Filibuster reform?

[politicasista]

Has anyone heard from Senator Kerry's office as to where he stands on this issue?

He did blog about it at the BMG http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/11/a-few-quick-thoughts-on-filibuster-reform/

But today there is/was a WaPo article that says otherwise and some staunch supporters of the POTUS and his administration are angry at him, suspecting that he may be aiding the attacks on Amb. Rice over the SOS slot because of this issue. (Guess now the election is over we can go back to dissing Dems that have been loyal to the POTUS. Gee)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-skittish-democrats-putting-filibuster-reform-in-peril/2012/11/30/153f11f2-3af7-11e2-9258-ac7c78d5c680_blog.html

If that article above is false, his staff needs to release a statement set the record straight.

[Mass]

1. People and rumors are out to kill Kerry, so please, stop that immediately.

Concerning the filibuster, I am sure Kerry will vote for it, but we have to be honest. Had we lost the Senate, would we be that much in a hurry to change the filibuster. So, it is possible that people who understand the issues ask themselves for a minute whether it is a good idea before jumping.

As for the rest, I would have been surprised if some morons did not blame Kerry [ note that it is not in the article, so there is nothing for Kerry to counter. He cant counter every posters that tweet or post something). Personally, I blame Obama. It could stop this mess immediately by naming Rice if this is his choice. Because, actually, barred anything terrible that is not known, he should get his choice.

And, so that you understand better, it is now clear that Rice is losing support, not winning it. More and more people among democratically leaning pundits/bloggers are offering alternative choices (not Kerry). So this mess will get us probably an hawk (Let's pray it is not Lieberman).

[politicasista]

2. edited op

Last edited Fri Nov 30, 2012, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

only about filibuster reform

[Mass]

3. No emotion. Just you posting things that are not even in the article.

And yes, if people say that Kerry is aiding McCain without any proof, they are morons.

[politicasista]

8. Oh. Ok n/t

[PoliticAverse]

10. Why are you 'sure Kerry will vote for it' when he didn't vote in favor of it last time ?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00005

[Mass]

14. I am not sure why he did not vote on this one

but consider he voted for S.Res 8, sponsored by Harkin and that was considered more effective by some as it lowered the threshold of the filibuster as time passed.

The fact is that he has always expressed his support for meaningful reforms, so if Merkley's reform is meaningfull (and I am sure it will be), he will vote for it.

[karynnj]

16. He did not vote against it - he was out of country for Obama, I think

on one of two trips early that year to Sudan.

[karynnj]

4. On filibuster reform, I think you may be misreading what is written

There are several Senators listed as leaning against it - then Rockefeller and Kerry are listed as leaning for the change. The fact is there is NO RULE CHANGE yet spelled out. Therefore, no Senator will say point blank that they are for the ambiguous "it". As you pointed out, Kerry and his staff have told Blue Mass in detail the types of changes that Kerry is for. That is more than is known for all but a few Senators (Merkely and Harkin who wrote legislation).

There is nothing to support Kerry doing anything against Rice - all he did was to be among the first to defend her and to praise her with far more superlatives than would be required. (Actually exceptional as he is her competitor.)

The fact that black and liberal media are supporting Rice is obvious. I just wish that they would leave it at supporting Rice (and defending her) without denigrating Kerry or anyone else. He did NOTHING to deserve that.

It is just as bad to attack Kerry because he is white and male as to have rejected Rice for being black and female.

[politicasista]

6. in BMG or the WaPo article

A POTUS supporter tweeted to D. Wade about the Senator being "wobbly" on this issue and Wade tweeted back linking the BMG blogpost, but the WaPo article said something different, will re-read it again.

A lot of Pro-Obama supporters listen to Randi Rhodes because she defends Obama a lot. Anyway she came up with scenario or CT. As unfair as this all is to Kerry and Rice, the more they hear news media say the GOP is doing..., it sounds suspicious when it isn't.

[karynnj]

17. Do you yourself find Randi Rhodes credible?

I found her near unlistenable - and I agreed with most of her positions. Not to mention, there were a few incidents where she has gone off into conspiracy land.

The fact is that as many articles have said, Kerry is quietly (or not so quietly on the treaty he is leading ratification efforts on) doing his job as Senator.

the issue on Rice is very likely an attempt to tarnish the entire Obama national security team - and it is not limited to Susan Rice. The ONLY reason it has any traction is because of the timing.

To try to explain the (il)logic, remember that Rice and others were speaking just before the election. One unusual strong point of Obama is that he polled higher on national security than Mitt Romney. Romney himself led the effort (very clumsily) to use Benghazi to question the Obama reputation on how much they have defeated AQ. Romney's first action backfired badly and with the 47 % tape nearly doomed his campaign. McCain and others continued to push that this showed that AQ was in fact stronger. This actually gained some traction - until President Obama in a masterful move in the debate absolutely killed Romney on this - pointing out he personally spoke of terrorism the day after the attack.

Now, either turn this around and make a parallel case for 2004 or simply try to understand why McCain thinks this a big deal. In either case, the PARTISAN view (not reality) is:

- Something bad happened that directly challenged the opponent's accomplishment claims
- The administration "stonewalled" and said they needed more time (until after the election) to get to what happened.
- Top level administration people said things that minimized (from partisan POV) what happened and those things contradicted what was already being reported and were later found to be inaccurate.
- Now remember that several swing states were said to have been very close at the point before the second debate. Imagine that instead of Romney getting owned on Libya, that Romney successfully had called him both on that part of the world being more unstable than ever AND argued that Obama was stonewalling and not being honest or transparent.

Now, think of how angry we were about Bush lies in 2002 and 2004 that helped the Republicans to win. McCain likely thinks that what he calls lies are what cost Romney and the Republicans an important election.

If you remember, Kerry was pretty silent on Benghazi, other than leading the effort to get a set of questions that the SFRC wanted answered from the state department. Here, he made the point that the questions would become part of the investigation Clinton already authorized. His other comments were the expected comments on the death of people, some well known to the committee. Note that while these were very supportive of the President, they also could not be criticized as stonewalling or covering up. The only other thing he did was to blast the attacks on Rice and praise her effusively.

The fact is that you, others on DU and the media are making this to be Kerry vs Rice. In fact, neither are fighting the other. This is not something where getting the most people behind you wins points. The ONLY person who will make the decision is President Obama.

In fact, the ONLY people I have any problem with are the people, either on Obama's team or close to it, that are feeding this. In the first place, there was no need to leak names, or confirm any speculation on the names.

[politicasista]

18. Haven't said anything about this in the group

Last edited Sat Dec 1, 2012, 01:11 AM - Edit history (2)

until now and do agree that Kerry has defended Rice and worked for him in 04, but to the average person and Democrat that gets their media from MSNBC or CNN, and social media, that is unfairly ignored. No, I don't find Randi credible, but a lot of Obama supporters do because she defends Obama sometimes.

The OP has been edited because it wasn't the intent to attract trolls, so will just watch from the sidelines and let the experienced people have at it. Peace.

[karynnj]

20. I didn't mean to do anything other than give some thoughts on your comments

The average person might - even at this point - have difficulty identifying who Rice is. I suspect the average person may even not know that HRC wants to step down. CNN has polled both Kerry and Rice - and Kerry's numbers are better, which tells you that DU is not representative. It is stupid that they did this because it realoly does not matter - Obama is the only one with a vote. As to cable news, they are all about ratings and stories that can be reduced to the simplicity of a "race".

I have no listened to Rhodes in years - because I found her ill informed and annoying. I am sure that she has defended Obama -- and I would bet that she has also joined in on attacks on him.

I

[politicasista]

21. Went back and cleaned up my comment

because of an overreach on my part. I agree the average person may not be aware that HRC wants to leave or who Rice is. (Do agree that DU and social media aren't the best sources for the real world). Cable news is all about ratings now and 10 second sound bites than real issues (i.e. Climate Change, etc).

For the record, we don't have liberal talk radio in the Bible belt, it's the opposite and it's ugly. So haven't heard Randi or anyone. She had bad (2007) and good moments like last September, had a complement tweet on Senator Kerry's DNC speech. She can be like Moore (who blamed Obama for OWS crackdown, and snarky junk on the Senator after the 1st debate). She hasn't provided links, just CT. Can't wait for the truth to be revealed, even if it is/was behind the scenes. Just make the pick already!

[wisteria]

5. The entire premise is out in left field. n/t

[politicasista]

7. ok n/t

[Mass]

9. No, the left field does not like her.

[JI7]

12. HAHAHAH

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021908695

and it becomes more clear why he is opposed by certain people.

[Mass]

13. Here's more

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021908822

Clearly, this person has an agenda

[wisteria]

22. n/t.. LOL

[Mass]

15. Isn't it much nicer when expressed this way

The result is the same as when conspiracy theorists are afraid of Brown, but it is much nicer to read though, in plain English, it translates by "we need pork".

Still Obama's choice, anyway.

http://www.wbur.org/2012/11/30/john-kerry-health-clout

BOSTON — As rumors swirl around whether U.S. Sen. John Kerry could become the next U.S. secretary of state, the senator is feeling pressure from a growing number of health care leaders who worry about losing a strong advocate in Congress.

...
Al Norman, who runs Mass Home Care, a nonprofit network of 30 elder services agencies, is trying to set up a meeting with Kerry to deliver a more direct message.

“If we got to him, face-to-face,” Norman said, “I’m sure everyone would be saying, ‘Stay where you are, you’re in very a privileged seat, what you do is important to Massachusetts and to the health care community. We would not want to lose you.’ ”
...
But Phil Johnston, a former state Democratic Party chairman and a friend of Kerry’s, points out the senator carries a lot of weight on the Finance Committee, where key decisions on Medicare and Medicaid spending are made.
...
Many Democratic leaders would be happy to see Kerry remain in the Senate and preserve the seat for their party. If he leaves, Massachusetts would have two freshman senators next year, with Elizabeth Warren, who has not been sworn in yet, as the state’s senior senator.

[wisteria]

23. Yeah, he is much needed.

Why didn't people acknowledge this before. Did they take him for granted and expect that he would always be there. Sometimes and the shoulder to lean on and sometimes as the whipping post?

[JI7]

24. it just shows why he would have been great as President

[Mass]

25. Well, this is your answer concerning filibuster

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20121201us_sen-elect_warren_limit_use_of_filibusters/

Democrats, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, say Republicans have employed an unprecedented number of filibusters solely to block President Barack Obama’s agenda. Kerry said filibusters should be used sparingly, as he did to stop drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

Kerry said he supports changes to the rules including requiring filibustering Senators to speak continuously.

"You can’t just phone it in," Kerry said in a posting on the liberal Blue Mass Group website. "If it’s that important to you, make a filibuster mean something."

[beachmom]

26. That sounds reasonable.

A complete abolition of the filibuster would not be smart, but make it painful and difficult.