Poll: Did Harry Reid Kill Real Filbuster Reform To Prevent Real Change

[Purveyor]

It sure looks like, if Harry Reid wanted to, he could have found 51 votes, especially if he used pressure and negotiation, to pass real filibuster reform-- the Mr Smith Goes to Washington kind, the elimination of single senator holds.

But he didn't. Now, he gets to use the filibuster as an excuse for not getting anything done.

Of course, the argument people use to defend him is that he fears the time when the GOP controls the senate, and wants to reserve the filibuster for Democrats when they are in the minority.

More with source site poll... http://www.opednews.com/populum/page_poll.php

29 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	NO. Reid was being practical, avoiding the time when Republicans control the senate.
	6 (21%)
	Yes. Reid wanted to keep gridlock and the status quo.
	18 (62%)
	Not sure.
	5 (17%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[TwilightGardener]

1. Avoid controversial votes, keep your job. R and D Senators operate by the same basic principles.

Obstruction works well for just about everyone in Congress.

[djean111]

2. Well then, why bother legislating anything at all?

Everything can be changed, sooner or later.

[Cal33]

10. Maybe just to keep up appearances and hope not to look so bad?

[liberalmuse]

3. He's not as strong as we hoped he'd be.

I like Reid, but he's never been the leader I'd envisioned. He talks a good game, but pulling it off is another story. I've not been in his position, and don't know everything he's up against, so I can't really judge his character, but I can say it is disappointing to see yet another positive reform get shot down. Democrat or Republican, Congress is a good 'ol boys club who get tons of perks. Why would they want to rock the boat for the people they are supposed to represent? How do they line their pockets and get future job positions as CEO's of the companies who've bought and paid for them doing that?

[blkmusclmachine]

4. 4 More Years Of The Last 4 Years.

That's the way they like it. Easier to pass a right-of-center agenda.

[demwing]

5. Reid either tried and failed

or failed to try.

Either case, he shouldn't be Majority Leader.

[Third Doctor]

6. I totally agree.

I have seen this coming from Reid more than once and I made excuses and explained it away. But the truth of the matter is plain to see now. It was combination of his poor leadership and status quo/corporatist dems that sank this.

[HubertHeaver]

7. Harry Reid is no Lyndon Johnson. n/t

[msongs]

8. politicians who never even try never get... nt

[stultusporcos]

9. Of course he did and in a few months after the next disclosure cycle we will see who

bought him and who he will be beholden too.

Look for a thread from me on it

[MiniMe]

11. We may be thanking him if we lose the Senate in 2014

That is a big if there, but a lot of dem Senators retiring in 2014, so you never know

[butterflygirl]

12. Do not agree.

I don't know why but the way things are going for the repubs, my bet is on the democrats picking up more senate seats. The country is becoming more aware of what these repubs are up to and it's not of their liking. Americans were smarter then the repubs gave us credit for.

While a lot of people were running around wringing their hands about Obama winning, I never had one moment of doubt he would win by a big margin. Everyone was talking about how the polls were so close. Pundits on both MSNBC and Current (don't watch Faux or CNN) were even saying they thought Obama would win but it would be close. All I did was laugh and yell at the tv that they didn't know what they were talking about. I was right.

Now, I am aware that a lot will depend on the turnout for the 2014 election, but still, I really believe that this country is like a sleeping giant starting to wake up pay attention. Boner says Obama is trying to annihilate them, I say their doing a fine job on their own.