Ummm....you guys? The Republicans just filibustered Hagel. A first for a Defense Secretary nominee.

[Cali_Democrat]

What happened to Reid's "agreement" with the GOP? If any agreement exists, the Republicans just shit all over it.

GOP filibuster against Hagel a first for a defense secretary nominee
38 minutes ago
By Michael A. Memoli |

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Senate Republicans refused to allow a vote Wednesday on the nomination of Chuck Hagel to lead the Defense Department, staging the first filibuster against a president’s choice to head the Pentagon since the agency was created.

Majority Leader Harry Reid called the move “a shame” as he announced on the floor of the Senate that he was unable to reach an agreement with the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee to avoid such a delay. Reid filed a motion to end the filibuster, which he said he expected to vote on Friday, at which point Democrats believe they will have enough votes to confirm Hagel’s appointment.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/national/government-and-politics/gop-filibuster-against-hagel-a-first-for-a-defense-secretary/article_5774066c-7630-11e2-a0ca-0019bb2963f4.html?comment_form=true

So what made Harry think he could trust the GOP?

Well done, Harry.

Well. Fucking. Done.

[phleshdef]

1. Harry Reid did not have enough votes to change the filibuster. Deal with it.

Even Bernie Sanders has vouched for this.

Learn how to count. Reid knows how. Its not a hard skill to develop.

[Ohio Joe]

2. oh but... Why pass up a chance to curse a D...

This shit is getting soooo freakin tired.

[phleshdef]

3. Not just tired, but also downright immature.

[HangOnKids]

4. Why Not Just Quote The Count On Sesame Street

Don't have to be nasty about things.

[phleshdef]

6. People are acting nasty towards Reid over something he couldn't force.

So I will, in fact, act a bit nasty in return. And enjoy it.

[HangOnKids]

11. In Another Post You Asked For People To Act Mature

So what is it? Snark for you but not others?

[phleshdef]

12. I didn't ask for people to do anything. I just called them what they are.

And it has nothing to do with attitude. The immaturity I'm referring to is completely ignoring reality and whining about not getting what you wanted.

[HangOnKids]

16. Not getting what I wanted?

I don't recall stating what I wanted.

[Demo_Chris]

5. Yes he did. He only needed 51

[phleshdef]

7. He didn't have 51.

[Demo_Chris]

19. Yeah, he did. He did not WANT fillibuster reform

"Harry Reid Declares He Has The Votes For Filibuster Reform"
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/harry-reid-has-51-votes-filibuster-reform.php

"Harry Reid: ‘I’m not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold’"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/harry-reid-explains-why-he-killed-filibuster-reform/

"Why filibuster reform didn’t happen"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/24/why-filibuster-reform-didnt-happen/

I understand the desire to rewrite history, but let us leave that to the GOP.

[phleshdef]

27. And just as I pointed out to another poster below, read your own links before posting them.

The very first link proves you wrong. He was declaring he had the votes for the version of filibuster reform that WAS passed, not the version many wanted. That article itself backs that notion up.

From your own article:

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) told reporters that the Merkley-Udall “full talking filibuster” approach likely won’t happen because it “does not have 51 votes.” But he said a more modest package that Reid has put forth to McConnell, aimed at shifting the burden from a governing majority to an obstructing minority, would pass.

[Demo_Chris]

41. So which Democratic Senators, other than Reid, were opposed to this

“I’m not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold. With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn’t and shouldn’t be like the House.”

Harry has told us where HE stands, he doesn't want fillibuster reform. But who was standing with him? We don't know if anyone was standing with him because he struck this deal with the GOP rather than bringing real reform to a vote. Further, considering that he campaigned on REMOVING this nonsense, should we not be discussing removing him? This is what he said last year:

"If there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it’s the filibuster rule, because it’s been abused, abused and abused."




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/harry-reid-explains-why-he-killed-filibuster-reform/

[Cali_Democrat]

8. That's funny. Reid said himself he had 51 votes:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/harry-reid-has-51-votes-filibuster-reform.php

So Reid knows how?

[phleshdef]

9. Perhaps you should read your own article, since it proves you wrong.

Senate Democrats have the 51 votes necessary to weaken the filibuster, the top two Democrats declared unequivocally on Wednesday.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) told reporters that the Merkley-Udall “full talking filibuster” approach likely won’t happen because it “does not have 51 votes.” But he said a more modest package that Reid has put forth to McConnell, aimed at shifting the burden from a governing majority to an obstructing minority, would pass.

They did have 51 votes to weaken the filibuster, for basically the version of filibuster reform that ended up getting passed. They did NOT have 51 votes for the kind of reform that you are bitching about.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. So the filibuster has been weakened?

Cool. Good to know.

[phleshdef]

15. Not nearly enough. No one is disputing that. Don't attempt to change the subject.

You are mad at Reid for doing something that was not mathematically doable under the current political climate. That's not Harry Reid's fault. That's the fault of the handful of Democrats that didn't have the courage to stand behind it. Some for good reasons (ie, what happens when Republicans get the majority), some for bad reasons (bluedogs that don't want to see progressive legislation make it through the Senate). Regardless, you should aim your anger at the people who are responsible... most of all the Republicans. Harry Reid is not the enemy.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Well surely a weakened filibuster won't result in the first Secretary of Defense Nominee Filibuster

Surely that won't happen. After all, the filibuster has been weakened, which is good to know.

Thank you for the information.

You're a gem.

[phleshdef]

30. A whole field of strawmen right there.

No one said the filibuster reform that passed was even close to adequate. No one said the Republicans didn't still have the power to fuck everything up. No one said that the situation is what it should be. Stop pretending like that's what was argued, it wasn't, ever.

[Cali_Democrat]

34. Ya, but it's interesting

How this happens AFTER the filibuster has supposedly been weakened.

Go figure.

[Cha]

21. Thanks for that, phlesh.

[jeff47]

47. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

"Full talking filibuster" was only one of the proposed reforms.

Other reforms to make filibusters harder had 51 votes. Such as requiring the minority to maintain the filibuster, instead of requiring the majority to break it. And a host of other changes that would have put the effort on the minority instead of the majority.

[patrice]

17. STRANGE that with how well that polls, the votes really weren't there & strange that none of US

are asking ourselves WHY our senators decided they didn't have that kind of support . . .

don't you think?

I know I do.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

29. Democrats face the very real possibility of being the minority party after the elections of 2014...

It's pretty easy to understand once you accept that possibility.

[markpkessinger]

37. Actually, that kind of scenario could work out better for Democrats, even when in the minority...

... because if the availability of the filibuster were severely curtailed, it would mean, when Democrats are in the majority, that more of their programs (which are likely to enjoy wide public support once enacted if history is to be any guide) will get passed. And when Democrats are in the minority, people will likewise get to see exactly what the GOP has in store for them. I'm sorry, but allowing a system to remain in place just because, sometime down the road, we might be in the minority is the height of political cowardice!

[Sekhmets Daughter]

38. You expect bravery from this bunch of career politicians?

Cowardice is why the filibuster has survived for as long as it has....It is not in the constitution.

[patrice]

50. Oh, I understand that much. What I don't know is how to parse it all out & I wonder if those

who are, possibly, gaming one another in this situation have parsed it out amongst themselves too, so that they've decided who gets thrown under the bus and when.

Are they being honest enough to even agree amongst themselves what the priorities are?

I'm not sure how that's even possible with all of the secret corporate personhood money floating around out there.

As I said, I can't parse it all out, but a few hypothetical and rather obvious examples would be:

Will overturning DOMA be the easiest, least expensive, project to abandon, since many in that cohort may be perfectly satisfied to fight it out as a states' rights issue anyway and loser states be damned because, of course, everyone can just move to whateer state that has the culture they like? and anyone who can't, well, that's just too bad, but it's their own fault anyway, so it doesn't REALLY matter whether some folks get their rights and others don't.

Will ERA 2.0 and pay equity for women and all of the issues attendant to that like defending Roe v. Wade and propagating any chance of universally accessible child-care, be the hardest project to abandon, since women are half of the population and represented by all 2+ political parties?

In between easiest and hardest to throw under the bus are tiny shades of probabilities, but, obviously, alternative energy development is going up against the deepest pockets of all domestically and internationally, so that one's going to be pretty easy to dump or drag their feet on.

All with plausible deniability, btw, a HIGHLY MARKETABLE COMMODITY that has been ever so effective in the past.

All of which brings up the issue of time: do we have time to pull alternative energy development out from under the bus and resurrect it? Will American business, especially quality sensitive techs, survive without the right to organize defending it against severe downward pressure on American wages? How much longer can we withstand rising health care costs without just pencil-whipping a whole bunch of elderly and disabled folks, and whatever unknown values they actually do represent, right into the grave?

Yeah, I know conjecture, all, but I'm just not sure that whatever's going on, amongst those you mention who will exact retribution against Democrats, is coherent enough to have even admitted any of this stuff to itself, let alone to have made any effort to identify what plans B, C, D etc. are as whoever gets thrown under the bus, step by step, can no longer be counted on to commit to those who do the throwing.

But then, perhaps, the generational wars are worse than I know and the balance of power, or at least the inertia, has already tilted irretrievably toward those who have more interest in reducing the sizes of various things, rather than actually helping solve any of these problems. That's reducing the sizes of various factors to scales that can be more easily controlled by the, not so new, but definitely more scalable made-over powers that be that take root amongst the "citizens of the archipelagos" wherever those cohorts turn out to be.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

54. Follow the money...

it is, as it always has been, the money that governs everything. This has been true from the beginning of civilization, the rich and powerful write the rules and everyone else obeys them or suffer the consequences. Americans like to think this county is different. It's not, as I'm sure you know, because I'd be willing to bet you've at least read Howard Zinn.

The generational wars are nothing new. Republicans have been saying SS won't be there when 'you're' ready to retire for as long as I can remember. They insisted it wouldn't be there for me when I was 21...I'll be 65 in a bit more than a week...I've been collecting since I turned 62.

[patrice]

57. I love Howard Zinn. I have A People's History on my iPod.

It's great how you can just start listening to ANY part of it and even listen to some parts several times over and it's always fascinating. I love thinking about the REAL people just like us!!!

[markpkessinger]

25. That remained to be seen . . .

. . . There was a lot of public support for filibuster reform. If a floor debate on the measure had been permitted, it would have received media coverage, which in turn might have moved people to contact their Senators to push in favor of filibuster reform. Senators have been known to cave to pressure from their constituents, you know. Just because the votes weren't there at first blush doesn't mean they couldn't have been garnered. And even if the effort had been tried and had failed, the very fact that it went to a floor debate might just have spooked Republicans enough that they might have backed off this nonsense. But, since Reid folded prematurely, we'll never know.

[phleshdef]

28. Theres a lot of public support for all kinds of things that don't get passed.

Reid folded, likely because, he didn't want to bring it to the floor and see it fail. He wanted to bring something that he knew would pass.

[tblue]

32. If only Reid could have done away with the filibuster. Oh wait.

WAAAAHHHAAAAAAA!!!!! Why is anyone surprised?

[rhett o rick]

45. Wait just a second. It was Harry that said he was bamboozled by the handshake deal

last session. Harry said the McConnell didnt live up to his "pinky swear". It was Harry that said he was going to reform the filibuster process. It was Harry that said that he HAD THE NUMBERS. Then it was Harry that said he was happy with the new "pinky swear" by McConnell and that what he got was what he wanted.

I think maybe Harry did get what he wanted and we are screwed for another two years.

[jeff47]

49. There was more than one proposed reform

The "talking" filibuster had 48 votes.

The rest of the reforms had 51+.

Reid decided to do pretty much nothing and rely on another handshake agreement instead of all the reforms that had 51 votes.

[Overseas]

52. My party should have been planning for that moment for years. And learned how to twist the arms of

those fools who call themselves Democrats and wouldn't reform the filibuster. Before any campaign dollars were doled out, they should have gotten their commitment. And they should be grooming their replacements now.

Somehow the Republicans figured out how to do it. Even as they were corralling their members to do things that hurt our whole country.

[kelliekat44]

10. I hope the vets and current military see just what the GOP really thinks about those who serve.

How many chicken-hawks voted against him? And why doesn't he just change parties?

[TwilightGardener]

14. LOL, he probably will switch to Independent (can't be a Democrat) once he gets all

the knives pulled out of his back. I would if I were him...jeezus, Chuck.

[Cha]

20. I'm not piling on Harry. It is what it is.. Bernie Sanders was on some show

afterwards and said they only had 48 votes for the Reform that he wanted.

Majority Leader Harry Reid called the move “a shame” as he announced on the floor of the Senate that he was unable to reach an agreement with the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee to avoid such a delay. Reid filed a motion to end the filibuster, which he said he expected to vote on Friday, at which point Democrats believe they will have enough votes to confirm Hagel’s appointment.

The teabagger reCons are very afraid of Chuck Hagel.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. If Reid only had 48 votes, then I suppose there's not much Harry could have done

You're right. I thought he had 51.

[Cha]

24. It's confusing..there was a lot of opposing information coming out

at that time. But, from what I remember Bernie Sanders saying.. he didn't have enough for the stronger filibuster reform.


Milt Shook has this excellent advice..

If you really want thorough filibuster reform, elect more Democrats. That means running effective campaigns and making sure Democrats win every election going forward. Take back the House and gain a couple of Senate seats in 2014, and Democrats will have the advantage in 2016, when more Republican than Democratic seats are up for election. We can elect a good Democrat as president and give her/him a 63-64 vote Senate. Then, the filibuster can be changed however we want.

This is why 2010 was such a disaster. It takes six years to recover from a beating like that. We can’t let it happen again. You want Harry Reid and every other Democratic leader in the future to do what progressives want? Then stop letting him down. Progressives, especially the professional left, are the reason he has to reform the filibuster in the first place. And we’re the reason he can’t ditch the 60 vote rule right now; he can’t trust us to deliver him the election victories he needs to prevent a Majority Leader McConnell in 2014.

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2013/01/dont-blame-harry-reid-for-filibuster-reform-thank-him.html

[Chathamization]

40. If Reid only had 48 votes, we better get some primary challengers ready

There's simply no excuse for that many Democrats working against their party.

[rhett o rick]

46. Harry told us he had the numbers. And I think all he needed was 50. So who fucked up the numbers? nm

[jeff47]

48. No, there was 51 votes for most of the proposed reforms

the one that didn't have 51 was the "talking" filibuster.

[wryter2000]

22. Holy excrement

They actually did it?

[datasuspect]

26. we can all sleep better at night

knowing there's some dry powder SOMEWHERE.

[robinlynne]

31. This looks like a delay. nothing more. right? There will BE a vote.

[jonthebru]

35. let's hear it for a Harry!!!

hip hip hooray! hip hip hooray!!!
Yeah Harry!!!

[Auntie Bush]

36. The ReTHUGS are absolutely f*****g incorrigible big babies and don't

belong in a prestigious high government position. They make me sick! They have objected to each person the president has tried to place...except Kerry. They are vehemently against Richard Cordray too. Who else will they object to next?

[msongs]

39. republicans control the senate with with a minority. LBJ must be rolling in his grave. nt

[kestrel91316]

42. Does anybody think that the Republicans are going to filibuster ALL of Obama's

nominations for anything at all from here on out? They want to cripple his presidency.

Of course, I consider their attitude treasonous - they are intending to harm a lawfully elected government. Fucking terrorists, all of them.

[OldDem2012]

43. Shocker. Yet another attack on a Democratic Party Congressional leader...

...when the REAL problem is the party of the GOP Tea-Nazis.

By the way, Reid's strategy is to always appear to be representing the party willing to reach out and make deals while the GOP Tea-Nazis appear to be increasingly uncooperative. It's a long-term strategy put into action shortly after the President was elected for his first term and continues to this day.

The strategy worked well for the 2012 election...how well do you think that strategy will play with the majority of voters in 2014?

[DollarBillHines]

44. Maybe the Pres could nominate Rummy

Shoo-in, fer sure.

The greatest SecDef, ever.

Ever.

[OmahaBlueDog]

51. There's a really quick solution here

Tomorrow, hold a cloture vote. If they don't break the filibuster, each day this filibuster continues, starting in states having two Senators supporting the filibuster, close a military base by executive order. Start with surplus cold-war era AFBs (Ellsworth leaps to mind as an example), then work to unnecessary Naval Air Stations. Justify it as pre-emptive budget cutting.

[Cali_Democrat]

53. I love that idea.

[OmahaBlueDog]

55. Shaw AFB in South Carolina strikes me as an excellent starting point

Fort Jackson's operations could most likely be moved to Benning or Bragg

Ask Lindsay Graham if he has any other questions.

[ReRe]

56. Harry Reid says:

... "But he promised," as he puddles & cries around and even stops to stomp his foot.

All I can say is McConnell has something over Harry. I can't even begin to imagine what it is, but I sense it nonetheless. Maybe Mitch leads him on and on and on about promising to work with him in the Senate, and then bullies him by going back on his (Mitch's) word. Why is Harry Reid the Majority Leader? Tom Daschlle wasn't any different, as I remember. Damn, Robert Byrd was better than those two combined.

[Cali_Democrat]

58. The cloture vote has failed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014399605