Discussion for article #222953
Enough with the half-measures, Harry. GROW A PAIR.
2 Likes
It pass time to nuke the filibuster…
The filibuster will be permanently gone the next time the Republicans control the Senate and the Democrats try to use it. We all know this, so why not get rid of it now?
3 Likes
We know for fact that it was NEVER Reid holding up reform. In the run up to last year’s filibuster reform, several pro-reform Democrats said that it was “longer serving members” who “weren’t comfortable changing the rules”. Feinstein and Levin were vocal in their opposition to changing filibuster rules. As it stands, 3 Democrats still voted against reform. The fact is he didn’t have the votes until he had the votes. Continuing to blame Reid simply allows those who are actually holding up reform to continually get away with their obstruction. Doing that takes the pressure off the folks who are the real problem, who have the ability to actually do something about it. More than that, does anyone really think Begich, Hagan, Landrieu, and Pryor have any interest at all in voting for filibuster reform before Election Day?
5 Likes
OH my goodness ! A Threat from Harry Reid… Remind me to be scared, After I stop quaking with laughter…
Stop, stop, I say, or I shall say stop again…!!!
This man is a prime example of not only what is wrong with the Democratic Party these days. He is also one of the reasons I left the Party. “Leadership” like this, I don’t need
Because it’s not going to change anything right now. It won’t move the needle one tick, but it would certainly give the Republican opponents of red state/district Democrats something to make hay over. It makes far more sense to me to wait until after the election
129 nominations pending, 129 goddam nominations pending and Harry Reid says if the obstruction continues he might revisit the filibuster rules. If 129 blocked nominations hasn’t moved Harry to take action, how many will it take. Maybe Harry thinks if he can delay taking any action long enough, Obama’s term will end, and once the black guy is out of office the obstruction will end, and Harry won’t have to change the filibuster rules which he is loath to do, because you know, tradition.
Sure, others are also to blame for yielding to GOP obstruction, and I do realize that Harry is not the the lone ranger. But he is the Majority Leader, and I place the onus on him for allowing obstruction to continue seemingly unabated–and don’t think that I’m not blaming the rethugs here–that goes without saying.
O.t., did you notice the nuclear fireballs reflecting in Harry’s spectacles? It must be really hot in the Senate…
Poor, poor Harry Reid he sees Koch everywhere. Time to replace this aging and senile Senator with someone more stable.
I guess I just don’t understand what he’s supposed to do about it when members of his own caucus are too squeamish to vote for reform. With the elimination of earmarks, he has no lever of power he can use to force them to go along with it. And with four vulnerable red state Democrats and a few vulnerable blue/purple state Democrats up for reelection, who is even going to listen to him? If I’m fighting for my political life, why in the world would I want to hand my opponent an issue with which to attack me?
But the bigger issue to me is that every time someone blindly blames Reid as if he doesn’t need fifty other senators to change the rules, it allows those senators to hide behind Reid and escape any responsibility or political pressure. Real change isn’t going to happen as long as Democrats are content to let Harry Reid be the scapegoat while Diane Feinstein takes a pass. It’s like those who blame Obama for being unable to pass a jobs/immigration bill in while completely ignoring who controls the House. All that does is give the teatrolls cover and take the pressure off Boehner and Republicans who are actually standing in the way.
5 Likes
It is not because of tradition. It is because he knows he doesn’t have the votes to change the rules today, but most importantly he realizes the political landscape is not good for Democrats in 2014, so he wants the ability to utilize the filibuster when he is the Senate Minority leader during the next Congress.
It’s far more likely he knows it makes far better political sense to get his people reelected, hold the Senate, and then pass reform in the lame duck session or next year at the start of the new session. He knows he has almost no chance of losing the Senate in 2016, so it makes sense to wait instead of allowing Democrats in close races to have to defend attacks for voting in favor of reform.
2 Likes
You make valid points. I suppose that if I was a Democrat I might be more inclined to that view, but as an independent liberal and someone who opposes the existence of political parties, I may not take conventional partisan strategy into account.
1 Like
Simply wrong. He has done what his own party has permitted him to do. The GOP thinking it will have the majority next is tempting him to get rid of the filibuster, thinking they will then have free rein. Harry won’t do it until he gets some sign that the Senate will stay Democratic, and if so the blue dogs will go along.
2 Likes
I can understand that but I don’t think the calculation is as much partisan strategy as it is self-preservation. Even if red state Democrats wanted desperately to vote for reform, it just doesn’t make sense to do so right now. They want to do as little as possible to rock the boat while supporting Democratic priorities enough to turn out their voters without riling up the Republican base. Voting for filibuster reform would be just the sort of thing to gin up enthusiasm within the cult of perpetual victimhood.
2 Likes
Would you stop making sense, I feel dumb enough as it is.
1 Like
Kapur Article Template #3! This must be a best-of week or something.
Then Reid could name names. If removing the fillibuster is a political loser (which I do not agree with), naming the names of the obstructors would actually give them a boost, wouldn’t t?
Reid is a scapegoat because he’s choosing to be.
I’ll quote Margaret Thatcher. Consensus is a failure of leadership. The only reason we have a leader is to lead. Otherwise we could all sit in circles and sing kumbaya forever.