General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsReid Not Ruling Out Further Senate Rules Changes
TPM: Reid Not Ruling Out Further Senate Rules Change Through Regular OrderAfter the Senate voted on a broad bipartisan basis Thursday night to make modest rules changes to streamline Senate business, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he reserves the right to make further rules changes through regular order.
If these reforms do not do enough to end the gridlock here in Washington, we will consider doing more in the future, Reid said in a statement . . .
Finally, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) asked, I would confirm with the Majority Leader that the Senate would not consider other resolutions in relation to any standing order or rules this Congress unless they went through the regular order process?
Reid responded: That is correct. Any other resolutions related to Senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process including consideration by the Rules Committee.
read: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/reid-promises-no-rules-changes-without-gop-consent.php?ref=fpb
Lasher
(27,598 posts)But I'm pretty sure I won't see any during the next two years.
bigtree
(85,998 posts). . . but it MAY be a limiting factor on republicans to have this out there. He'll never give up the supermajority rule tho . . . too many last stands (abortion, SS) with republican presidents in memory for institution Democrats to risk losing the ONLY leverage they had during those dark days.
Lasher
(27,598 posts)Game over. Until Yertle becomes Senate Majority leader 2 years from now. He won't be so timid about it.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)It was a dicey proposition anyway to remove the 60 vote threshold, as folks wanted. I'm not sure the party is unified enough or capable enough to manage that when the tables eventually turn (or maybe some think the balance of power in the WH and Congress won't revert one day to a republican rule).
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Response to Bandit (Reply #3)
bigtree This message was self-deleted by its author.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Because heaven knows there is no reason to do it right now. As always, the people will be gloriously represented at some time in the future.
This corporate kabuki is insulting as hell.
Welcome to corporate term #2, as confidently predicted by anyone with a scintilla of honesty who has been paying any attention whatsoever to our corporate Democratic "representation." What a tired, cynical, sickening game this is.
So now we are mysteriously falling short of Democratic votes for filibuster reform.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809132
bigtree
(85,998 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)
I damn well sat right here and watched our own party use it to defend against some of the worst initiatives and bills that were just one step away from a republican WH.
We'll see what effect these 'compromise' changes have on republicans' abuse of the rule.
pscot
(21,024 posts)My WTF moment came 30 years ago, as I watched an overwhelmingly Democratic House vote to fund the Contras. The difference now is that we're in a much riskier environment, and a lot closer to an authoritarian takeover.