibuster, which allows them to preserve their unpopular positions (and allows those positions to win) without their actually having to avow them.  

          No conspiracy is involved.  None is necessary.  

          •  This is where your argument falls apart, if (0+ / 0-)

            Democrats were using Republicans' proclivity to block everything Democrats put forward as their tool for not passing "Progressive" legislation, they would have to be using Republicans to block non-Progressive legislation as well, right? Because Republicans have blocked nearly every single piece of legislation that has reared its Democratic legislation head since Barack Obama became President.

            To follow the argument being utilized here, Democrats ran for office all these years with the intention of not helping their constituents, but simply, in a cynical strategy, to make sure nothing gets done by hiding behind Republicans....

            I mean…this goes beyond shaking one's head....

            •  Senate Dems may have run with the intention (0+ / 0-)

              of helping their constituents, but naturally they have their own ideas of what that looks like.  I think most of them think that this usually means hewing to some center-right or even more conservative position.  In other words, I think most of them think, or anyway have persuaded themselves, that center-right positions are what their constituents want.  I believe they also think that they have to mouth certain Democratic-party shibboleths in order to get elected as Democrats; that they often don't seriously believe in these things; that they think that "everyone knows" about this hypocrisy and expects it now; and that they think that excuses it.  

              I don't think they are actively seeking to advance the Republican strategy of obstructing absolutely everything.  I think some of them are actually too dumb to understand that that's the Republicans' game.  I think they go on a case-by-case basis, and let the Repubs' use of the filibuster destroy legislation they didn't really want themselves.  

              •  rlochow, I would love to know what specific (0+ / 0-)

                legislation you feel the Democrats wanted the Republicans to block.

                •  Filibuster reform, the subject of this diary, (0+ / 0-)

                  would be a perfect example.  

                  •  Well filibuster reform is not exactly Progressive (0+ / 0-)

                    legislation, it is a procedure. And yes, without it we do face obstructionism, but I thought the accusation was that Democrats were using Republican blocking practices to block specific Progressive legislation.

                    I just wanted to know which specific legislation the Democrats were for Republicans blocking, unless they wanted them to block everything.

                •  they just don't care (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joanneleon

                  not sure there was specific legislation that they wanted Republicans to block, but I am sure that they don't care enough about the things they supposedly believe in enough to, you know, actually stop the obstruction.  Which they could easily do, but they don't.
                  So why should I believe that a majority of Senate Dems actually want to accomplish anything to the left of the tea party?  They haven't done anything but post whiney tweets.

        •  Repubs have been predictable for decades, and? (0+ / 0-)
        •  HR my comment because? Let me say this, if you are (0+ / 0-)

          hide rating my comment because your feelings or ego is hurt that I called your statement loopy. That is one of the most ridiculous reasons for HR a comment I have ever come across.

          In fact, I'll say it again, your statement is loopy, and I welcome you to HR that again.

          Your statement regarding the Democratic Party using Republican obstructionism to block Democratic bills is based on absolutely nothing but your own decision on making an outlandish comment....

          You can try for a second HR....

          •  You're throwing insults (0+ / 0-)

            too other people too, not just me, and calling people crazy or loopy when you're not joking around or making an abstract "that's crazy" kind of statement is even more than an insult and often gets HR'd here.  If it makes you feel better though, go for it.  I've got no more time for you.


            "Justice is a commodity"

            by joanneleon on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:33:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It is amazing that I've heard you and many of (0+ / 0-)

              your cohorts criticize the President or Democrats with some of the most outrageous and stunning description of the President and the Democratic Party and the President's supporters, for that matter, and you are offended because I claimed that your commentary is loopy?

              Perhaps if you don't want people to say your commentary is loopy you shouldn't say Democrats are using Republican obstructionism, such as blocking jobs, blocking programs for the poor, attempting to block the healthcare bill and many more, as a reason to not get anything done.

              I've got no more time for you as well.

      •  There is a simpler motive. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NedSparks, joanneleon

        What killed filibuster reform rule 22 and senators not wanting to give up power

        Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator McConnell reached an agreement yesterday that will be called "filibuster reform" by some reports. But as The Washington Post's Ezra Klein summarizes it , "The deal is this: The filibuster will not be reformed." There were some minor changes in the deal that will streamline the confirmation process for nominees to federal district courts (although not appeals courts), but overall the deal is a fizzle for supporters of filibuster reform.

        The failure to reform the filibuster is a very bad thing. The question is why so many Democratic senators—including some blue-state representatives like Vermont's Patrick Leahy and California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer—showed so little inclination to act in the interests of progressive values.

        Senators have a disincentive for getting rid of the anti-majoritarian rule: It gives them more power.

        http://prospect.org/...

    •  Of course they will. (6+ / 0-)

      As soon as Republicans are in control again, they'll end it without a second thought.

    •  Bankrupcy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roger Fox, rlochow

      The filibuster is the Dem leadership's tool for making excuses about why they can't pass decent legislation or represent the American people, despite having a majority for going on seven years now. When they had a filibuster proof majority, they still did a terrible job and did not represent the people.  

      This is about the only explanation that makes any sense. They don't have the courage of their (or any) convictions, so they find it convenient to hide behind "it's all their fault for filibustering!"

      •  Also see the "rotating villain" theory (6+ / 0-)

        (assuming that you haven't seen it already).  We've been on to them for a long time.  Well most of us have.

        This is Greenwald in Feb. 2010, but this topic has been discussed and written about many times.  There are variations on the theme.  This is one of them and I think it's where the "villain rotation" meme was created.

        The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
        They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass

        The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation.  They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it.  One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

        This has even made it to the urban dictionary:
        rotating villain

        In American democracy, when the majority party has enough votes to pass populist legislation, party leaders designate a scapegoat who will refuse to vote with the party thereby killing the legislation. The opposition is otherwise inexplicable and typically comes from someone who is safe or not up for re-election. This allows for maximum diffusion of responsibility.
        WTF??? Senator Lieberman now opposes the same health care compromise he himself suggested. Just when everyone thought Democrats had enough votes to get this done. Guess they made Lieberman the rotating villain...

        And you'll find plenty more over the last few years if you google "rotating villain" or "villain rotation".


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:06:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It allows a Dem to campaign (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon, red rabbit
          Hey, I voted for the __ bill, but the GOP blocked it. But I did the right thing and voted for ____bill.

          Oh yeah I think the filibuster should be reformed too.....

          .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:15:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't know there was an actual term for it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon

          though I've long suspected and occasionally voiced my suspicion of such shenanigans occurring.  Preservation of the good ole congress-critters club.

          Often I've reflected upon what it would be like to have a President like the fictional Prime Minister Harry Perkins in the 1988 British mini-series A Very British Coup.

          But that would require, literally, a coup here in the US and would really give the right wingers and NRA something to be nervous about.

          "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!" oder "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

          by drpmeade on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:15:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly right, they blame the GOP House (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon

      and many DK users reiterate that, without examining the secondary issue.

      I call it one dimensional thinking, it may be connected to a low to moderate level of cognitive ability.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:05:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Could you explain (0+ / 0-)

      this part of your comment?

      "When they had a filibuster proof majority, they still did a terrible job and did not represent the people."

      If you count Joe Lieberman, Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 6 months.  If you count Kennedy's missing time for illness, it was closer to 4.

      So we've had 4 whole months to see what Democrats would do, but you have to count Joe as a Democrat even then.

      Franken wasn't seated until July 7th, 2009.
      Kennedy died August 25, 2009, and the seat was empty for a month.

      Scott Brown was seated Feb 4, 2010.

      By October 2010, there were 420 bills passed by the House but held up by the Senate.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      http://thehill.com/...

    •  agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon

      you have to start wondering, if you didn't already wonder years ago, whether they really want to accomplish much of anything that will actually help ordinary people in a direct way.

      their bullshit Senate etiquette is even more important than staffing the judicial branch of government, even when the conservative chief justice has told them to get off their worthless asses and do their jobs.  Or words to that effect.
      The Repubs are blocking any new appointments to the DC circuit for purely political reasons, because they know that any new members will be less likely to block new regulations.  They've already taken it a step further and introduced a bill to reduce the size of that court so that they keep a conservative wingnut majority that's hostile to anything Obama does.  
      And what is Harry's response?  The sternly worded tweet.

  •  Well too bad, so sad, Harry (6+ / 0-)

    I'm sick of listening to your disappointments.

    Also, too bad for the GOP because McCarthy is still the Administrator of Air and Radiation where she's still capable of making the anti-science assholes' lives a living hell.

    She was the best Administrator that the Connecticut DEP has ever had.  I'm sorry we lost her, but she's done great things at the EPA.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:11:36 AM PDT

    •  Dear Harry, YOUR disappointments are OUR ... (3+ / 0-)

      ... disappointments. Writ larger, much larger!

      From earlier experience, did you honestly not see this woe enfolding in the 2013-14 session? Could you really not possibly under any circumstances have muscled 51 votes for filibuster reform? Why is premature unilateral disarmament a good strategy in politics?

      Can you not leverage/muscle/insist-as-a-leader-of-your-party that your caucus change the rules now? Why not?

      The fault, Dear Harry, is not in our stars,
      But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:36:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ooooh! The way you talk! (0+ / 0-)

        We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

        by Observerinvancouver on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:45:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Reid never said that the reason for his failure (0+ / 0-)

        to reform the filibuster was that he couldn't get the votes.  He never offered any reason that I know of, and I've looked.  It's not a matter of votes anyway, is it?  

        •  Harry said he did, for something, then-voila! (0+ / 0-)

          ... he didn't! The problem was that "something."

          On January 23, 2013, from TPM:

          [W]hen asked if he has the 51 votes for filibuster reform via the constitutional option if that fails, [Harry Reid] didn’t mince words.

          “Yes,” Reid said.

          Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) told reporters that the Merkley-Udall “full talking filibuster” approach likely won’t happen because it “does not have 51 votes.” But he said a more modest package that Reid has put forth to McConnell, aimed at shifting the burden from a governing majority to an obstructing minority, would pass.

          “The proposal from the majority leader,” Durbin said, “suggests changes in reducing and eliminating the motion to proceed, how many cloture votes you’ll face in conference committee, what happens to nominations after cloture, whether it’s 30 hours a piece or 2 hours a piece — that is a significant change.” After cloture, he said, “We all believe there should be an obligation to stay on the floor and speak or move the question.”

          But there would be delays for negotiations with the Republicans (from Legal Times, January 22, 2013:
          REID DELAYS VOTE ON FILIBUSTER REFORM

          Senate Democrats announced on Tuesday that they are still pushing filibuster reform, but are opting to negotiate with Republicans rather than act alone.

          Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), after months of tough talk on changing filibuster rules to speed up the Senate on everything from legislation to judicial confirmations, said Tuesday that he will hold off on those changes for now ...

          ... delaying the filibuster discussion to work with Republicans over the next 10 days on a solution to the chamber's historic level of gridlock. "I'm confident we'll reach an agreement that allows the Senate to operate more effectively in the coming months," Reid said.

          Reid had already delayed a vote on changing the filibuster rules earlier in January. He could have tried to force through changes on Tuesday under a controversial tactic dubbed the "Nuclear Option." In theory, the Constitution would allow him to force through the changes with only 51 votes instead of the usual 67.

          But ... why negotiate if Reid had 51 votes for filibuster reform, whatever reform he was talking about?

          And then, what was really happening, according to Legal Times on January 25, 2013:

          How did it all fall apart?

          According to conversations with pro-reform Democratic aides, party leadership sources and outside opponents of the filibuster, Reid’s main goal was ultimately not to weaken the 60-vote threshold that reformers desperately wanted to change. Instead his objective was to eliminate mandatory gaps between votes in order to move legislation and nominees that have cleared a filibuster more quickly — which he achieved.

          Who knows what Harry wants now? What does he have 51 votes for? What could he get 51 votes for, by jostling, muscling, pushing and shoving a very small number of his Democratic colleagues? We may never know.

          Much more of this "Washington/Congress is gridlocked" stuff and Harry might not be able to be Majority Leader after the 2016 elections. How long do we think it would take Republicans to jigger the Senate rules in their favor?

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Thu May 09, 2013 at 01:25:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I wish that somewhere, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roger Fox

      on these mass petitions that we sign, it said:

      "Harry, PLEASE grow some balls."

      "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

      by fugwb on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:47:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Get some balls Harry! (6+ / 0-)

    I learned a few weeks ago that some consider that term racist....I don't know any of those "some"...i really want that jack-knob to get some balls!  "Oh, they will only filibuster when they feel it is really important".  What a fool.

    If Jesus had a gun, he'd be alive today. Homer Simpson, 2013

    by quiet in NC on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:17:47 AM PDT

    •  When Harry was born, God said that he would (0+ / 0-)

      give him two balls,  Harry thought he said malls, and said, "I'll take them as long as there is a Sears store anchoring both of them.

      By the authority vested in me by Kaiser Wilhelm II, I pronounce you man and wife. Proceed with the execution.

      by HarryParatestis on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:37:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like how Politico (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wilderness voice

    used quotation marks around the word obstructionism.  Because in Politico's world this is perfectly normal, responsible behavior by Senators?

    Barack Obama for President

    by looty on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:19:31 AM PDT

  •  Goober..... (4+ / 0-)

    Harry has the bite of a gummy bear.  Does anyone believe the guy anymore?

  •  Tweeting is disingenuous (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zhorsh, Roger Fox, red rabbit

    ...when he can call a vote any time he likes and change the rules.  So, I called his DC office just now, and told them that.

    Here's the number: 202-224-3542

    •  Reid is a loser for our side (0+ / 0-)

      I just called Senator Reids office & strongly suggested he step DOWEN as Senate Majority leader & allow a competent Democrat to take the leadership so that we as THE MAJORITY can support our President's agenda!
      I urge ALL Democrats to call reid and deliver the same or stronger message!

    •  tweeting (0+ / 0-)

      just a transparent way for him to say that he doesn't really have any intention of doing anything about the problem.

  •  "This cannot continue." (4+ / 0-)

    You tell em Harry!

    Maybe if you stamp your foot when you say it, they'll believe your serious this time.

    Also, I can kill you with my brain.

    by Puffin on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:21:10 AM PDT

  •  bqwhatever. (8+ / 0-)

    I'm sure that my signing yet another petition will certainly turn this ship around.

    The better I know people, the more I like my dog.

    by Thinking Fella on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:21:45 AM PDT

  •  Haven't thought of this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cactusgal, rlochow, drpmeade

    one-liner in probably 30 years, but the first thing that popped in my head: no shit, Sherlock.

    This cannot continue.

    Organizing is what you do before you do something, so that when you do it, it is not all mixed up. A. A. Milne

    by hulibow on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:22:42 AM PDT

  •  Reid's schtick got old long ago (11+ / 0-)

    now, every time he says these things, he's just a parody of himself.  Give it a rest, Harry.

  •  Poor Harry (12+ / 0-)

    Maybe next time the Republicans will feel sorry for him and will start to be nice.

    "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

    by Crider on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:24:14 AM PDT

  •  name names - which Dem senators blocked (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, Capt Crunch, indie17

    filibuster reform?

    Who are they?  Time for Senators Reid and Merkley to name names so we can react accordingly - call their offices, send emails, refuse to contribute to reelection campaigns, etc.   As it is, I am not contributing to any 2014 Senate campaigns unless the Senator is on the public record with the details of what that Senator supported for filibuster reform.

    Where does (hopefully future) Senator Markey stand on filibuster reform?

    •  If he had done this back THEN (0+ / 0-)

      we wouldn't be having this conversation.

      Harry hasn't had the balls to do a single goddamned thing other than talk and cry about how he wishes things were different.

    •  why do people still act like this is a mystery? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roger Fox, ferg, rabel

      Boxer, Leahy, Feinstein, Levin, Pryor Baucus and Reed.  

      They were all open about the fact that they were against it.  Leahy even posted a whole explanation on his website.

      And now Merkley has hinted that Manchin is also "wrestling with the proposal:.

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:59:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you have a link to Leahy's statement? (0+ / 0-)

        I can't find it on his webpage.  If it's no longer available, please tell us what he said.  

        Is filibuster reform subject to vote of the full Senate anyway?  I didn't think it was.  I thought it was simply up to the majority leader, or anyway no more than a vote of the Senate Rules Committee.  

        •  I dont know if its still there (0+ / 0-)

          Its a rule change; it requires 50 votes.   The majority leader can bring it up himself, but it requires 50 votes to pass.

          The plan was to use the parliamentary ruling process to do this with a bare majority, not the Rules committee.  Reid would make a parliamentary inquiry about the votes required for cloture and then make an immediate motion that the ruling (that 60 votes are required) is incorrect.  The GOP would object thereby forcing a vote and since its a parliamentary inquiry vote, it only needs a simple majority.  We get 50+1 votes and from then on -- Voila! -- cloture only requires 50 votes.

          But if Reid attempts this with less than 50 votes he's going to look like Eric Cantor an ass.

          Leahy's position was that the filibuster has a long history and changing the rules is in no one's best interest since every party will eventually be both in the majority and the minority at some point.  The Senate was intended to protect the minority, etc...  all teh stuff you would expect.

          I think he included a little jibe at the fact that most of the people openly advocating for this had never served in a minority.

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:04:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He has come out STRONGLY against Holds though (0+ / 0-)

            FYI - Leahy, as a freshman Senator, was part of the group that re-wrote the Senate rules to lower the cloture requirement from 67 to 60.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:14:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for this. (0+ / 0-)

              So filibuster reform does require an open-floor vote.  I stand corrected.  

              It seems, then, like the problem may well be less Harry and his "leadership" than the intransigence of individual Dem Senators.  It seems also as if a whole lot of them feel absolutely free to sacrifice the whole purpose of their body to its wretched procedural traditions.  

              Let's send them to Senate Heaven, where they can be procedurally correct and perfectly ineffectual all day to their hearts' content, and it won't matter.  Here's an even better idea: Let's send the whole institution of the Senate to Senate Heaven!  

            •  as a freshman (0+ / 0-)

              they all seem to be more open to reform when they first start, not so much after they've been there for over a decade and view Senate seats as some sort of hereditary birthright.  
              Then etiquette and collegiality take precedence over the needs of the American people.

    •  Here is the info from Merkley (0+ / 0-)

      about those against his filibuster reform attempt:

      On a private call with the Bay Area Democrats on Wednesday, Merkley identified Reid as the key person in the talks, and he urged activists to target members of Reid’s leadership team ahead of their meetings next week, according to people on the call. He also characterized Democratic Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Joe Manchin (West. Va.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) as wrestling with his proposal, sources say.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  •  She's an excellent pick, I hope she makes it (0+ / 0-)

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:27:05 AM PDT

  •  Yes, Harry...it can continue and it will (7+ / 0-)

    continue until you put an end to it.

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:29:10 AM PDT

  •  Plus ça change... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:32:24 AM PDT

  •  Screw Harry Reid. He's a waste of time. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Capt Crunch

    Way past his expiration date as a Senator let alone majority leader.  He's as pathetic as rotted fruit.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:36:53 AM PDT

  •  Nothing inspires fear like... (4+ / 0-)

    a threat from Harry Reid.

    The modern Democrat is one who promotes old GOP ideas and calls them progressive in comparison to new GOP ideas.

    by masswaster on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:40:03 AM PDT

  •  Harry Reid, comedian? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlochow, Capt Crunch

    That's the most positive spin I can put on this. Otherwise, I'd have to admit that we have a spineless ninny as Senate Majority Leader.

    He should stop making idle threats. Pretty soon he'll have Democrats donating serious money to defeat him. I'm not sure embarrassing is the right word here. More like disgraceful. And pathetic.

  •  Sen. Reid seems, IMO! utterly naive if he (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cactusgal

    thinks the Republicans will keep the Senste rules untouched if they take over.  He's hog tying his side for no good reason.  

    We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

    by Observerinvancouver on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:41:37 AM PDT

  •  Harry Reid is the Problem (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vlodko62, cactusgal

    Let's just stop dancing around the real problem - that is an INEFFECTIVE possibly incompetent Majority Leader in the Senate.
    Time to replace Harry QUICK before it is much too late!

  •  Awww...disappointment. (3+ / 0-)

    I'm sure Republicans haz a sad cuz Harry is once again disappointed.

    If only he had 99 votes.

  •  Shorter Harry Reid - (3+ / 0-)

    You guuuuuyyyysss!!! Come on guuuyyyysss. Play niiiice. Pleeeeease?

    "Don't be defeatist, dear. It's very middle class." - Violet Crawley

    by nightsweat on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:46:13 AM PDT

  •  Shut up, Harry. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jec, hulibow

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:46:41 AM PDT

  •  Actually, Harry, it looks like it...um...can. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Observerinvancouver, rlochow, indie17

    Yes indeedy, it looks exactly like it can continue. You know?

  •  I know! Point the finger at Republicans! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Observerinvancouver, Roger Fox

    That'll show em!

  •  Remember, everybody: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    native, greenbell, drpmeade

    he didn't take the job because nobody else wanted it. He took it because he was voted into it. He's doing the bidding of a majority of Senate Dems. Not excusing his lack of, ahem, fortitude, but he's only the figurehead here.

    "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

    by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:48:58 AM PDT

  •  Why is the opposition...umm...opposing?! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fugwb, Beelzebud

    I mean how dare they? They should want to be cooperative. And we must call them out on not being cooperative because then they'll be shamed in to being cooperative.

    Otherwise...what can we do? We're so weak and they're so powerful!

    •  BBB are they afraid (0+ / 0-)

      that if/when the repugs have control of the senate that they'll have no way to stop them if the do reform?
      If that's the case they'd better wake the hell up and realize how fast mcconnell will do reform if he had the majority and the chance......

      "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

      by fugwb on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:27:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'll believe Harry is serious (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CriticallyDamped

    When he issues a Sternly Worded Letter.

    In real, not disappearing, ink.

    "Please proceed, Governor" -- you know who, and when

    by lotac on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:52:50 AM PDT

    •  Nope, not even then. (0+ / 0-)

      I won't believe he's serious until he resigns in disgrace, admitting that he's intentionally thrown every single fight he's been put into this and last session.  I won't trust him until he takes full responsibility for refusing to put a goddamned OUNCE of pressure on the traitors in his party.  I won't trust him until he keeps at least ONE goddamned promise that he's made, till he takes even a single stand that he doesn't back down from.

      Harry Reid's a traitor.  He's the worst possible person that could have had his job.  I despise the man, and nothing more than a full admission of guilt and full expose of the anti-democratic forces he's been serving all this time will earn my forgiveness.

  •  If I hear "we just don't have the votes" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell

    one more goddamned time, and when we have a SOLID majority to boot.... I might just switch my party affiliation.  I'm so goddamned sick of fighting with loser who can't even turn a solid majority into victory.  Losers who are so vested in playing nice and bipartisian fraternity that they completely fold when they don't have 60 guarenteed votes.

    PREEMPTIVE losers, who would rather resign the game rather than face the reality that some of their "colleagues" are simply abusing their goodwill to get goodies and handouts from the opposing team.

    I'm seriously beginning to think we'd have a better chance reforming the Republican party than we would of getting the goddamned Dems currently in power to use theirs for good.

    Either that, or I flee the country.  Course, that's because of the personal debt issue and the tendency of my fellow citizens to shoot bullets at me while I'm driving.

  •  This is just like Groundhog Day... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hulibow, Jeff Y

    The SenDems won't change the filibuster rules because they want to be able to use the filibuster if they are the minority except the SenRepugs will changes the rules if they become the majority so that the SenDems won't be able to filibuster. It's a logic loop that Picard could've used to save the cosmos from the Borg. Ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

    "I'm gonna dance between the raindrops"

    by IB JOHN on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:56:07 AM PDT

  •  Reid PREFERS this, the status quo, (5+ / 0-)

    to filibuster reform. He PREFERS it.

    You let that sink in for a moment, and you can only conclude that he is a tool of the vested interests that also oppose change.

    From here on out, no one can escape the havoc wrought by the unmitigated Class, Climate and Terror Wars.

    by Words In Action on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:57:49 AM PDT

  •  Serious question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlochow, greenbell

    Given that Reid and his colleagues could change the rules to end these abuses, why is it assumed that they want to end these abuses? It might be time to consider the possibility that Democratic leadership is happy with the fact the Senate can't get anything done.

    "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

    by scorponic on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:58:06 AM PDT

  •  Reid is too stupid to realize that the GOP will (0+ / 0-)

    continue these antics because they want it to be the Dems responsible for changing the filibuster. They believe they can pull a rabbit out of their ass and retake the Senate in 2014.

  •  Thousands of us ought to show up at his (0+ / 0-)

    office every day and pelt it with rotten eggs. When security stops us, we'll just go to office back in Nevada. Then his home. Maybe then he'll get the message.

    Ditto for Feinstein and the others who opposed reform.

    From here on out, no one can escape the havoc wrought by the unmitigated Class, Climate and Terror Wars.

    by Words In Action on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:03:03 AM PDT

  •  More piling on of Reid (0+ / 0-)

    Last time this came up there were 7 senior Democratic senators that were on record as opposing this.  Would you like Reid to bring this to the floor and actually lose the vote?  That seems like more of a Boehner/Cantor tactic.

    Or do you think Reid should just get tough and threaten to strip the President Pro Tempore of his Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee?  I'm sure all the other Senators will happily stand by and watch Patrick Leahy demoted.....

    Oh and Boxer has the chair of the Enviroment and Public Works.. throw her out too.  No way this will cause any dissension in the ranks at all.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:03:27 AM PDT

    •  I wouldn't call it on record. (0+ / 0-)

      More like hiding and whispering to the press.

      •  Leahy posted his own explanation on his site (0+ / 0-)

        and discussed it in a town hall.

        Boxer put out a statement saying she was against it (or maybe that was Feinstein?  It was one of the CA Senators..)

        The only one I've heard that might be against it but is quiet about it is Manchin.  And if he is, that would make EIGHT Democratic senators... giving Harry Reid a total of 45 votes.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:17:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Seems to me (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryduck, greenbell, indie17

          the way to deal caucus Senators who wont tow the party line is to whip them until they do. That's why you have a whip. To whip the votes.

          And then yes, you punish. That's what a legislative leader is supposed to do if there is to be any party discipline. That's how you keep good order and get things done. Otherwise, you have a weak majority and a weak leader.

          Reid certainly has a majority of the caucus behind the Merkley plan. The caucus was ready to make a strong statement of policy for the caucus, and those opposed were going to have to face the wrath of diminished and depleted fundraising. That is until Reid stabbed Merkley in the back and got behind Levin and McCain and pressured the leadership to do the same.

          Handling this shit is not hard. Take a vote in the caucus, win. Get behind Merkley or you are fucked on anything else you want. Whip the goddamn votes until you got 51 and allow 4 dissents and no more. Then get r done.

          •  No way, bbb. Just because that's (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            brooklynbadboy

            how it worked in the US for well over 200 years doesn't mean it will work now! What, are you some kind of pony-wanting Suxxer hippie?

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:38:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Speak loudly and carry a No. 2 pencil. (0+ / 0-)

    Unsharpened, of course.  Wouldn't want to put someone's eye out.

  •  An infinite capacity to eat s#!+ (0+ / 0-)

    Some people seem to have an infinite capacity to eat shit.  Too bad the Senate Majority Leader is one of them.

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:04:10 AM PDT

  •  How badly do Dem leaders want functioning govt? (0+ / 0-)

    Not badly enough to take action.

    I've done my part, helping Dems secure a majority in the Senate, House and control of the WH.  The fact they blew many chances to act - I can't help them.  

    "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being up there."

    by Betty Pinson on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:05:15 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps Harry will scrawl (0+ / 0-)

    something really insulting on the wall of the Senate men's room stall. That'll show 'em!

    Welcome To The Disinformation Age!

    by kitebro on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:05:17 AM PDT

  •  The GOP fears Harry Reid (0+ / 0-)

    as much as they fear lemon jello.  

    Which is to say, he's solid and slightly jiggly to start with, but then ends up as a quivering yellow puddle on the bottom of their plates.

  •  Ya know, I think Harry Reid is a nice guy. BUT... (0+ / 0-)

    when it comes to these Republicans he is obnoxiously dense.  I mean really, Harry?  Piss or get off the pot, as they used to say.  :(

    I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

    by KayCeSF on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:14:20 AM PDT

  •  America must restore majority rule (0+ / 0-)

    before the evil Republican minority destroys the country.  After eliminating the fascistic filibuster the government has to restore the Constitutional method of allotting Congressional seat: that is,  as the population grows the number of seats should increase too as the Constitution wants it.  But limiting the number of seats to 435 was a reactionary right wing solution for stifling democracy.

  •  Simple Fix for nominees (0+ / 0-)

    All Harry Reid needs to do is recess the Senate every chance he gets -- weekends, long weekends, any time the Senate is not in session for more than 16 hours.  If he calls specifically for the Senate to be in Recess, he will force the Republicans to do their little silent filibuster every time, and he should ask for clarification every time they pull that stunt.  Give Obama every chance to make recess appointments.
    And if the Republicans do their little pro forma sessions when the Senate is normally in recess, have a Democrat show up and ask for a quorum call.  If there isn't a quorum, the Senate is really in recess.

  •  Don't worry, progressives. (0+ / 0-)

    Harry Reid is really, really angry this time - he'll surely enact some real reform or ending of the filibuster now. Right? Right?

    Aww...looks line not even the die-hard Democratic tribalists are buying that one anymore. Time for Spineless Harry to ride off into retirement, methinks.

    "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

    by Australian2 on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:20:39 AM PDT

  •  I think this time Harry really, really, really, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really,
    really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really,really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really,really, really, really, really, really, really, really means it.
    (Well, maybe not).

    "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

    by TofG on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:26:40 AM PDT

  •  Show of strength? (0+ / 0-)

    I know this wouldn't come close to fixing issues. Hell, it might inflame the other side to make matters worse, but for these nominee fights: wouldn't it be fun to see Harry coordinate with the White House to have the BIG list of all nominees ready to go, and then just call for a short recess to recess appointment EVERYTHING? Play by the rules but ignore the norms like the R's seem to live doing...

    •  And to be clear, (0+ / 0-)

      Put the most liberal people you can find in the most conservative districts. Like where the Texas senators aren't following the tradition of suggesting judges for the circuit there, put someone who's never even left New York. If nothing else, we can get a few sitcoms from it.

  •  Harry really, really really, really really really (0+ / 0-)

    really really really...... uh, going to make another threat.

  •  Give 'em Heck, Harry! (0+ / 0-)

    Because you're too much of a wimp to give them Hell.  

    The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

    by Beelzebud on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:39:07 AM PDT

  •  Harry Reid is Useless (0+ / 0-)

    The GOP continues its campaign of obstruction and Harry Reid takes to Twitter, perhaps because he is a twit?  In some respects, one could rightfully argue that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans - the Dems consistently demonstrate a complete lack of backbone when faced when GOP obstruction...Instead of voting to give the FAA leeway on the cuts resulting from the "sequester", the Dems should have held their ground to force the GOP to deal with the larger issue...Instead of tweeting about GOP obstruction, fix the freaking rules!  Its not rocket science.  I am pretty much sick of all of these clowns.

  •  senator reid (0+ / 0-)

    have you heard of the boy that cried wolf, we have and your threats are as annoying as your politics.

  •  Send the sergeant at arms (0+ / 0-)

    The Sergeant-at-arms of the Senate has the authority to arrest Senate members and compel their attendance if their absence means that there is no quorum.  The Senate has to vote on it, but the chair could rule attempts to block such a vote out of order if more than half the senators in attendance will back it up.

    Time for Harry Reid to get tough or just shut up.

    I suspect that corporate Democrats actually like the current situation.  They are rich people, and some of them secretly like it that no progressive legislation can pass yet they can pose to their blue-state constituents as genuine progressives.  They can prove me wrong by acting to shut down Republican obstruction.

  •  On this I blame Reid... (0+ / 0-)

    He had a super majority at some point after the 2008 election and under every opportunity to force Republicans to the table, he weakened and sought compromise when one wasn't needed. With each new congress he can fix the abuses by reforming the rules. He makes gentlemen's agreements with McConnell which we can see are worthless since McChinless is not a gentleman. I rather see that he makes these reforms mid session instead of at the beginning and dare the Republicans to challenge him on it. He should tell them they brought it on themselves. Actually, what I'd like most to see is forcing them to hold a talking filibuster. Give them the opportunity to show the world what self serving, sniveling cowards they are!

  •  Nothing stops a herd of bullying, unreasonable, (0+ / 0-)

    obstructionist, out of touch, whackadoodle Republican Senators like a sternly worded Tweet.

  •  Using majority muscle to push legislation (0+ / 0-)

    When the Republicans regain a Senate majority (and they will someday) would you want them to have the go-ahead to any/all of the changes mentioned above? That is why the majority is so reluctant to change the rules to their advantage - they know they won't be the majority forever.

    Imagine what a Republican controlled Senate would do without a super-majority if Harry changes the rules of the game now. None of us want that, do we?

  •   this shows Reid is right (0+ / 0-)

    How would reopening filibuster reform prevent republicans from taking advantage of committee-level quorum rules?  Under senate standing rules, committees set their own  procedural rules.   Really, this illustrates that there are innumerable ways to screw things up and very little chance of changing that.  

    The sad fact is that no procedural reform can force senators determined to act in bad faith and undermine the majority to come into line.  Or maybe the only way would be a return to the old days of all-powerful party leaders and chairmen.  But the latter solution would not only dangerously concentrate power, but also require senators to vote to reduce their own personal power-a difficult sell to people whose career is focused on gaining power.  

  •  And Charlie Brown lines up.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kwt3200

    And dickless wonder Harry Reid again bends over for the Republicans, as Lucy pulls the ball out from under Charlie's leg and then rams it up his keister.

    Seriously, can WE impeach Harry Reid? If you don't want it to continue YOU'RE THE F***ING MAJORITY LEADER!!

    Somebody send that nitwit Bob Caro's Master of the Senate.

    "You know, the only trouble with capitalism is capitalists; they're too damn greedy." - Herbert Hoover (Republican)

    by abdguyBOS on Thu May 09, 2013 at 11:52:26 AM PDT

  •  Nothing (0+ / 0-)

    will change in this country unless and until filibuster reform is enacted.  Inasmuch as Harry Reid refuses to hold a vote on filibuster reform, the only option is to remove Mr. Reid as Majority Leader.

    •  Not Reid's fault (0+ / 0-)

      That he doesn't have enough Democratic votes to pass filibuster reform. If the rest of his caucus wanted reform they'd make him do it or replace him. They don't so they won't.
      Talk to Leahy, Boxer, Feinstein, and the others who won't go along with reform.
      My only complaint about Reid, on this topic at least, is that he needs to stop with the empty threats.
      If he finally has the votes for reform he should just do it, and if he still doesn't have the votes he should STFU.

  •  For all of you (0+ / 0-)

    who are concerned about changing the rules because eventually the Republicans will be the majority again, you are creating a self fulfilling prophesy in the sense that YOU will be replaced precisely because nothing is getting done.  Mission accomplished.

  •  Not signing another petition (0+ / 0-)

    waste of time. He knows what needs to be done, he just needs to do it. Harry needs to invite McTurtle for a drink.

    "I'm totally pro-choice in the matter of abortion. But of course I'm also so radically pro-life that I think every person from birth onward must have full and affordable access to healthcare." - Gail Collins

    by gritsngumbo on Thu May 09, 2013 at 02:17:09 PM PDT

  •  Whatever happened to "upordownvote" (0+ / 0-)

    the Republican chant whenever Dems so much as wanted to check into the background of Bush's nominees before voting on them?

    Where's their "Up or down vote!": demand now?

    Maybe that needs to be our new chant: Up or down vote! every single time they pull one of these stunts. And make damn sure anybody asked about it refers back to the very few people who were held up during Bush's years, and point out the VERY many that are being blocked now.

    On the whole, I prefer not to be lectured on patriotism by those who keep offshore maildrops in order to avoid paying their taxes. - Molly Ivins

    by Lashe on Thu May 09, 2013 at 04:00:36 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site