Can ANYONE defend Harry Reid on this filibuster "compromise"??

[annabanana]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/harry-reid-filibuster-plan.php

In a locally aired interview over the weekend on a PBS affiliate in Las Vegas, Reid said he wants to require an obstructing minority of senators to occupy the floor and speak only after cloture has been invoked to begin debate. In other words, 41 senators could silently block debate from beginning, but once 60 senators vote to move to debate, filibustering senators must speak on the floor.

Since CLOTURE has been filibustered time after time.. how will this change make ANY difference?

I don't understand how this can be considered a "reform" at all!

Please give me a hand here...

[sadbear]

1. Kicking the can...

It appears Senator Reid believes Democrats will be in the minority very soon. Unfortunately, if we don't set the terms right now, republicans eventually will.

[WI_DEM]

2. It is quite possible after 2014 the GOP will have the Senate

which is why some of our older Supreme Court Justices on the left should retire while Obama can still have a chance to get some fairly decent replacements confirmed.

[RomneyLies]

3. You know damned well and good the first thing to go if the Republicans take control

will be the filibuster.

There is no way in hell they will allow Democrats to obstruct even a tenth as much as they have.

[Scuba]

7. Bingo. If Reid caves now, it would suggest that he's very, very naive.

[brooklynite]

25. Not an issue of "caving"...

...its an issue of what he can pass with the Democratic Caucus, not all of whom support filibuster reform.

[Romulox]

6. Senate rules are set at the beginning of each session, on a simple majority vote. There is no way

Reid can protect future minorities from filibuster reform.

[bigtree]

17. and you know for sure that he has all the Democrats he needs?

. . . obviously not, or he'd proceed with what he first proposed. It makes no sense to just imagine the Senate working the way we want it to. It makes no sense in just making up scenarios and pretending that we're somehow more courageous than Reid because we can IMAGINE the votes are there..

[Romulox]

18. What I posted is a fact. Deal with it! nt

[bigtree]

21. if Reid doesn't have that majority Democrats with him, he can't pass ANYTHING

. . . you act as if he can pull a rabbit out of his ass.

This is what passes for criticism these days. just make up anything and holler about in a room with other clueless folks. How about representing the Senate landscape as it actually is? Reid is getting push back from a handful of prominent Democratic senators on the filibuster changes he proposed. Deal with THAT reality, before wasting folks' time and misleading with all of the phony hyperventilating

[WeekendWarrior]

33. Completely Ridiculous

Not gonna happen unless the GOP finds its way back from the stinking swamp its drowning in and I don't expect that to happen.

Let's remember, the GOP thought they'd be taking the Senate in 2012 and that didn't even come close to happening. Changing demographics are not in their favor.

[Romulox]

4. Come on. You didn't think Harry Reid was going to shake things up, did you? He's not "ineffectual"

--he gets exactly what he wants.

[Angry Dragon]

5. makes no sense

[Recursion]

8. He didn't have 51 votes for more

I love this mythical world DUers live in where political leaders can force other politicians to do things.

[99Forever]

10. Let the phony excuses begin!

[bigtree]

13. phony?

educate yourself.

[99Forever]

22. Same to you.

Yes, phony.

[bigtree]

24. phony outrage, that's for sure

[99Forever]

9. Same old shit...

.. from the same old players.

meh.

Reid you suck.

[leftynyc]

34. Find the votes

You seem to think Reid can pull a rabbit out of a hat. So serve it up - where are the votes? Or do you just enjoy speaking out of your ass?

[99Forever]

38. Ain't my fucking job.

It's the guy who got elected to do it.

You know, Harry the Wimp.

BTW, welcome to Ignored.

Have a nice life.

[leftynyc]

41. Why this board allows such infantile

crap posted is totally beyond me. I'll wear my ignored by you badge with high honors. Go have your temper tantrum someplace else.

[bigtree]

11. can you count the votes? You should know that he doesn't have the support from his own party

. . . for anything more than this. What, do you think he can just impose the changes on the Senate? It's like everything else that hold us up from progress in the Senate. We have a majority but Democrats don't always vote like one. We KNOW what Leader Reid wants, he just doesn't seem to have the support he needs to advance it. So, pass what reform he can. Nothing at all wrong with the leader making advances wherever he's able. Criticize the Democratic holdouts, not the guy who came out for the changes in the first place. Typical pattern with critics. Almost never go after the ones actually obstructing the votes. Always hitting the folks who are trying to initiate the change through the divided body.

[dmosh42]

12. Reid wants to protect those spineless Dems who won't vote to change the rules. Sorry sacks of shit!

[Recursion]

19. Protect them from what? (nt)

[dmosh42]

31. From having to make an official vote against changing the filibuster rules.

[samsingh]

14. he needs to stay firm

[MineralMan]

15. Harry Reid can do only what he can get 51 votes for.

The people to talk to are the other Senators, especially the Democrats who are holding out on this filibuster reform.

Harry Reid is not the dictator of the Senate. Nobody is the dictator of the senate. If you want change, tell your Senator or any Senator. Reid can do only what the Senate will vote for.

Reality bites, sometimes.

[PoliticAverse]

26. He only needs 50 votes. Biden supports the reform. The holdouts are apparently:

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/filibuster-reform-senate_n_2405008.html

[annabanana]

28. Thank you. This is a very useful list.!!

(limbers up dialing finger)

Levin
269 Russell Office Building
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510-2202
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]

Pryor
255 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg
Washington, D.C. 20510
p: [phone]
f: [phone]

Leahy
437 Russell Senate Bldg
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
[phone]

Baucus
511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
[phone] (Office)
[phone] (Fax)

Reed
728 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
[phone]

Feinstein
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

[sadbear]

16. With the House still in teabagger control, it really doesn't matter for this session, does it?

Even if the Democrats are able to pass bills on a simple majority vote, there's no way it would get through the House.

[leftynyc]

35. This is for a very specific

vote regarding Senate rules. The House has nothing to do with it.

[sadbear]

36. What I meant is that the Senate could pass filibuster reform, but...

since the House is in teabagger control, it doesn't really matter if filibuster reform happens, at least during this session. Any bill passed by only 50+1 Democrats won't see the light of day in the House. Filibuster reform would only matter if the House weren't controlled by teabaggers.

[leftynyc]

40. Ah - you're right about that

In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember Boener saying something to that effect.

[AZ Progressive]

20. Democrats in the Senate need the Republican filibuster to provide cover...

...for why things are not being done.

Sorry, I really don't want to believe this "Good Cop, Bad Cop" routine being done in Congress but unfortunately I'm not seeing sufficient evidence to the contrary.

The left needs to harass Harry Reid to put something substantial on filibuster reform. Stop making excuses. Do they really believe that the wacko Republicans would take over the Senate again? Very important issues are not being taken cared of in this country because the Republicans are stonewalling everything and making sure a Democratic President can't really pass Democratic legislature (in effect neutering Obama's power.) And the American people have to be at the mercy of this?

Yes, America should burn because politicians don't what to do what's in the best interests of the country and its people.

[bigtree]

23. how about dishing out all of that 'harrassment' to those senators who actually disagree with you?

Reid isn't one of them. Levin, Pryor, Cardin, and Schumer decided to splinter off and negotiate with republicans instead stand with their own party and push something through. Other Democrats have also mucked up the prospect of a simple solution by proposing their own changes which fall short of what Reid initially proposed. The are only a handful of Democrats who have come out publicly for ANY reform. Reid has a lousy hand, as usual. That's not an excuse, it's a typical political REALITY that he's challenged to reconcile. He can't just impose anything.

[Puzzledtraveller]

29. Do we really hold them accountable?

I admit I don't, no phone calls, no letters, no emails.

[Atman]

27. I'm SO done with Harry Reid.

He never seems to look out for anything but "compromise" with a party which refuses to even TALK to the president. He's not being played for a chump...he is simply acting like one all on his own.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Maybe, this ...

Changing the rules of the Senate typically requires the consent of a two-thirds majority. Reid has been negotiating with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on filibuster reforms that could avoid a rarely used so-called constitutional option of changing the rules with a bare majority vote. The scope of the reforms he backed in the Vegas PBS interview falls somewhere between the Merkley-Udall plan and the scaled back proposal by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ), which would limit the minority’s ability to filibuster debate from the beginning but enhance its power to amend legislation.

Explains it. Do Democrats have 2/3 of the Senate? Are republicans likely to vote for anything more substantive?

[PoliticAverse]

32. Changing the rules only requires 50+ votes on the first 'day' (which may be several actual days)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. I didn't find ...

what you state. I did, however, find:

... an amendment (change) to U.S. Senate Rule XXII can be difficult. Paragraph 2 of said rule states that "to amend the Senate rules...the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting."

[PoliticAverse]

39. Here is a scholarly article that discusses the history and legality of the 'nuclear option'

(aka 'constitutional option') allowing changes to Senate rules with only 50+ votes...

http://faculty.washington.edu/jwilker/353/353Assignments/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf