Why Harry and the Democrats wimped out on filibuster reform?

[kentuck]

Harry made a deal with Mitch to more or less keep the status quo on filibusters. They can still maintain the "silent" filibuster.

It appears the reason they did it is because two years from now the Democrats may be in the minority and they don't want to be denied the same rights as the Republicans now utilize. As if they would ever be so daring.

So it appears that the Senate has more or less tied the President's hands for the rest of his term. So much for a "progressive" agenda. Cowardice won the day.

Perhaps someone sees it differently?

[russspeakeasy]

1. Here is how I see it. Harry has never, ever, seen a fight

he wouldn't run away from. I'm sick of the guy.

[Recursion]

2. You know the Senate doesn't involve actual physical confrontations, right?

At least not since the caning of Sumner. He can't actually walk up to Senators and knee them in the crotch until they vote the way he wants. You do know that, right?

[villager]

6. If only it would involve legislative confrontations by Democrats!

That itself would be a great leap forward....

[Recursion]

7. Like what?

I'm still missing some step that people who keep wanting Reid to "fight" seem to know about that I don't. What is this "legislative confrontation" you're talking about?

[russspeakeasy]

8. Harry is a self proclaimed Dem and has a job to do.

You do know that, right?

[Recursion]

9. He's doing his job. Particularly the important part of counting votes.

Seriously, do you want him to take a cane and start beating Baucus until he agrees to filibuster reform? I mean, I would certainly pay to see that, but it's not what his actual job is.

[leftyohiolib]

22. are u suggesting that there is no amount of arm twisting that the dems can do to gain votes

[kentuck]

23. Just like LBJ used to do it.

[Recursion]

34. LBJ had moderate Republicans to replace his conservative Democrats

not to mention a majority about 4 times as large as Reid's. This notion of him "persuading" Senators is mostly a myth.

He knew where some bodies were buried, so he could twist a few arms; mostly he just had the numbers going in. And he still couldn't get a greater percentage of Democrats to vote for the Civil Rights Act than Republicans.

[Angry Dragon]

10. C-Span rating would go through the roof

[Recursion]

11. I would certainly pay to watch (nt)

[Segami]

17. LOL!

[Egalitarian Thug]

31. Perhaps you have forgotten the 6 years of "keeping our powder dry"?

Harry is my Senator and the only reason I voted to keep him in office was because the republicans put an insane woman up as the alternative. He is useless.

[earthside]

3. 'The same rights'

Humph.

If the Repuglicans ever get a majority again they will change the filibuster rule faster than you can shake a stick.

Repuglicans believe in 'majority rule' when they have a majority, and they believe in 'tyranny of the minority' when they are a minority. How come some Democrats, like Harry Reid and other Democratic 'silent' filibuster supporters, are so dumb they can't see that?

[Angry Dragon]

12. +4,390

[kairos12]

13. Agree With This--The Rethugs will use the nuclear option to change the rules

[adamaree]

25. adamaree

The Democrats do what they do best, nothing. In the last 16 years they have caved and it is always the same people. Why do we re-elect these people? We need the filibuster to pass President Obama's agenda, mainly the job bill. Without that it will be the same old thing. Senator Barcus is always going to be conservative, always have been, and believe it or not Senator D. Fienstein is as well. She call it bipartisan, I call it caving. I am surprise at Senator Boxer, she is one of the hold outs on voting for the filibuster bill, as first presented. I agree, if the Republicans get the majority in the Senate they will vote to continue as they all ways have. I am looking at all of the California Senators who are not during their job for the people, Is it because they want to hold their jobs? Who is to say that the Democrats will every get a chance to be the majority again and if they become the minority they will still do as always, cave. We must remember the election when all the Blue Dogs voted against the party agenda, and guess what most of them lost their jobs.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. From what I read, the deal does eliminate the filibuster on 'motion to proceed'

votes. That's at least progress in we might actually get to arguments on a bill.

[leftstreet]

5. Same shit, different Congress. Obama gets a 4 yr vacation n/t

[onenote]

48. I missed the news. When did the Democrats capture the House?

A couple of posters have suggested that because the Senate failed to adopt stronger filibuster reforms, the President gets a "4 year vacation" and that the President's hands are "tied" for the rest of his term.

I'm curious what legislation isn't going to reach the President's desk that would have had the stronger reforms been adopted?

And I'm curious how Harry Reid is supposed to convince Democrats who don't support stronger reforms (i) because they don't see where they would produce any legislation because the House will still block measures and (ii) they worry about what happens when the shoe is on the other foot. You and I and even Harry might disagree with those Senators, but holding a vote on stronger reforms and losing that vote hardly helps anything.

[patrice]

53. All of which Reid would know, so this whole "filibuster reform" run was just a temperature check? nt

[kentuck]

14. They don't even respect you enough to tell you which Democrats were for it and which against...

They will just keep it close to their vests.

[adamaree]

30. adamaree

kentuck,
yes they do. look under Google and search what Democrats not voting or holding out on supporting the filibuster bill as first presented. Here are 7 of the senators; Baucus, Boxer, Feinstein, Heitkamp, Hirono, Leahy and Reed. Thats a start.

[Marr]

15. Complicity won the day.

The self-imposed filibuster straightjacket is really the only excuse our own party's leadership has left for not advancing a progressive economic agenda. Of course they're not going to let it go.

[woo me with science]

18. This is the correct answer,

of course.

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

[Marr]

20. Yep-- Rockefeller is a perfect example.

[jsr]

36. Excellent description of how to play Third Way chess and prosper

[octoberlib]

43. Too much money and corporate influence

I'm disgusted.

[Egalitarian Thug]

32. You got it. n/t

[Recursion]

51. The filibuster reform failed because conservative Democrats don't like the leadership's agenda

If you'd rather they be Republicans, nominate someone more liberal for Montana and Arkansas. We'll have a more unified caucus in the minority.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

52. A unified minority is working very effectively for the republicans....

[Recursion]

55. I wasn't kidding; if you'd rather have that, just do what the Republicans did and nominate...

... more partisan people in swing states.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

57. Nor was I kidding.

What good is a 'majority' when you can't get anything accomplished? Perhaps more to the point, what good is having 2 parties when it is difficult to tell the difference between the 2 of them? The only apparent differences, pro-choice v anti-choice, a new found voice on LGBT equality, and a halfhearted support of immigration reform.

Ask yourself this question..."If my wages had remained stagnant for 30 years and one party may want to raise my taxes and the other doesn't, and I don't give a rat's ass about gays, Blacks or abortion rights, would I really vote for the party that may raise my taxes?" If you are honest, you know what your answer would be. Dems have done absolutely nothing for the working class...just look at our minimum wage....nor do you hear them raising a ruckus about t. A Dem signed NAFTA and Obama will no doubt sign the damned TPP...which is an abomination that Australia baked away from. Australia , btw has a $15.51 an hour minimum wage.

So a 'majority' of make believe Democrats is not doing us much good.

[Recursion]

58. So, "just" women's bodily autonomy and LGBTQ issues?

I'm glad I'm privileged enough that I can elide those into a subordinate clause, personally.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

60. I was trying to make the point that the Democratic party has become too moderate...

If you think it is, in its current incarnation, progressive, then perhaps I am much older that you.

I never used the word 'just' nor am I demeaning those issues....think in terms of only. Also, think in the terms of the full post. I know those are issues important to me...but they are not important to everyone.

[Recursion]

61. I think the Democratic party is as far left as it can be and win elections in a lot of districts

Many on DU disagree; I understand that.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

63. But there are meat and potato issues

which Dems can win...that is my point. I understand your position very well and have been stoned here on DU for saying pretty much the same thing. I am a pragmatist myself. Many Americans understand the damage done by outsourcing and 'globalization' so where are the Dem voices calling daily for a revision of the trade agreements that have crippled the middle and working classes? Why has no one in congress attacked the TPP? Where is the call for a 'living wage" ? To many working class voters, we are the party of Gays, minorities and abortions...but can you blame them? Most people don't follow politics as devotedly as DUers...they don't even watch Fox News or listen to Limbaugh. But they would sit up and take notice if we began to regularly attack the policies that have so diminished the quality of life of average Americans. Republicans have attempted how many bills to overturn Obamacare...32 at last count with Bachmann looking to file the 33rd. Why haven't the Dem senators done the same with wages or trade agreements?

Social justice follows prosperity.... Had Obama not needed the support of the LGBT community and their families, do you think he would have come out in favor of same-sex marriage? I wouldn't want to bet the ranch on that.

[TheKentuckian]

65. Maybe on the wedge shit but on economics and war they are stuck in neoliberal lala land

and lag behind the population.

Few are in love with free trade or military adventures or making sure Wall Street doesn't miss a beat.

If folks really wanted such, there is always a TeaPubliKlan to vote for.

[woo me with science]

16. ...

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

[avebury]

19. Democrats are their own worse enemies.

I have reached the point where I don't hardly watch the TV news shows anymore. I have also started to stay away from most of the political threads. If the Democrats don't begin to stand up and get in the face of the Republicans then they will be a hindrance to President Obama's second term. Republicans are playing the long game on the state level and Democrats need to get as much done on the national level before Republicans write them off on the state level. There is absolutely no secret about what the Republicans are doing and Democrats need to stop rolling over for the Republicans. Harry Reid has no business being the Senate Majority Leader.

[adamaree]

27. adamaree

I agree avebury, The Democrats are their worst enemy, always has been.

[tularetom]

21. I don't think Reid had the votes but he should have tried anyway

There were 9 Democrats who voted in favor of the Keystone pipeline for crissakes. I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that these timid souls would have voted against filibuster reform as well.

That being said, Reid should have forced the issue and made these DINO's come out publicly in opposition to filibuster reform. Maybe some of them could face some primary opposition the next time they are up for reelection.

[bigtree]

24. I think he should have offered to box Dems for their votes

. . . or, maybe arm wrestle.

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. He was a very good boxer back in the day. But he's all about keeping the owners happy now. n/t

[meow2u3]

26. They're afraid the rethugs might use those rules to ram through bad laws

if they get the majority.

[msongs]

28. repubs will do that anyway. unlike many dems, repubs at least honor their own beliefs nt

[0rganism]

42. if they get the Senate majority, filibuster reform will be the first thing they do

that's how they roll.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. I'm bookmarking this thread. Why? Because most assuredly, there are DU members quick to blame Obama

for the impasse in getting anything progressive passed.

I just want to be sure that we can refer back to this thread before pointing the finger at the president.

Just sayin'...

[earthside]

35. Of course, we'll probably never know ...

... but one would hope that Pres. Obama is engaged in this persuasion.

He is a former member of the U.S. Senate.

His agenda will rise or fall based on how obstructionist the Repuglicans in the Senate chose to be.

The President ought to be bending the arms of the Democratic pro-silent filibuster Senators so far back that they are screaming in pain (metaphorically speaking, of course).

If he isn't ... then "pointing the finger at the president" when gun safety reform et la. is filibuster will still have credibility.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. We make too many assumptions here on DU. We have absolutely no clue what goes on behind

closed doors.

The president has very little influence on what goes on in the Senate. That's really more Biden's area, but I hear what you're saying.

At any rate, my argument stands, however. Harry Reid and the other Democratic leaders have a role. Don't blame the president if they either can't or won't do their jobs.

[earthside]

40. They are all in this together.

I'm not letting any of them off the hook ... accountability, that's what representative democracy is all about.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. True. I certainly agree with that. But we also have to be realistic and not let the Democrats

off the hook, either.

The biggest problem Bill Clinton had was not the Republicans. It was within his own party. The same is true of President Obama.

[cascadiance]

44. And our NOT knowing IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM! It is NOT a Democracy when that happens!

We need to know why the government is being "made" to not work. They work behind the scenes to make it "not work" so that they can throw up their hands later and claim "Don't blame me! I 'wanted' to do the right thing, but wasn't able to with the current status quo". And I believe perhaps that both Reid and the administration might be behind this the way the lobbyists rule everything these days now and what these people get paid when they leave office (or NOT paid if they don't play by the lobbyists' rules!). We need to ramp up the primary process of next election, and put the *bought* Democrats that didn't vote for these fundamental changes on notice that they will be replaced for selfishly working for lobbyists instead of their voting constituents!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. You make a valid point. I often think Democrats refuse to stand up so that they can later

make an excuse for not doing what their constituencies want.

The Right fears its base.
The left HATES its base.

[Recursion]

59. Is it *really* all that hard to guess?

Roll Call will have it tomorrow morning, if you're still wondering.

[bvar22]

62. You support the Weak President Theory for Inaction?

You believe that the President and Leader of the entire Democratic Party has
no influence over what Harry Reid does in The Senate???!!!

I've never though that the Weak President Rationalization was good for President Obama OR The Democratic Party.

My Take on Harry Reid's behavior:
The LAST thing the Democratic Party Leadership wants is a clear legislative majority in the House OR The Senate.
That would ruin the Kabuki Theater,
and completely pull back the curtain.
There would BE No More Excuses.

"The Arkansas primary fight (2010) illuminates some unpleasant though vital truths about the Democratic establishment "

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln. Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure. Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests. The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[EastKYLiberal]

37. Sen. Reid is a weak, pathetic little weasel. He has squandered our President's 2nd term. nt

[onenote]

49. I'll ask again: what legislation isn't reaching the President's desk that would have done so

had the stronger reforms been enacted? Does anyone think the House was simply going to roll over because the Senate was able to overcome a filibuster?

[0rganism]

39. the day the republicans take the majority in the Senate...

there will be filibuster reform. Believe it!

[Vinca]

41. We need to replace Harry. The man is pathetic.

[Recursion]

50. Right! And his replacement will have magical powers of hypnosis to change Senators' votes!

Why haven't we thought of this before???

[onenote]

56. And how do "we" do that?

My guess is that the majority of the Democratic caucus has no interest in replacing Reid.

[Vinca]

69. Then the majority of the Democratic caucus isn't representing the majority of Democrats.

If we wanted to keep Republican obstruction, we could have voted for Republicans in November.

[dmosh42]

47. I have a feeling Reid couldn't get enough of our 'brave' senators to vote for tougher rules.

And part of his job is NOT to put the other Dem senators on the spot by making them vote in public against the Merkley plan. It always comes down to the weasles in the senate having the upper hand. We can now write off any chance of progressive legislation going anywhere.

[woo me with science]

64. Welcome to corporate term #2,

by design.

[fadedrose]

66. I think what I heard were proposed changes, not actual ones

But like that wonderful Tom Harkin said, anything they do is better than what we got.

I would love to see filibusters, the way it should be done. Arguments, not an empty senate room waiting and wasting time.

[woo me with science]

67. Kick

[libtodeath]

68. Handed the other team the ball again