the question isn't why did Harry cave

[Enrique]

when he was talking about filibuster reform, my attitude was, Harry Reid isn't going to do filibuster reform so why is he talking about it?

So that's the real question, why was he talking about it?

I think it was about the 2012 election. There was an idea out there which I thought was very dangerous, and it was perfectly summed up in a David Brooks column. An extremely cynical column shortly before the election where Brooks said he endorsed Romney, because if Obama was re-elected, the GOP would obstruct everything and the economy would collapse. Basically it was a hostage situation, just like everything else in politics these days.

So the dangerous message was "Ok Obama you say you're going to do all these things but you can't do any of it because the GOP is going to block you". He was asked this by reporters more than once. I recall Axelrod and Carney both handling such questions, and their answers weren't convincing. They said after Obama is reelected the GOP would change,they would become less obstructionist.

So in case there were people who were skeptical about the GOP changing, they had to get the idea into people's heads that if Obama was re-elected, things would be different. If the GOP didn't become more accomodating then the system would change so they had less power to obstruct. Thus filibuster reform.

[frazzled]

1. He didn't cave: it's what he wanted

I think people don't understand that. Caving means capitulating to what the other side wants. Harry Reid never wanted the kind of filibuster reform that the Democratic reformers wanted. So all questions aside as to what that means, for better or worse, it's simply wrong to save that Reid "caved." Say that he opposed strong filibuster reform, or whatever, but he got what he wanted.

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. ...

In hindsight, proponents of reform inside and outside the Senate doubt that Reid was ever willing to use the constitutional option to change the filibuster with 51 votes, despite his claims, and believe he used the threat to gain leverage over McConnell.

“I especially got that sense over the weekend when I had a conversation with [Sen. Chuck] Schumer on Sunday and kept asking him about the constitutional option,” the outside source said. “He got emphatic and said, ‘Harry’s reticent to do it.’ He said that twice and poked me in the chest.” ...

A Democratic leadership aide told TPM that “whether you wanted more or not, Reid got virtually everything he has said he wanted.” The aide pointed to examples of the majority leader saying his goal was to make the Senate operate more efficiently.

Reformers in and out of the Senate believe that Reid tapped into their enthusiasm to advance his goal. “Reid said he wants to make it easier to move on bills,” said a pro-reform aide. “This doesn’t do that. He still has to negotiate with McConnell to get on a bill. It’s a negligible difference to how the Senate operates today.”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/filibuster-reform-tick-tock.php

[Romulox]

2. This is basic "good cop/bad cop" stuff, guys. They WANT the filibuster as an excuse. nt