General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Harry and the Democrats wimped out on filibuster reform?
Harry made a deal with Mitch to more or less keep the status quo on filibusters. They can still maintain the "silent" filibuster.
It appears the reason they did it is because two years from now the Democrats may be in the minority and they don't want to be denied the same rights as the Republicans now utilize. As if they would ever be so daring.
So it appears that the Senate has more or less tied the President's hands for the rest of his term. So much for a "progressive" agenda. Cowardice won the day.
Perhaps someone sees it differently?
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)At least not since the caning of Sumner. He can't actually walk up to Senators and knee them in the crotch until they vote the way he wants. You do know that, right?
villager
(26,001 posts)That itself would be a great leap forward....
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm still missing some step that people who keep wanting Reid to "fight" seem to know about that I don't. What is this "legislative confrontation" you're talking about?
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)You do know that, right?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously, do you want him to take a cane and start beating Baucus until he agrees to filibuster reform? I mean, I would certainly pay to see that, but it's not what his actual job is.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)kentuck
(111,098 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)not to mention a majority about 4 times as large as Reid's. This notion of him "persuading" Senators is mostly a myth.
He knew where some bodies were buried, so he could twist a few arms; mostly he just had the numbers going in. And he still couldn't get a greater percentage of Democrats to vote for the Civil Rights Act than Republicans.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Harry is my Senator and the only reason I voted to keep him in office was because the republicans put an insane woman up as the alternative. He is useless.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Humph.
If the Repuglicans ever get a majority again they will change the filibuster rule faster than you can shake a stick.
Repuglicans believe in 'majority rule' when they have a majority, and they believe in 'tyranny of the minority' when they are a minority. How come some Democrats, like Harry Reid and other Democratic 'silent' filibuster supporters, are so dumb they can't see that?
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)kairos12
(12,862 posts)The Democrats do what they do best, nothing. In the last 16 years they have caved and it is always the same people. Why do we re-elect these people? We need the filibuster to pass President Obama's agenda, mainly the job bill. Without that it will be the same old thing. Senator Barcus is always going to be conservative, always have been, and believe it or not Senator D. Fienstein is as well. She call it bipartisan, I call it caving. I am surprise at Senator Boxer, she is one of the hold outs on voting for the filibuster bill, as first presented. I agree, if the Republicans get the majority in the Senate they will vote to continue as they all ways have. I am looking at all of the California Senators who are not during their job for the people, Is it because they want to hold their jobs? Who is to say that the Democrats will every get a chance to be the majority again and if they become the minority they will still do as always, cave. We must remember the election when all the Blue Dogs voted against the party agenda, and guess what most of them lost their jobs.
sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)votes. That's at least progress in we might actually get to arguments on a bill.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)onenote
(42,704 posts)A couple of posters have suggested that because the Senate failed to adopt stronger filibuster reforms, the President gets a "4 year vacation" and that the President's hands are "tied" for the rest of his term.
I'm curious what legislation isn't going to reach the President's desk that would have had the stronger reforms been adopted?
And I'm curious how Harry Reid is supposed to convince Democrats who don't support stronger reforms (i) because they don't see where they would produce any legislation because the House will still block measures and (ii) they worry about what happens when the shoe is on the other foot. You and I and even Harry might disagree with those Senators, but holding a vote on stronger reforms and losing that vote hardly helps anything.
patrice
(47,992 posts)kentuck
(111,098 posts)They will just keep it close to their vests.
kentuck,
yes they do. look under Google and search what Democrats not voting or holding out on supporting the filibuster bill as first presented. Here are 7 of the senators; Baucus, Boxer, Feinstein, Heitkamp, Hirono, Leahy and Reed. Thats a start.
Marr
(20,317 posts)The self-imposed filibuster straightjacket is really the only excuse our own party's leadership has left for not advancing a progressive economic agenda. Of course they're not going to let it go.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)of course.
The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/
Marr
(20,317 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)octoberlib
(14,971 posts)I'm disgusted.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)If you'd rather they be Republicans, nominate someone more liberal for Montana and Arkansas. We'll have a more unified caucus in the minority.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)... more partisan people in swing states.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)What good is a 'majority' when you can't get anything accomplished? Perhaps more to the point, what good is having 2 parties when it is difficult to tell the difference between the 2 of them? The only apparent differences, pro-choice v anti-choice, a new found voice on LGBT equality, and a halfhearted support of immigration reform.
Ask yourself this question..."If my wages had remained stagnant for 30 years and one party may want to raise my taxes and the other doesn't, and I don't give a rat's ass about gays, Blacks or abortion rights, would I really vote for the party that may raise my taxes?" If you are honest, you know what your answer would be. Dems have done absolutely nothing for the working class...just look at our minimum wage....nor do you hear them raising a ruckus about t. A Dem signed NAFTA and Obama will no doubt sign the damned TPP...which is an abomination that Australia baked away from. Australia , btw has a $15.51 an hour minimum wage.
So a 'majority' of make believe Democrats is not doing us much good.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm glad I'm privileged enough that I can elide those into a subordinate clause, personally.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)If you think it is, in its current incarnation, progressive, then perhaps I am much older that you.
I never used the word 'just' nor am I demeaning those issues....think in terms of only. Also, think in the terms of the full post. I know those are issues important to me...but they are not important to everyone.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Many on DU disagree; I understand that.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)which Dems can win...that is my point. I understand your position very well and have been stoned here on DU for saying pretty much the same thing. I am a pragmatist myself. Many Americans understand the damage done by outsourcing and 'globalization' so where are the Dem voices calling daily for a revision of the trade agreements that have crippled the middle and working classes? Why has no one in congress attacked the TPP? Where is the call for a 'living wage" ? To many working class voters, we are the party of Gays, minorities and abortions...but can you blame them? Most people don't follow politics as devotedly as DUers...they don't even watch Fox News or listen to Limbaugh. But they would sit up and take notice if we began to regularly attack the policies that have so diminished the quality of life of average Americans. Republicans have attempted how many bills to overturn Obamacare...32 at last count with Bachmann looking to file the 33rd. Why haven't the Dem senators done the same with wages or trade agreements?
Social justice follows prosperity.... Had Obama not needed the support of the LGBT community and their families, do you think he would have come out in favor of same-sex marriage? I wouldn't want to bet the ranch on that.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)and lag behind the population.
Few are in love with free trade or military adventures or making sure Wall Street doesn't miss a beat.
If folks really wanted such, there is always a TeaPubliKlan to vote for.
Response to Recursion (Reply #51)
Marr This message was self-deleted by its author.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)So now we are mysteriously falling short of votes for filibuster reform
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809132
avebury
(10,952 posts)I have reached the point where I don't hardly watch the TV news shows anymore. I have also started to stay away from most of the political threads. If the Democrats don't begin to stand up and get in the face of the Republicans then they will be a hindrance to President Obama's second term. Republicans are playing the long game on the state level and Democrats need to get as much done on the national level before Republicans write them off on the state level. There is absolutely no secret about what the Republicans are doing and Democrats need to stop rolling over for the Republicans. Harry Reid has no business being the Senate Majority Leader.
I agree avebury, The Democrats are their worst enemy, always has been.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)There were 9 Democrats who voted in favor of the Keystone pipeline for crissakes. I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that these timid souls would have voted against filibuster reform as well.
That being said, Reid should have forced the issue and made these DINO's come out publicly in opposition to filibuster reform. Maybe some of them could face some primary opposition the next time they are up for reelection.
bigtree
(85,996 posts). . . or, maybe arm wrestle.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)meow2u3
(24,764 posts)if they get the majority.
msongs
(67,412 posts)0rganism
(23,955 posts)that's how they roll.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)for the impasse in getting anything progressive passed.
I just want to be sure that we can refer back to this thread before pointing the finger at the president.
Just sayin'...
earthside
(6,960 posts)... but one would hope that Pres. Obama is engaged in this persuasion.
He is a former member of the U.S. Senate.
His agenda will rise or fall based on how obstructionist the Repuglicans in the Senate chose to be.
The President ought to be bending the arms of the Democratic pro-silent filibuster Senators so far back that they are screaming in pain (metaphorically speaking, of course).
If he isn't ... then "pointing the finger at the president" when gun safety reform et la. is filibuster will still have credibility.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)closed doors.
The president has very little influence on what goes on in the Senate. That's really more Biden's area, but I hear what you're saying.
At any rate, my argument stands, however. Harry Reid and the other Democratic leaders have a role. Don't blame the president if they either can't or won't do their jobs.
earthside
(6,960 posts)I'm not letting any of them off the hook ... accountability, that's what representative democracy is all about.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)off the hook, either.
The biggest problem Bill Clinton had was not the Republicans. It was within his own party. The same is true of President Obama.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)We need to know why the government is being "made" to not work. They work behind the scenes to make it "not work" so that they can throw up their hands later and claim "Don't blame me! I 'wanted' to do the right thing, but wasn't able to with the current status quo". And I believe perhaps that both Reid and the administration might be behind this the way the lobbyists rule everything these days now and what these people get paid when they leave office (or NOT paid if they don't play by the lobbyists' rules!). We need to ramp up the primary process of next election, and put the *bought* Democrats that didn't vote for these fundamental changes on notice that they will be replaced for selfishly working for lobbyists instead of their voting constituents!
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)make an excuse for not doing what their constituencies want.
The Right fears its base.
The left HATES its base.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Roll Call will have it tomorrow morning, if you're still wondering.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You believe that the President and Leader of the entire Democratic Party has
no influence over what Harry Reid does in The Senate???!!!
I've never though that the Weak President Rationalization was good for President Obama OR The Democratic Party.
My Take on Harry Reid's behavior:
The LAST thing the Democratic Party Leadership wants is a clear legislative majority in the House OR The Senate.
That would ruin the Kabuki Theater,
and completely pull back the curtain.
There would BE No More Excuses.
"The Arkansas primary fight (2010) illuminates some unpleasant though vital truths about the Democratic establishment "
<snip>
What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse weve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesnt have 60 votes to pass good legislation, its not Obamas fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you dont support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but well support a primary challenger against you. Obamas support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"
<much more>
http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
EastKYLiberal
(429 posts)onenote
(42,704 posts)had the stronger reforms been enacted? Does anyone think the House was simply going to roll over because the Senate was able to overcome a filibuster?
0rganism
(23,955 posts)there will be filibuster reform. Believe it!
Vinca
(50,273 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Why haven't we thought of this before???
onenote
(42,704 posts)My guess is that the majority of the Democratic caucus has no interest in replacing Reid.
Vinca
(50,273 posts)If we wanted to keep Republican obstruction, we could have voted for Republicans in November.
dmosh42
(2,217 posts)And part of his job is NOT to put the other Dem senators on the spot by making them vote in public against the Merkley plan. It always comes down to the weasles in the senate having the upper hand. We can now write off any chance of progressive legislation going anywhere.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)by design.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)But like that wonderful Tom Harkin said, anything they do is better than what we got.
I would love to see filibusters, the way it should be done. Arguments, not an empty senate room waiting and wasting time.