Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell Reach Filibuster Reform Deal

[kpete]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- Progressive senators working to dramatically alter Senate rules were defeated on Thursday, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and his counterpart, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), set to announce a series of compromise reforms on the Senate floor that fall far short of the demands. The language of the deal was obtained by HuffPost and can be read here and here.

The pressure from the liberal senators, led by Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley and backed by a major coalition of progressive groups, created the political space for Reid to cut the deal with McConnell, which does include changes to how the Senate operates, but leaves a fundamental feature, the silent filibuster, in place.

The deal would address the filibuster on the motion to proceed, which had regularly prevented the Senate from even considering legislation and was a major frustration for Reid. The new procedure 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 judicial 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 after cloture is invoked.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-mitch-mcconnell-filibuster_n_2541356.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

---

hrumphhhhhfff

[Pab Sungenis]

1. Reid needs to go.

I've never seen a Majority Leader more adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Purveyor]

10. I said that right after the election to anyone that would listen. Damn few would. Pelosi isn't

much better, imo.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

65. I disagree. Nancy presided over the most productive House in U.S. history. What she got passed was

blocked in the Senate, thanks to the cowardice of Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats.

[harmonicon]

48. No shit. If you look up milquetoast in a dictionary, his picture is there.

He's like a reverse movie villain. He'll lay out a good plan, explain that he's not going to do it NOW for x,y,z reason, and then have it foiled very easily in very obvious ways.

[NOVA_Dem]

50. Reid needs to be replaced.

A lot of talk by leadership and then stabbed in the back by people like Levin and Feinstein.

[snooper2]

91. you have any idea how hard it is to negotiate with a turtle?

[Botany]

2. but leaves a fundamental feature, the silent filibuster, in place

[Ian Iam]

9. Silent Filibuster

Oxymoronic. Or perhaps just moronic without addendum!

[Botany]

15. Watch how quick McConnell and company use the silent filibuster to block ..

.... Sen. Feinstien's assault rifle ban.

[cascadiance]

22. And Feinstein was listed as one of the seven not on board with talking fillibuster...

So maybe she WANTS them to block her bill as an excuse to say she wanted the "right thing" to be done, but the senate Democrats don't have to answer for how the bill is filibustered to make sure the gun manufacturers and other "funders" still get their way...

Reid...



Merkley for Senate Majority leader in the next session after we see four more years of record-breaking obstruction!

[KoKo]

54. Feinstein is notorious for proposing bills that sound Liberal...but, then go down.

However they are always sent out to the media.

So many dashed hopes with her and Reid...I ignore most of the first Press releases until the details and votes come out.

[Bette Noir]

73. Hear, hear! Merkley for Senate Majority Leader.

If he's not on the Presidential ticket.

[Dr_Scholl]

30. Like it had any chance of passing to begin with.

[hack89]

45. Senate Dems will be blocking Sen. Feinstein's assault rifle ban.

If there is a path to new gun laws, it has to come through West Virginia and a dozen other states with Democratic senators like Mr. Manchin who are confronting galvanized constituencies that view any effort to tighten gun laws as an infringement.

On Thursday a group of Democratic senators led by Dianne Feinstein of California plans to introduce a bill that would outlaw more than 100 different assault weapons, setting up what promises to be a fraught and divisive debate over gun control in Congress in the coming weeks. But a number of centrist lawmakers like Mr. Manchin have already thrown the measure’s fate into question, saying that all they are willing to support for now is a stronger background check system.

After talking with the group for nearly two hours, Mr. Manchin left the meeting saying he was not at all comfortable with supporting the assault weapons ban favored by many of his colleagues in Congress.

Mr. Manchin is just the beginning of gun control advocates’ worries. Of far greater concern are Democrats who are up for re-election in 2014. Those include senators like Max Baucus of Montana, who was awarded an A+ rating from the N.R.A. Mr. Baucus has worded his comments on the subject carefully, bracketing them with gun rights-friendly language, like saying the “culture of violence” needs to be seriously examined along with any changes to the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/us/politics/democratic-senators-face-gun-owners-roused-by-talk-of-new-laws.html?pagewanted=all

[Purveyor]

3. I'm shocked...shocked I tell you that Harry folded like a Dollar General lawnchair. Suckers!!! eom

[PoliticAverse]

4. "Progressive senators working to dramatically alter Senate rules were defeated on Thursday"

They had 47 Senators apparently that wanted the talking filibuster restored. I wouldn't call them all
'progressives'.

[Pab Sungenis]

6. No, just "Democrats."

Reid ought to just cross the aisle; he's done more to help the Republicans than the Democrats during the last few Congresses.

[Ian Iam]

5. Old Plonkers

There should be a mandatory retirement age for any legislators in any country!

[BlueDemKev]

7. Silver Lining

I know this is frustrating, but consider this: in the future when the Rethugs control the Senate, they will not be able to pass any right-wing tea-bagger-backed legislation with a simple majority.

In the Pennsylvania State Senate, the filibuster doesn't exist and believe me with the GOP-controlled legislature ready to rig the electoral college votes there, I WISH the filibuster DID exist.

[november3rd]

12. The GOP Ain't Gonna Win The Senate

Most states are blue majority. That's how Senators are selected, not by Congressional districts, which is the only reason the House is red.

[former9thward]

18. Why does the GOP have 30 governors then?

Seven Senate Democrats are up in 2014 in states Romney won.

[John2]

51. Name the

seven states and are there any Obama won that Republicans are up? I know of North Carolina,West Virginia,Alaska, South DaKota, Louisianna and Arkansas.

Romney won North Carolina by only two percentage points. The difference was Obama's drop in support from white women in that state. He got more support from white men this time. I don't think guns were the top issue with them much less than the corruption among local Democrats and high unemployment in the state. I think they would be more concerned about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which the Republicans lied about than the NRA.

I think Obama can help Democrats in states like Florida, Wisconsin,Nevada, Ohio, Virginia,Pennsylvannia and Colorada. He also won New Hampshire. Kay Hagan of North Carolina not only depends on white Democrats but also minorities in North Carolina. She got more votes than President Obama in 2008. I also took a look at the Democratic versus Republican local vote in North Carolina. Something caught my attention. Local Democrats actually got more votes in North Carolina than Republicans but their problem was the Districts were gerrymandered. They had less Districts but more votes.

[former9thward]

53. There are 20 Democrats and 12 Republicans up for re-election.

In addition Rockefeller of W.VA is retiring in a red state. 12 of the Democrats are in red or swing states: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, W. Virginia, and Virginia. All the GOP senators are in red states except Collins of Maine.

[BlueDemKev]

21. They will eventually because...

Nothing is permanent in politics. Remember Rmoney did carry 24 states. And I don't think we can declare states like Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, or Florida as SOLIDLY blue (in league with Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont) just yet.

[Plucketeer]

13. I wish there was a Santa Claus too

We pay these idiots to move forward, not COWER in fear of each other! Sure - lettum HAVE a filibuster - and make them stand and deliver for as long as their lungs hold out. This Blackmail - COUNTER Blackmail doesn't serve ANYONE. This is no more ludicrous than the self-imposed threat of not getting a paycheck if they can't pass a budget! Sure, sounds GREAT at a poverty class dinnertable. But WHO thinks for a moment that these idiots can't weather a few lost held up paychecks???

[BlueDemKev]

23. I am fine with having a "standing" filibuster

But completely throwing the filibuster out could prove to be a disaster down the road. It was our last line of defense we had during the first six years of Bush's presidency, and the Republicans have moved significantly to the right since then (hard to believe, but true).

[Dragonfli]

20. If they get the Senate they will do what Harry didn't

They will change the rules on the first day, they will not do what Reid did and and appease anyone that would oppose their agenda, that is a faux Dem move (Washington generals as usual}.

[cascadiance]

28. Yep, Reid just wants the ILLUSION that he wants real reform to have the Senate WORK again!

He wants it to LOOK like the mechanisms are in place to keep the Republicans from obstructing good bills, and is just preserving the pieces that continue to have them throw out excuses later of them "not having enough support" to get things passed.

As you note, if Republicans had a majority in the Senate, especially with moderates now out like Lugar and Snow, the FIRST DAY (and not even "extending that day&quot they'd vote to get rid of any filibuster power for the Democrats. THEY want to use the power of the majority. Reid, the SORRY EXCUSE he is for a Democrat, doesn't want to use that power for what Democrats voted in a majority of senators to do.

[grasswire]

56. absolutely

Have we learned no lessons from the GOP assaults on the Constitution and the electorate over the past couple of generations??

Smash mouth politics. Have we learned nothing about it?

THEY WILL NOT STOP. THEY WILL CRUSH opposition.

[24601]

74. What do you base that on? They didn't change the rules when they had the majority.

[Dragonfli]

80. They threatened to get rid of it completely until we folded like a lawn chair.

Harry capitulated back then as well as I recall.
We were told Alito and Roberts must pass with a simple majority along with most of the Legislation because the Republicans said filibusters were not fair.

I know that they will change it unless we don't use it because that is how the last round went,
we will probably fold again and simple majority will be the way the Republican Senate does it's business, or we will refuse to fold and they will get rid of it altogether just like they promised.

I base it on the fact that they are on record saying they will.

[24601]

87. Reid made the same threat - just words. It's unlikely that a majority of the Senators would give

it up.

Then there's the aspect that it takes 2/3 of the Senate to change Senate rules (Senate Rule 22 - link below). The Senate considers itself a continuous body since only 1/3 are up for election every two years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Rules_of_the_United_States_Senate,_Rule_XXII

[Dragonfli]

89. You don't appear to understand Republicans at all

[jeff47]

86. They also thought screwing with the electoral college was a bad idea.

Today, they're implementing that plan.

Back when they held the majority, they believed they could win elections fairly. That's no longer the case. Which means they will no longer behave in a fair manner.

[creeksneakers2]

66. What's to say

the GOP won't take away the filibuster if they get back in the majority?

[cascadiance]

67. Yep, claiming it's an effort to be "bipartisan" is just a damn excuse!

... to cover up their complicity to enable the Republicans to block things that the corporate lobbyists don't want, and therefore some of the "bought" Democrats don't want either, but don't want to admit to being "bought" and paid for.

[jeff47]

77. I'm happy you recovered from that 2-year-long coma.

Now, if you study what the Republicans have been doing for the last two years, you might find there's no reason to believe the Republicans won't eliminate the filibuster if they ever get the majority back.

[n2doc]

8. weak sauce n/t

[PoliticAverse]

11. Rec'd so that more people will see it. n/t

[Still Sensible]

14. Better to blame the six democrats that wouldn't support

the broader measure. What happened to the idea of flipping the onus to require 41 votes to filibuster instead of requiring 60 votes to end it?

[PoliticAverse]

17. Note that the article indicates that Reid was apparently upset the names of the 6 were released.

At Tuesday's closed-door caucus meeting, Merkley was upbraided by Reid for breaking unspoken Senate rules and naming specific senators in a conference call with Democratic activists last week, according to sources familiar with the exchange. "He's pissed off so many in the caucus," said one Democratic aide piqued at Merkley. "He has been having conference calls with progressive donors and activists trying to get them energized. He's named specific Dem Senators. Many are furious. He was called out on Tuesday in caucus and very well could be again today."

[cascadiance]

29. Huffington Post article had already "leaked" these names, though some of them don't match up...

That article had been published earlier than "last week". So Merkley was not releasing names that weren't already mentioned to the public. So SUCK IT HARRY!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251279394

[russspeakeasy]

16. Hot air Harry.

same shit different day.

[The Second Stone]

19. He didn't really have the votes. It was a bluff

I've heard that my Senators Boxer and Feinstein both were not supporters of eliminating the silent filibuster. So Reid did the best he could without the votes.

[woo me with science]

25. Isn't our party's acting spectacular? I wonder what progressive measures

they will pretend to fight for next?


So now we are mysteriously falling short of Democratic votes for filibuster reform.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809132

The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

[KoKo]

58. Salon article from '09 lays it out. Nothing has changed since then..

sadly.

[Third Doctor]

26. So the Dems basically would not vote

to untie their own hands. When the repubs fillibuster again it will be their own fault. The Dems in the senate have this capacity of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Why did Reid have to sit down and negotiate with the minority party and treat then as if they were the majority? He may have not had the votes but I have watched Reid for years and he has to be one of the weakest Senate majority "leaders" I've seen.

[GodlessBiker]

27. Fuck them. Acting like fucking losers.

[NorthCarolina]

31. Another possible OP title: "Democrats give voters the middle finger"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/filibuster-reform-poll_n_2218963.html

A majority of Americans are in favor of requiring senators who wish to filibuster a bill to actually stand up on the Senate floor and talk, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.

The survey finds that 65 percent of Americans believe senators should have to "participate in debate for the entire filibuster," a proposal that has gained ground in recent weeks as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama have thrown their support behind reform efforts. Only 9 percent of those polled said that senators should be able to filibuster without being physically present, and another 26 percent said they were unsure.

Apparently a "majority of Americans" equates to squat.

[DallasNE]

32. It Leaves All Of The Odorous Pieces In Place

I see nothing in there that will reduce the number of filibusters so everything will still take 60 votes to pass. It is hard to see how this can even be considered a baby step forward. And Sen. Reid should not take all of the heat for this failure. I applaud Sen. Merkley for naming the Democrats standing in the way of true filibuster reform. Senators Boxer and Reed were huge disappointments in this regard.

1917 was a bad year for America. Not only did World War I start but the debt ceiling law was passed and the filibuster rule was installed in the Senate. And I have to think that they are all related.

[NorthCarolina]

34. BUT they can say "Filibuster reform passed!!! VICTORY"

and the media will sell it to the masses as such.

[Dragonfli]

38. It's the only way Democrats can make "lists of accomplishments" HATER!!

They can't be said to have done anything if they don't partner with Republicans to enact what is favorable to Republicans, that being the case, the only way to make the lists is to put the D signature on GOP accomplishments, it is the pragmatic way to serve Corporations while misleading the voters into thinking they mean that silly progressive nonsense they spout during campaigns.

If you don't support the efforts to cave in a way that makes a list you are a firebagin' "retard" as Rahm might say.

We need fresh Thinking! Third Way lists and goals are the grown up thing to do.

[Dragonfli]

33. It's official, THE DEMOCRATS THAT PRETEND TO SUPPORT US WANT OBSTRUCTION TOO

It is a bipartisan agreement that the GOP has been doing a great job with the rules as is.

It will successfully stop anything "not right wing" from being passed, the ruse is over, only slightly watered down Republican dogma will be allowed to pass now, regardless of the theater presented for the working class!

Our party just endorsed the blocking of all those laws and appointments that are not center-right to right.


I am changing my registration tomorrow (Democratic Socialist probably}, there is no actual Democratic party anymore, just employees of the GOP that serve to give the appearance of opposition to get us to believe we the people are represented.

I don't know if real Democrats will be allowed to post here anymore, so be honest with me and tell me if I will get TS'ed. The party I joined in '72 only exists as Democratic Socialists now (it appears that's what the kids are calling FDR/LBJ Democrats now)

I will no longer be manipulated into supporting the GOP agenda by supporting their right wing partners that now control the party named "Democrats" (an increasingly ironic rather than accurate label), while serving the Heritage foundation via political puppet shows with pre-determined outputs.

[totodeinhere]

39. I understand your frustration and I share it. But the part of your comment that I take exception

with is your taking it upon yourself to define what a "real Democrat" is. The Democratic Party has always been a big tent party open to a wide range of viewpoints. Just because another Democrat does something that you disagree with doesn't necessarily mean that they are not a real Democrat.

[NorthCarolina]

42. You know, I hear that over-and-over-and-over again, an yet

it is certainly obvious that today's Democratic Party would never propose, let alone enact, any prior Democratic reform achievements such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. So tell me, how big was that "big tent" that "has always been" within the Democratic Party when such legislation was enacted? The DLC co-opted the Democratic Party in the 80's and 90's, and the party still suffers greatly from their meddling, giving America two political parties that both serve the same masters.

[Dragonfli]

49. Wow, you type faster and far more succinctly than I, but I tried to say much the same!

[totodeinhere]

70. I don't disagree that the party has moved to the right.

But does moving to the right mean that the party no longer consists of "real Democrats?" There is no party charter that specifies that only progressives can be real Democrats. All you have to do to become a real Democrats is register as one.

[Dragonfli]

47. That is the line, but when they let the GOP in the tents "large back door"

The party began to stand for nothing.

From the thirties until the early 80's the party reflected a progressive view and agenda as well as a willingness to serve labor and the poor over the Monopolists.

It is simply not the Democratic Party it was (and I am) for all those years, it changed in the eighties when Will Marshal thought it would be a good Idea to recruit Republican Ideas as well as Republican Politicians

You likely have very little knowledge of party history and it's basic consistent principles, what you call a big tent is more like an infiltration.

When you become your enemy, you are no longer yourself, they are perhaps "New Democrats" which means they believe in most of the 1992 Republican platform, to me that just means they are Republicans that register as Democrats to get elected and then vote for Republican laws.

I never signed on to a party that embraced the Heritage foundation over labor or the poor, if
I did I would have registered as a Republican in the late eighties rather than attempt to infiltrate the party and inject the GOP agenda into it as Will Marshall did.

Party infiltration and a 180 change on economic, military, and trade policy is not the sign of a big tent, it is a sign of well, infiltration.

[totodeinhere]

69. I have enough knowledge of party history to know that while there were strong progressive elements

of the Democratic Party during the past century the party also embraced moderates and conservatives. Ever hear of Jim Crow Democrats? They were an important part of FDR's coalition and they were anything but progressive. Were the Southern Democrats wrong? Of course they were but they were Democrats and it wasn't until the 50s that the party started to purge them. Ever hear of Senators Harry F. Byrd, Rush D. Holt, Sr., Josiah Bailey, and Representative Samuel B. Pettengill? They were all prominent conservative Democrats.

By the way, I have plenty of knowledge of party history and I don't appreciate your suggestion that I do not. You should not blandly assume that anyone you disagree with is stupid.

[Dragonfli]

72. I have learned you take away little of what that history teaches

You also appear to believe that Jim Crow Democrats are proof that the party should welcome such racists and now Republican policy believing "New Democrats" because such is the nature of the party.

Most of us are glad we repaired the tent to keep out the Racists, Birchers, and know nothings; you believe they should be part of the party.

You would welcome, it would seem, even George Bush if he Registered D, most of us mistakenly thought the Birchers, racists, and Bushies already had a party to pollute.

My bad, the Modern party is now what the Republicans were 25 years ago, they stole the name fair and square, but no longer represent the working class or poor.

You win, it is a big tent, open to any Repug that rebrands.
I am also correct, MY party is gone.

[NorthCarolina]

40. It certainly would be ironic to see a real Democrat

TS'ed for expressing their thoughts on a 'Democratic" site. Hopefully that would not be the case, but our conservative proponents here are quite vocal for their numbers, so who knows.

[Third Doctor]

92. That's what I've been saying.

Certain Dems would not vote to untie their own hands so they must want the Repubs to block the measures the Dems just ran and won on. WHy? Their donors don't want the reforms to take place. I want to see the names of the people that would not vote for reform and I want a list of their donors.

[old guy]

35. This sets the stage for another do nothing Congress.

Make no mistake, as has been stated by another poster, the repubs will waste no time to do what the Dems should have done and they will do it without talking to anyone else. Disgusting.

[demjellyfish]

36. Plausible deniability. Plausible deniability.

The dem leadership has been using the republicans as an excuse for not enacting any hard-hitting progressive measures for 5 years. Without the republicans' filibusters the democratic base would be slapped in the face with the knowledge that many democratic representatives don't give a crap about average people when it comes to health care, bankster crimes, social security, unemployment benefits, job outsourcing, and so many other issues that they have caved on.

I knew that there was no way that Harry Reid was going to take a firm position on the filibuster. If he had then the democratic leadership's choreographed cave-in dance would be exposed for everyone to see.

[Dustlawyer]

37. What does the White House think of this crap?

[Politicub]

41. Can someone explain in simple terms what the new rules are other than

saying Harry Reid is sellout, etc. I get it that people are unhappy with him.

But back to the matter at hand.

My understanding was the existing filibuster rule required 60 votes for cloture. Is this still the case?

And if so, what has really changed?

I'm truly trying to figure this out. The reporting around this issue so far has been terrible.

[jeff47]

79. Still need 60 votes

From here:

The new rules would permit a Senate majority to bypass the filibuster on a motion to proceed to debate with the condition that either a group of senators on each side of the aisle agrees, or the minority is guaranteed the chance to offer amendments.

Yay for poison pills!

The new rules limit debate time for sub-cabinet and district court nominations and reduces the number of required hours between cloture and final confirmation from 30 to two. It also lowers the number of cloture motions required to go to conference with the House.

Note that the shortened time only counts for low-level nominations. It's 8 hours for higher nominations, and still 30 hours for SCOTUS and cabinet positions.

There are claims about no more anonymous filibusters, and that the leaders will ensure the 'debate' time is used for debate and be cut short if it's just cloture votes, but that's yet another handshake deal.

[Politicub]

83. I don't get why the dems decided to go in this direction

Across the country the GOP is trying to game the vote to endure brutal permanent conservative rule.

We need to get as many of Obama's appointees in office as possible and this only puts barriers in the way.

Just when I think I get what's going on, this kind of shit happens.

[jeff47]

85. AFAICT, they're operating under the belief that Republicans won't take away the filibuster

if Democrats are nice enough to them.

Now, unless you've been in a coma for the last two years, it's abundantly clear that the filibuster is gone as soon as the Republicans have a majority.

[alp227]

43. I could just easily scream BOOOOOOOO!!!! but would rather recommend taking action

for a D majority house in '14. that way a talking filibuster would be more useful, the senate by 2014 might not be 60 D 40 R.

[RickFromMN]

44. Huh?

I got an email a day or so ago.

In the email it said something about the majority leader being able to call a cloture vote any time, day or night, and the onus would be on the minority to have 41 votes on the floor to keep the filibuster going, rather than letting the minority keep the filibuster going with just 1 vote on the floor.

Did anything happen along these lines or was this email a bunch of hot air?

[Dragonfli]

55. Hot air, or more precisely scripted drama.

They need to keep the narrative that the reason they only pass center right to far-right laws and appointees is because

"the mean Republicans won't let us govern no matter how hard we try for the 99%, the 1% only got 75% of what they wanted because we tried so hard, so give us a cookie and a vote and
i will try super duper hard next time"

In order to keep empowering the Republicans, they have to pretend the GOP and not The Democrats get to change the rules today, and they only wanted and allowed continued obstruction no matter how hard the Democrats tried.
It is a lie of course, but how else could the Democratic party get away with endorsing and requesting continued obstruction?

Think Washington Generals

[Omaha Steve]

46. WTF???

It is time for Harry to step down.

He won't get a dime from me when he runs next time!

And yes he got $ from me for his re-election through Act-Blue.

OS

[lunatica]

52. If the Democrats in the Senate were in the minority this wouldn't be so bad

I know many DUers want to see the dismembered bodies of the Republicans littering the Senate and the House, but that isn't going to happen. Let them have their one opportunity to filibuster. We would like it if it was our party.

[Dragonfli]

60. One opportunity, have you been in a cave the last 4 years? they did it nearly EVERY

time there was a vote, they have made 60 plus the rule on all votes, for the first time in history!

And our part just agreed with the practice.
If we were in the minority they would not let us do the same, they would most likely change it on the first day to make the minority impotent.

[xxxsdesdexxx]

61. Haha. Very funny comment.

[cascadiance]

63. If Dems were a minority, I'd PREFER a talking filibuster, as Bernie Sanders HAS and WOULD!!!

It gives Dems the chance to make their case to the public that is more progressive than they are made out to be, and would like to hear why the Dems are obstructing a GOP lead Senate majority working AGAINST the public interest. A talking filibuster would help them get extra air time to make the case to the public, with the corporate media not able to stand in the way like they do now with the ads all being bought up by Karl Rove and his bunch to squash that information flow come election time.

Bernie Sanders demonstrated why the talking filibuster is a VALUE to getting things that a majority is not supporting heard about when he's done this voluntarily himself on certain issues.

That is why the talking filibuster is the best option for Dems as a majority or minority party that WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE'S INTERESTS! The fact that Reid is working against this is evidence that he and a cadre of Republicans and certain Democrats care more about working for their lobbyist friends than the American people.

Americans if polled and informed still want a "Mr. Smith going to Washington" that the talking filibuster embodies, even if the corporate media constantly tells them that "they don't want" that to happen.

[supercats]

57. Not Good Enough

This doesn't help much from what I can see. We needed the talking filibuster. It looks to me that the republicans can continue to hold things up and stop any real progress. Reid caved again.

[Fearless]

59. So nothing substantive changes?

[tartan2]

62. Enjoy yourself Harry

because this could very well be your last term.

[cascadiance]

64. I wonder what would have happened if Sharon Angle had beaten him earlier...

Who would be senate majority leader now, and what they'd be doing with filibuster rules. I wonder if it would have been better had she won then. She most assuredly wouldn't have gotten reelected with all of her tea party crap, and we'd likely have better leadership now, though perhaps someone like Carl Levin would have been "placed" in to that position and still played the same filibuster cards then.

And I remember that some confused mailing list owners thought I was a "big conservative donor" when I was an unemployed progressive then, and laughing at all of hers and Sarah Palin's fundraising letters I was getting in the mail. Hmm...

[jeff47]

88. Schumer's the one working his butt off to take over majority leader

And his bipartisanship fetish makes Reid look like Sanders.

[abelenkpe]

68. The silent fillibuster was the one thing I really wanted changed

I honestly think that many would not happen if they had done away with that. Truly disappointed. Doubly so since it seems like both CA senators are fine with this.

[mike_c]

71. weak sauce....

Lame.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

75. After thinking about this more, the Democrats will likely be in the minority in 2014.

[libodem]

76. I have mistaken pity for love

Occasionally. I want to love Harry. But, damn.

[fascisthunter]

78. hahahahaha... true believing suckers

I don't even take the charade seriously anymore. It's all bullshit...

... just look at our trajectory towards fascism. Are ya dumb, or just making a killing while it happens? Where are you? Who are you really? Do you really love this country?

[JEB]

81. These so called Democrat Senators

need to preserve their excuse for enacting essentially Republican policies. Fuck 'em all.

[appacom]

82. if having integrity were easy, everybody would have it.

The democrats blinked. Obama stands up, and these motherfuckers lay down.

[24601]

84. They blinked time & time & time again. How long hs it been since the Senate passed a budget?

No fracking excuse.

[fascisthunter]

90. as if it weren't planned this way