General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI called Sen. Reid's office today and talked with a staffer. I asked why
he did not push for stronger filibuster reform. The staffer said, "that's Sen Reid's opinion." I asked the staffer to share my opinion with the Senator: "you, sir, did nothing good for the country today, and are a coward."
And, yes, I called before the vote, as well.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Ptah
(33,019 posts)Meh
rateyes
(17,438 posts)the fucking truth.
FarPoint
(12,276 posts)You accomplished nothing.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)but, still the fucking truth.
demwing
(16,916 posts)so your criticism can as easily be directed toward yourself.
rsmith6621
(6,942 posts)....that staffer did not deliver that exact message without softening it up alot.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)benld74
(9,901 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Best thing since sliced bread.
It's almost like Michael Renny got off the Ufo and addressed the Senate and told them to stop screwing around or he'll do a nuclear option, one that they can't filibuster by phone....
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022254993#post3
Reid got a lot of good stuff in the deal
rateyes
(17,438 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)also opposed reform. Why didn't you call their offices?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)rateyes
(17,438 posts)And, he said yesterday he had the votes.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)on those who directly represent us. Reid is in the position he's in because Dem senators put him there. That does not absolve us from contacting them, too, and holding them accountable.
onenote
(42,531 posts)in terms of getting legislation passed. Bills still have to pass the House and the Senate and nothing the repubs don't want is passing the House and getting to the president's desk.
So I ask again -- what practical difference would we see if the fiilbuster rule was changed?
rateyes
(17,438 posts)The wealthy just got a tax increase, signed by Obama.
onenote
(42,531 posts)viewed it as the best they could get. But if you think there is a situation in which the Senate is going to filibuster something that would pass the House you are dreaming.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)onenote
(42,531 posts)Just one will do.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)This in 111th Congress.
onenote
(42,531 posts)It was killed in Committee even though the Democrats controlled the Senate.
Plus, we controlled the House then. We don't control it today, which is why the rending of garments about this decision seems overblown.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125424025772149687.html
rateyes
(17,438 posts)it would have been filibustered had Harry had the balls to bring it up for a vote, and could have passed it under reconciliation..Another example of Harrys spinelessness.
onenote
(42,531 posts)How a bill becomes a law 101.
If the majority leader can bring up any bill he wants, why have committee votes?
rateyes
(17,438 posts)killed in Senate with the filibuster after a majority was in favor. this in 112th Congress with a repub majority.
One will do, you said. I have more if you want.
onenote
(42,531 posts)A companion bill to the Senate version was never even introduced in the House. Why didn't the supporters of the bill bring it up in the House to create pressure on the Senate?
rateyes
(17,438 posts)next post about the DREAM act.
onenote
(42,531 posts)Far more commonly than not, when a bill is introduced in the Senate, a companion bill is introduced in the House. There are several reasons, both political and procedural for doing this. Your Dream Act example is a good one -- its been introduced several times in both the House and Senate. In fact, its passage in the House came AFTER a companion version was blocked in the Senate. Once it passed the House, it went back to the Senate again and came much closer to getting through the filibuster than it had previously.
I will concede that the Dream Act is an example of a bill that passed the House but was blocked in the Senate. But that was when the Democrats controlled the House and the situation today is much different.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)Senate not filibustered it. Want more?
rateyes
(17,438 posts)died in Senate to filibuster.
onenote
(42,531 posts)You may be right, but I don't recall it and I can't find any record of it.
onenote
(42,531 posts)There is no record of the Emergency Senior Citizens bill having even been introduced in 2011, let alone passed in the House. Two versions were introduced in the House and one in the Senate in 2009 and none of them got out of Committee. Two versions were introduced in the Senate in 2010 -- one stayed in Committee and the other was filibustered. No House action at all in 2010. And no House or Senate action at all in 2011 or 2012.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...it prevents some of the batshit crazy bills the rushpublicans passed out of the House from reaching the Senate floor.
The change is supposed to cut back on the number of silent holds...especially for judicial and other nominations so that the backlog in the courts can be cleared up (a big thing as it means appointing Democratic judges) as well as forcing the person who puts the hold to come to the Senate floor instead of hiding. Incremental changes, but change.
The hang up here is the Democrats have teo protect more seats in 2014 than rushpublicans have and could easily lose the majority if Democrats stay home again like they did in 2010. Then those who wanted the nuclear option would cry about not having the filibuster...it's always whose ox is being gored...
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)rateyes
(17,438 posts)Matariki
(18,775 posts)I remember seeing him talk about pushing filibuster reform and changing the 60 vote thing. He seemed so farking earnest.
This is from 2010:
mnhtnbb
(31,371 posts)I do not understand why the Dems don't replace him with someone
who has some spine.