The "day" ended finally for Harry Reid and the Senate...

[fadedrose]

Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:11 PM - Edit history (1)

After this incredibly long day, the whole Senate needs a good long shower, as do I, goodnight and thanks for the great company and infomration (Tex)

[riverbendviewgal]

1. he needs to be replaced

He seems to be coward. Now it seems nothing good will happen in the next four years.

[TheDebbieDee]

2. Is it possible that Sen Reid didn't have the 51 votes to pass the "filibuster" rule?

[Autumn]

3. He said he had the votes.

Who the fuck knows whats going on with him.

[TheDebbieDee]

4. Well then phuck-it-all. I just don't get it!

[KharmaTrain]

18. Did He Say...

...he had the votes to pass the Merkley plan for the talking filibuster? I haven't seen any link for that. All the reports I saw said he had the votes for changes...which is what happened today. Not the change to use the nuclear option that most here hoped for but there were changes...and in the end he did have the votes. Reid counts the votes he doesn't make them...for those who are upset, look at their the Senators who didn't support the Merkley plan...if there had been 51 votes for it Reid would have had to have moved it.

Ironically in the other sandbox the wingnuts are saying that Turtleman caved. You could exchange Reid for McConnell in the posts there and you'd swear you were looking at DU...

[Autumn]

21. LOL that's funny. It was posted yesterday

not sure who posted the article. It just said he had the 51 votes.

[KharmaTrain]

22. Did He Say...

He had 51 votes for the Merkley plan? I saw the posts yesterday with no specifics...it was assumed. I went looking for the details and didn't see any news report that said he had the 51 votes for the talking filibuster...just that he said he had votes for changes in the rules. And that he did. If you can show me a link showing me a news report that said he had 51 votes (and if includes the names of those committed) that would be also very helpful.

[Autumn]

23. It might have been the Merkley plan,not sure I just remeber reading

a post here on DU he had 51 votes for filibuster reform. You can look for the link I think it was talking points memo

[KharmaTrain]

24. It Wasn't The Merkley Plan...

...I was specifically looking for that language. I had seen an article about a week back (I think on TPM) that said Merkley only had about 30 or so votes for the talking filibuster. I knew then the nuclear option wouldn't happen...too many Democrats up for re-election in 2014 who wouldn't go for it. Much of what was voted on today is what I saw reported the other day...so no surprise on this end. Sometimes ya gotten listen to what they say rather than what we'd hope they'd say...

Cheers...

[fadedrose]

5. It was 78-15

A lot of the worst Reps were for it (Paul, Shelby and a few others weren't).

Go to thomas.gov for details of what was passed...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. Thank you!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

6. The Democrats will likely be in the minority in 2014. Harry Reid knows this.

[1-Old-Man]

8. Harry Reid will be the one who puts us in the minority at the rate he's going

Discontent with ineffective Democrats, no matter that the cause is obstructionists Republicans, will get them tossed out of office - that and astounding levels of gerrymandering.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. Naw. It was going to happen anyway. There are too many Democrats in very RED states who are up

for reelection. I think Reid is facing that reality.

Also, why aren't we going after Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer? They were against filibuster reform.

[madville]

14. Gerrymandering doesn't matter in the Senate

Unless you consider entire states like Louisiana, Wyoming, South Dakota, etc gerrymandered

[fadedrose]

9. They're going to go all out to win more house seats

maybe if Obama presents his case about health care, medicare & social security he can pull in some more votes.

When they explain something they usually do well. Against all odds, with all the bad numbers, the people voted and shocked msm. He can do it again..

[jeff47]

10. And Republicans will eliminate the filibuster. (nt)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. Of course.

[Berserker]

20. Yes very

Likely.

Gun control proposals could split President Obama, Harry Reid

Reelected and unconcerned about ever having to face voters again, Obama seems determined to push a far-reaching agenda — on guns, climate change and gay rights, among other topics — that looks toward his presidential legacy. Reid (D-Nev.), significantly more encumbered, must worry about how to protect 20 Democratic-held Senate seats that will be up for grabs in 2014, while Republicans are defending only 14 spots.

For some Democrats up for reelection next year, supporting the president will be politically treacherous terrain, and no issue may capture that disconnect better than gun control.

Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Mark Begich (Alaska) face reelection battles in states where gun control is politically unpopular, making their potential votes on the Obama proposals problematic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-control-proposals-could-split-president-obama-harry-reid/2013/01/23/68700e34-6262-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html

[Tx4obama]

11. Reid did NOT cave. He got the majority of what HE wanted.

Just because he did not go along with Merkley's plan does not mean that we didn't get good changes!

-snip-

What will be reformed is how the Senate moves to consider new legislation, the process by which all nominees — except Cabinet-level appointments and Supreme Court nominations — are considered, and the number of times the filibuster can be used against a conference report.

…the deal Reid struck with McConnell doesn’t end the filibuster against the motion to proceed. Rather, it creates two new pathways for moving to a new bill. In one, the majority leader can, with the agreement of the minority leader and seven senators from each party, sidestep the filibuster when moving to a new bill. In the other, the majority leader can short-circuit the filibuster against moving to a new bill so long as he allows the minority party to offer two germane amendment that also can’t be filibustered. Note that in all cases, the minority can still filibuster the bill itself.

http://www.alan.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-im-not-ready-to-get-rid-of-the-60-vote-threshold/

Full Ezra Klein Washington Post article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/harry-reid-explains-why-he-killed-filibuster-reform/


=====================================




Also...

Two of the things that Reid has been fighting against will be eliminated/fixed by the new rules.

"... post cloture time for non appellate judges will be cut from 30 hours to 2 ... "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251280012

And there will be NO more 'anonymous' holds/objections

-snip-

Under the agreement, the minority party will be able to offer two amendments on each bill, a major concession to Republicans. This change is made only as a standing order, not a rules change, and expires at the end of the term.

The new rules will also make it easier for the majority to appoint conferees once a bill has passed, but leaves in place the minority's ability to filibuster that motion once -- meaning that even after the Senate and House have passed a bill, the minority can still mount a filibuster one more time.

Reid won concessions on district court nominations as well. Under the old rules, after a filibuster had been beaten, 30 more hours were required to pass before a nominee could finally be confirmed. That delay threatened to tie the chamber in knots. The new rules will only allow two hours to pass after cloture is invoked before a nominee is confirmed.

The two leaders agreed that they will make some changes in how the Senate carries out filibusters under the existing rules, reminiscent of the handshake agreement last term, which quickly fell apart. First, senators who wish to object or threaten a filibuster must actually come to the floor to do so. And second, the two leaders will make sure that debate time post-cloture is actually used in debate. If senators seeking to slow down business simply put in quorum calls to delay action, the Senate will go live, force votes to produce a quorum, and otherwise work to make sure senators actually show up and debate.

The arrangement between Reid and McConnell means that the majority leader will not resort to his controversial threat, known as the "nuclear option," to change the rules via 51 votes on the first day of the congressional session. Reid may have been able to achieve greater reforms that way, but several members of his own party were uncomfortable with the precedent it would have set. And Reid himself, an institutionalist, wanted a bipartisan deal for the long-term health of the institution. Reid presented McConnell with two offers -- one bipartisan accord consisting of weaker reforms, and a stronger package Reid was willing to ram through on a partisan vote. McConnell chose the bipartisan route.

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-mitch-mcconnell-filibuster_n_2541356.html

[Cha]

15. Thanks Tx.. although I suspect you're talking to the

wilderness here.

Good indepth article on it.

[fadedrose]

17. I've been following it, thanks to Tx finding the bare knuckles stuff

but it's a confusing operation....How come Harry Reid is "old" and still understands this stuff, and so did the late Sen. Byrd (in his 90's).

That tell me maybe Biden's not too old, hmmm.

[fadedrose]

16. Just listened to Rachel & Sherrod Brown...

Seems what we got is a way to counteact against the House when the Senate sends over bill and they don't act on them - executive orders and stuff like that.

I think we have to see some of this stuff happen before we understand it. Brown seemed happy with some of it because he thinks the White House will have more options get bill passed without the House. And that's good, cause we know the House is certifiable, most of it.

[fadedrose]

19. K