General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHas Harry Reid finally earned a primary!?
In light of his constant capitulation. As well as his verbal damning of our our own freshman senators has Harry Reid outed him-self as head Blue Dog?
I think it's time we send a message to the "career senators" and let them know we are tired of this bullshit.
It's time to put up or shut up.
Rachel's' piece on it is very...invigorating...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#50582128
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)but neither of those two things is going to happen.
DFab420
(2,466 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Senator Reid got the majority of what HE wanted in the rules change deal.
Sausage making is messy sometimes, but in the end it turns out good.
DFab420
(2,466 posts)Nor was the talking filibuster...
What's actually different?
(not trying to be snarky, just seeking information)
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)to pass a bill in the Senate.
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/harry-reid-explains-why-he-killed-filibuster-reform/
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)that the Senate is already not like the House, even without the filibuster. It is already weighted to protect the minority, since representation is by state and not by population.
The World's Greatest Deliberative Body is just a bastion to defend the status quo. It, and its current leader, are a cruel joke on a (supposed) democratic republic.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I guess he really didn't want to change anything of importance then.
By their deeds will you know them.
I've been watching him for a long time. Reid = Fail
Sometimes you need to wait till the fans come to a realization that he's a fail and let them experience it. Then it's good to post something like this, other wise you become meat for the rabid clueless.
-p
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Much less four years.
DFab420
(2,466 posts)Pretty sure if a Senator says he's going to do something, then does not, it's usually grounds for at least discussing their ability to lead/legislate/perform their job...
also I love the aliteration...
randome
(34,845 posts)If he couldn't get the votes, he couldn't get the votes. How hard is this to understand?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Not for full Udall/Markley, but for important reforms like the 41-vote-to-sustain rule.
So....either he watered down filibuster reform, or he's a liar covering for other senators so that their voters don't know what they are up to.
Either way, the failure of the next two years are his.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...including Senators Feinstein and Boxer. Sen Reid kept "the day" going while I'm sure arm twisting and deal making was going on. In the end this was the best deal he could get that would clear 51 or more votes. While he's the "Leader" he's also the consensus maker. We saw the opposite with Boner and the fiscal cliff bullshit...he couldn't get a consensus and the party fell apart. I strongly favored the talking filibuster...and still do...but there are a lot of skittish Senators in red and purple state up for re-election in two years (more Democrats than rushpublicans) and I suspect that's where your weak knees can be found.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He said he had the votes for 41-votes-to-sustain.
So either this isn't the best deal he could get, or he was lying.
Stop pretending that there were only 2 options. There were 3 reform plans. Reid chose the weakest, after claiming to have the votes for the middle plan.
randome
(34,845 posts)I'm not happy about the outcome, either.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)He often gives the GOP hell. Based on prior evidence and behavior, I don't think he deserves to be 'disowned'. The Democrats who would not go along with him are the ones deserving of derision.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He said he didn't have votes for Udall/Markley, but he said he had the votes for 41 votes to sustain a filibuster and for actually writing down the rules.
If he was lying, then those Democrats deserve derision.....as does Reid for covering for them.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)Nevada is not a sure thing for a Democrat by any means. Their other Senatorial seat is held by a Republican.
DFab420
(2,466 posts)Is Harry Reid a finger in the dyke? Or is he actually worth having around?
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)and the Democrats in Nevada are not going to, so I think you can forget about it.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)who helps the Republicans?
What would the net result of whomever beats Reid in a primary losing to a Republican? Not much different than things are now, other than we might have a fighting chance of getting a real majority leader out of it.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)A progressive is NOT going to win Reid's seat in the Senate. It's either a Blue Dog or a Republican. Those are the choices. Reid won because he's a long term popular incumbent who brings home bacon to his state. He has the power to do that. If Reid hadn't been the candidate, I think the opponent would have won.
It's all about the state of Nevada. They vote for who they think can bring home the bacon. For Nevada. It's a fairly conservative state, too.
The thing that people should be wanting is for Reid to lose his head of the Party status in the Senate, but that's almost impossible to do. Look at Boehner, who is unpopular with the reps right now. Even HE won the re-election of his head of his party in the House.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)and the Republican party there is wildly dysfunctional (Sharon Angle, anyone?). In 4 more years both of those things could be even more true.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)onenote
(42,715 posts)The difference between a Democrat who votes with the party 95% of the time and a repub who virtually never votes with the Democrats.
PFunk
(876 posts)and elect replacements from somewhere else (like a strong blue state w/a barely elected repug). Sometimes you just have to ditch bad luggage. Especially it it hurts the party (and maybe the country).
nobodyspecial
(2,286 posts)Lugar was not "right" enough so they primaried him. Mourdock was too batshit crazy for even Indiana and they now have a Dem senator. I say no.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)All incumbents should face a primary challenge.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Letting the people decide.
May the best man or woman win!
cali
(114,904 posts)a good progressive incumbent.
randome
(34,845 posts)KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...aren't a strong suit around here.
Cheers...
longship
(40,416 posts)And please be precise in your definition so all of DU may have the same metric which you have.
Politics is messy. I would bet my bottom dollar that nobody has such a metric.
What it sounds like to me is that you do not like the filibuster deal, so you choose to malign the senate majority leader since you have nobody else to whom you can pin the blame.
I have a suggestion for all the Harry Reid haters here. Please let this play out before you start hating. Don't let your disappointment for the lack of a nuclear bomb in Senate rules to cloud your judgement. Nuclear weapons rarely do anything good.
I trust Harry Reid in spite of the fact that I would have very much liked a talking filibuster.
Do not presume a future which has not yet happened.
I R&K, regardless.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I'm disappointed we didn't get Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibusters, but I think heaping all the blame on Reid and making him out to be an idiot or a wimp is firing at the wrong target.
If Reid couldn't get 51 votes, we need to be finding those DINOs who weren't working to find a way to make the Senate work. I'd suggest looking at Feinstein, Boxer, Levin, maybe Baucus.
longship
(40,416 posts)Nor did a good chunk of the caucus.
The reason? If they go nuclear, and the Republicans gain a majority in 2014, they'll make holy hell for the minority Democrats.
By making a deal:
Crap game put it just the way it came down, I suspect. In this case, they were Republicans.
The logic from fictional war movies is inescapable.
msongs
(67,420 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)The best way to prevent a Republican majority in the Senate is to SHOW Democratic Senators passing good, progressive legislation, while SHOWING the Republicans in both the Senate and the House holding it up.
If there are no clear lines of difference between the parties, why would anyone vote? And we know we win when we actually vote.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We did that two years ago, with his milquetoast "handshake agreement" with McConnell. It was a massive disaster.
Now he has another handshake agreement with McConnell and a few very minor changes.
You are telling us to let the same thing play out over the next two years.
Just how dumb are we supposed to be?
longship
(40,416 posts)It's a bipartisan vote. That makes it a binding rule of the Senate. I would have preferred something stronger, but we didn't get it.
As I said, Reid did not want to pull the nuclear trigger against a warlike opponent who would be only happy to launch missiles if we did. You want Reid to be Ronald "the missiles are on the way" Reagan, when I would prefer John Fitzgerald "Cuban Blockade gives Kruschev an out" Kennedy.
Not trying to be confrontational, but I will stand by my post.
We will both see, I imagine. No personal offense intended or taken. We can disagree without coming to blows. But I do disagree with you. That's okay with me, my friend.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The only change to the rules is the part limiting debate time after a filibuster of low-level nominees is broken.
That's it. All the rest of the deal is not part of the rules.
The "7 senators from each side or 2 amendments" is a standing order, not a rule. It automatically goes away in two years.
The "no anonymous filibusters" is a handshake deal....that the relevant leader will try to get their members to not do anonymous filibusters.
longship
(40,416 posts)But neither you nor me knows how this will play out. So I am going to relax and observe things as they develope. Others can set their hair on fire and run around if they want, but none of them are in the well of the Senate. Nor am I; nor are you .
I refuse to project my fears onto the future events. That's just not how these things work out.
Let us see what happens. These people are not stupid, and the Republicans seem to be oozing ideology at every pour.
I am not willing to second guess anybody because of one event, or a collection of cherry-picked events.
I support my party even when they disappoint me. And I let them all know when they disappoint. If I disagree, I do so with respect.
That's what we do here. I would hope.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you think the Republicans will honor a handshake agreement after the last two years, I have a dozen bridges to sell you.
lefthandedskyhook
(964 posts)if another anonymous filibuster occurs. The diseased ones tend to shrivel in sunlight.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Sounds to me like he was trying, but he got undermined by other Democratic (or "Democratic" senators - Feinstein and Levin in particular, who weren't going to support filibuster reform.
One day, he's the Honey Badger, the next day, he's back in the tutu?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He claimed he had 51 votes for strong reforms, such as 41 votes to sustain a filibuster. He did not have votes for a talking filibuster, but he claimed to have the votes for much stronger reforms than this deal.
Such as actually writing the reforms into the rules instead of relying on another handshake agreement.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)also told them if they don't run any FDR democrats am not going to give money to the party.
In fact it should have happened the last election round. But I think it's becoming clear that his time has past. He's now become one of the problems. Time to find a FDR-like replacement for both his seat and leadership.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Think about it. Who wins and who loses when you play the chessboard out a few moves?
Go back to the 60's. Back then, it was Mr. Smith Goes to Washington rules, and the bill that was getting filibustered was the Civil Rights Act.
Back then, it only took one senator to hold the floor in a filibuster, equipped with a dictionary and a catheter, and prepared to talk the bill down for as long as he can. That senator can, of course, give the floor to another senator. The Dixiecrats that filibustered the Civil Rights Act and similar legislation had a rotation set up. Two Dixiecrats were in Washington for 24 hours. One would filibuster for 12 hours, then pass the floor to the next one for 12 hours. Another pair would fly up to relieve them for the next day. And so it would continue - only two Dixiecrats filibustering per day in a planned rotation that they can keep up indefinitely, while the rest of them were at home in their states, sipping mint juleps. Of course, the filibustering senators would be making constant quorum calls (Remember, the magic words of a filibuster are "I suggest the absence of a quorum." which forces a roll call, which would result in adjournment if 51 senators didn't answer the call), so to keep the Senate from shutting down entirely, the good Democrats and the Republicans voting with them would have to be in Washington, camped out in their offices, ready to answer quorum calls 24/7.
Usually, the Dixiecrats won, because they could sip mint juleps while the majority had to live in the Capitol 24/7 answering 3am quorum calls. Civil rights legislation got kicked down the road over and over and over.
What we want is something where the filibusterer, and the majority getting filibustered, actually have a roughly even chance of winning, meaning neither side gets too much of an advantage in terms of being able to out-endure the other, and that the winning side has to earn their victory. Remember that down the road, the Republicans may get the majority, and we might be the ones filibustering when they're doing things like putting nazi assclowns in the Supreme Court, ramming through yet more violations of our constitutional rights, or crushing unions and slashing Medicare & Social Security, etc.
There are lots of proposals to reform the filibuster. Right now, the filibustering side has too much of an advantage - the senator doesn't even have to do the Mr. Smith thing - he just puts a hold on the bill and flies home for mint juleps. Without 60 votes for cloture, the bill is vetoed.
Maybe the suggestion of requiring 41 votes to sustain a filibuster (in other words, all 41+ members who wish to sustain a filibuster) to show up to quorum calls would be useful.
Here's another one: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/25/the-british-model-for-filibuster-reform.html - a sustained filibuster results in a bill being taken off the table for one, and only one election cycle. They can kill a bill for two years, but that bill is automatically put back on the floor for the session that starts immediately after the next election, and at that point, can no longer be filibustered. So if we filibuster a GOP bill that axes Social Security, we can go to the voters and say "Yes, we saved Social Security by filibustering the Senate bill that sends your checks to the Koch brothers." The voters, then, have the final say, in the form of throwing out the bastards and retaining the cool senators, which would alter the way the Senate votes on the bill when it comes up the January after the election. If the GOP, OTOH, filibusters a bill that would put the banksters in jail that defrauded billions from the people and caused the Great Recession, I'd like to see how they explain that to their constituents...
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Let them be SEEN, in front of Dog and Everybody, opposing legislation that would benefit We the People.
No more secrets, no deniability.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)msongs
(67,420 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Of course, I've been saying this for nearly a decade, most of which
Reid was kissing Bush Crime Family ass, turning "rolling over to GOP"
into how "business as usual" is done in the US Senate.
Hulk
(6,699 posts)How did this clown ever end up as the leader of the Senate? It had to be year of service. Good riddance. We have to be care, again, in what we wish for. Remember, he barely beat the teabagger last time around. Does Nevada have someone worthy to withstand the far right's idiot? Reid barely did.