Reid caved -- AGAIN??

[gateley]

Now I can better understand why Boxer and a handful of others were going to vote Nay. From the sense I get (granted, just a teaser from Ed) -- why bother?

This is so deeply disappointing.

EDIT -- autospell "Reed" -- I shouldn't have bother correcting it, the traitor.

[Mass]

1. Do you mean Reid?

[gateley]

2. Gee, I don't know, what do you think?

I just corrected it -- autofill did the honors.

Any comment/answer/enlightenment on my question? I'm sincerely baffled and don't understand why he would do this. OR if I'm becoming riled over nothing (been known to happen :blush

[Tx4obama]

3. Reid did NOT cave. He got the majority of what HE wanted.

It was Merkley/Udall that wanted the EXTREME (41 plan) reform - not Reid.



Below is what Reid wanted...

Harry Reid: ‘I’m Not Ready…To Get Rid Of The 60-Vote Threshold’

Reid isn’t ready for filibuster reform and told Ezra Klein why.

“With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn’t and shouldn’t be like the House.”

What will be reformed is how the Senate moves to consider new legislation, the process by which all nominees — except Cabinet-level appointments and Supreme Court nominations — are considered, and the number of times the filibuster can be used against a conference report.

…the deal Reid struck with McConnell doesn’t end the filibuster against the motion to proceed. Rather, it creates two new pathways for moving to a new bill. In one, the majority leader can, with the agreement of the minority leader and seven senators from each party, sidestep the filibuster when moving to a new bill. In the other, the majority leader can short-circuit the filibuster against moving to a new bill so long as he allows the minority party to offer two germane amendment that also can’t be filibustered. Note that in all cases, the minority can still filibuster the bill itself.

http://www.alan.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-im-not-ready-to-get-rid-of-the-60-vote-threshold/

Full Ezra Klein Washington Post article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/harry-reid-explains-why-he-killed-filibuster-reform/


=====================================


Also...

Two of the things that Reid has been fighting against will be eliminated/fixed by the new rules.

I think even though these are modest changes they are going to be a big improvement
I've been following the judicial nominations for several years and the new change is going to be a HUGE help in getting them confirmed faster.

"... post cloture time for non appellate judges will be cut from 30 hours to 2 ... "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251280012

Also there will be NO more 'anonymous' holds/objections

-snip-

Under the agreement, the minority party will be able to offer two amendments on each bill, a major concession to Republicans. This change is made only as a standing order, not a rules change, and expires at the end of the term.

The new rules will also make it easier for the majority to appoint conferees once a bill has passed, but leaves in place the minority's ability to filibuster that motion once -- meaning that even after the Senate and House have passed a bill, the minority can still mount a filibuster one more time.

Reid won concessions on district court nominations as well. Under the old rules, after a filibuster had been beaten, 30 more hours were required to pass before a nominee could finally be confirmed. That delay threatened to tie the chamber in knots. The new rules will only allow two hours to pass after cloture is invoked before a nominee is confirmed.

The two leaders agreed that they will make some changes in how the Senate carries out filibusters under the existing rules, reminiscent of the handshake agreement last term, which quickly fell apart. First, senators who wish to object or threaten a filibuster must actually come to the floor to do so. And second, the two leaders will make sure that debate time post-cloture is actually used in debate. If senators seeking to slow down business simply put in quorum calls to delay action, the Senate will go live, force votes to produce a quorum, and otherwise work to make sure senators actually show up and debate.

The arrangement between Reid and McConnell means that the majority leader will not resort to his controversial threat, known as the "nuclear option," to change the rules via 51 votes on the first day of the congressional session. Reid may have been able to achieve greater reforms that way, but several members of his own party were uncomfortable with the precedent it would have set. And Reid himself, an institutionalist, wanted a bipartisan deal for the long-term health of the institution. Reid presented McConnell with two offers -- one bipartisan accord consisting of weaker reforms, and a stronger package Reid was willing to ram through on a partisan vote. McConnell chose the bipartisan route.

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-mitch-mcconnell-filibuster_n_2541356.html

[jeff47]

4. Actually, Reid said he had the votes for a 41-vote filibuster yesterday

He didn't have the votes for the rest of Udall/Merkley, such as the talking filibuster, but he said he had the votes for much more effective reforms.

Today's crappy deal is weak. And Republicans will toss it, and the entire filibuster, whenever they retake the majority.

[LiberalFighter]

15. We as activists need to make it very difficult for them to retake the majority.

Reducing the number of teabaggers to reduce any power they may have within their party will also make tossing the filibuster improbable. The more sane GOP members they have the less likely they are to risk the wrath of the voters.

[jeff47]

16. Not going to be easy with Reid tying our hands. (nt)

[gateley]

5. OK, Tx4obama -- I'll hunker down and find out whether my knee-jerk reaction needs to

be retracted. As always, thank you for the education!!

[gateley]

10. Okay -- read them all and I'll change "caved" to really dropping the ball, really

screwing this up. "Caved" implies that McC wasn't agreeing to Reed's proposals, but it doesn't seem as though Harry was proposing much at all. Certainly not what he's been saying he was going to do.

I am still deeply, deeply disappointed and frustrated.

He's trusting the Republicans to behave in ways that they've shown repeatedly they won't.

I'm just baffled and don't understand why he wasn't willing to fight harder to really make it "right".

Ultimately, we lost. Again.

[LiberalFighter]

17. Unless there is something I haven't read I think the change will work.

It speeds up the process and puts limits on the filibusters. And does allow the minority party to submit not more than 2 amendments provided they are germane to the bill.

It makes it more difficult for the minority to shut it down IMO.

[catbyte]

28. Not difficult enough. Republicans are liars and Reid is a spineless fool if he thinks

things will change. I am beyond disgusted. Reid is the Democratic Boehner--completely ineffective.

[LiberalFighter]

31. Did Reid have the 50 or 51 votes needed to get it passed?

At last report there were Senators that either refused to support the Udall/Merkley/Harkin change or were on the fence. It doesn't do any good to pursue one thing when unsure of the results. Harry and Durbin probably knew that there weren't enough votes but told everyone outside the caucus they did and forced the Republicans to agree to the other deal.

There are only 55 members in the Democratic Caucus 2 of them are Independents.

On the rule (SR 16) agreed upon only Sanders voted against it from the Dem caucus. There were 8 Republicans voting against and 5 Republicans not voting.

On the rule (SR 15) agreed upon only Sanders voted against it from the Dem caucus. There were 15 Republicans voting against and 5 Republicans and 1 Democrat not voting. Landrieu a (DINO) was the Democrat.

In both votes, Udall, Merkley, and Harkin voted in favor. They were the authors of the stronger rule.

[bigtree]

33. it'll never be clear now whether he had the 51 votes or not

Like you say, Reid says he used that claim as a bargaining chip to push republicans into accepting the 'compromise.' If they believed he had 51 votes to proceed without them, they would (presumably) be more inclined to deal.

If they had rejected the compromise, we would have found out soon enough. Still, it's not clear to me that he had 51 and it wouldn't be the first bluff put over in the Senate.

[LiberalFighter]

35. Who were the likely Senators against or on the fence for the Merley-Udall-Harkin rule?

On January 3rd M/U/H reported they had 48 confirmed and needed 2 of the following: Boxer, Feinstein, Reed, Baucus, Leahy, Pryor and Levin. I think there were some confirmed that later got weak knees or something.

This from Thom Hartman on 1/23

While most progressive organizations have endorsed the Merkley-Udall “talking filibuster” reform, it’s unlikely Senator Reid has the votes among Democrats to pass such plan – and he will likely settle on a more moderate approach. But, if Democrats want to sweep the midterm elections in two years, and re-take the House of Representatives, then they have to pass legislation out of the Senate, and show the American people their agenda, and how it differs from the agenda of House Republicans. Strong filibuster may be the only way to accomplish this.

Thom says Reid is unlikely to have the votes to pass the plan and then is upset about there not being strong filibuster reform? He needs to spend time in the halls of Congress or even at state capitols watching the activities. Maybe learn Roberts Rules and read the rules of both the House and Senate on the procedures used. Usually, IMO a bill never be the same when it is passed as it is on day one. There are changes and that is the result of compromises and learning of better options. I probably am never 100% happy about any piece of legislation that comes out of any legislative body. But I am only 1 person.

[Honeycombe8]

6. I had heard before that Reid didn't reallly want to end fillibustering, or reform it much, because

the Dems will want to do it, when they're not in power.

[gateley]

7. I don't understand that -- do you?

I'm thinking if the Dems aren't in power, there's no chance in hell the Republicans would let that occur.

Yes, in theory, the Dems could do to them what they've been doing to us and they might have incentive to change, but in actuality the Republicans always seem to end up doing whatever they want to, rules or no rules. If we have the chance to do it now, do it now -- or stall out for four more years. IMO, natch.

[bigtree]

20. think of a different majority

. . . and Roe v. Wade on the line; or, SS privatization a slippery vote away from an opposition WH. We've used that 60 vote threshold in the Senate to outlast republican majorities and block major planks of their destructive agenda. I imagine he was thinking that balance of power could occur again.

[gateley]

22. Ah.... I see, good point. It's never as cut and dried as we out here think it is, is it? Thanks!

[LiberalFighter]

36. There are 100 different minds in the Senate and 435(8) in the House.

Even within the Democratic Party there are differences of opinions. Especially when there are DINO's mostly in red states.

It would probably be very difficult to find any legislation that passed both the House and Senate that did not have any changes. At least they don't do what is done in Indiana. They will totally strip the language out of a bill and replace it with something that was not similar in nature.

Personally, I would want to have as many Republicans supporting the same legislation as possible because then they get the blame too and can't criticize it as much. In addition, with their support there will be less opposition in the general public.

If there is legislation with compromises that means there are wheelings and dealings made to get their support.

[Honeycombe8]

26. The minority party has been doing that for years. Just not this much, is the issue.

The Republicans have done it to a shameful degree, to the point of stopping the running of government, almost. But the Democrats did it, too, when they were in the minority. It's the only way to stop legislation by the other side, I think. Or the main way.

[LiberalFighter]

34. I think the filibuster should remain.

Just not in the form it was used in the past Congress. I don't recall any proposal submitted that eliminated it.

The new rules might do the trick. IMO Reid tricked the Republicans to agree to the new rules or risk the more stricter rules being forced down their throat. Reid probably knew what the votes would be and that it wouldn't pass but the Republicans couldn't risk taking a chance Reid had the votes for it.

[KoKo]

8. In case you missed some of the coverage...here from "Think Progress."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022253566

[KoKo]

9. ALSO:

BTW: Some DU'ers think Boxer and the other seeming Progressive/Lib Dems voted with Repugs is because they wanted to hold onto the Filibuster for future use.

Sadly...I worry it was about BIG MONEY/BIG MEDIA. But, who knows. Why would some of the most Lib Senators vote with Repugs?

[gateley]

13. I'm not as familiar with the others, but with Boxer I would assume it's because she's

strongly AGAINST this, and must feel more strongly about it than her willingness to go along. That, more than anything, set off alarm bells. Ultimately, there's always justification for and justification against ALMOST everything. It appears it's not ALL bad and actually I was pleased to see (at the link you provided -- thanks again) that one of the losers w/be the Tea Party.

Sigh. We'll just have to wait and see how it goes. I'll try to hope for the best.

[gateley]

11. Thanks - I'll check it out.

[RedCloud]

12. The gerrymandered House speaker will not pass shit anyway.

But Reid looks immensely weak.

Hundreds of filibusters from the past cycle.No retribution.

And he trusts those Grand Old Pricks to behave?

[gateley]

14. These guys can NOT be trusted. I don't understand how many times we have to

be burned for that to sink in. Obama seems to have been able to say Enough!, don't understand why Reed can't.

[jillan]

18. I feel the SAME as you, M.E.!

It's going to be a long 4 years.

[gateley]

19. I've really tried to see it from both sides as presented in the

links people were kind enough to provide, but bottom line is I have a sinking feeling about this, Jill. Sigh.

And the fact that somebody like Boxer wasn't going to go for it always makes me wonder. (But then again, I wonder about all the GOOD guys who will -- is it just to go along with Harry or is it really not that bad? :shrug

We'll have to wait and see, as always. But unless/until it works out okay, I'm pissed.

[Union Scribe]

21. After watching Rachel and Ed

showing all the times Reid has said (as far back as two years ago and as recently as right after the election) he'll do exactly the opposite of what he just did, I can't give him any benefit of the doubt. Too many times with this fucking guy.

[gateley]

23. Exactly.

[jillan]

27. I really have never been a Harry Reid fan, and I never understood

why he was chosen as the Senate leader.

Yes he has had his moments of being great - but - they have been far and few inbetween.

He just doesn't have the right tempermant imho.
Compare his personality to someone like Durbin or Schumer - they have just as much seniority as Harry - but have a bit more fire inside of them than Harry. We just witnessed Schumer in action at the inauguration - and Durbin at the Benghazi hearings.

I was really hoping Harry would have stepped down this year, but not as much as I am tonite

[dem4ward]

24. I'm disgusted, disappointed and down right sick over it

We had a chance for REAL REFORM today and TODAY only... FAIL ... Our party leaders suck! Both parties SUCK! I'm sick of our lame ass government who are OVER PAID for the LITTLE work they friggin do! We need term limits! Fuck these old, barely can walk dicks!!! I'm down with this NO pay for No progress plan!

There should be a timeline attached to all of President Obama's agenda items.

2 months for a budget or no pay!
2 months for immigration reform or no pay!
2 months for a jobs bills or no pay!
2 months for tax reform or no pay!

These assholes obviously need fire under their asses to perform so, let's light that fire!!!

Also they need to work 9 hour days, 5 days a week for 3 weeks out of every month! Only national holidays off like the rest of the country. I think they should get a 25% pay cut immediately! They are WAY over PAYED! If they don't like it then go get another JOB!!!

[gateley]

25. Yes there SHOULD be, but it'll never happen

Besides the fact that it's unconstitutional to not pay them (regardless of Boehner's little stunt), it would be difficult to implement, I think.

I also wonder if it's too late to implemet a minimum work requirement, or a rule that they actually have to read the bills themselves rather than having their aides give them the highlights, or....(it is SO messed up and SO far gone).

In WA State we voted against a raise for our State Senate. After it was defeated, they snuck in and had a midnight vote and voted themselves the raises anyway. No repurcussions. No penalties.

We are definitely not BY the people!

[aquart]

29. The no pay crap is unconstitutional.

Period.

[dem4ward]

30. It's unconstitutional that

our government is no longer "WE" the people!!!

PERIOD.

[LiberalFighter]

32. I'm sorry but why would Boxer and others going to vote Nay?