General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre Obama's progressive hints and Reid's capitulation all of a piece?
Reid's capitulation on filibuster gives Obama cover to make any kind of progressive happy talk, both of them knowing that there's no chance for any movement forward in Senate and House.
So we must ask: was this coordinated? Obama's inaugural speech raised the hearts and hopes of many on the left. Then Reid's deal with the devils (a total reversal of his previous intentions) cemented any progressive legislation dead on arrival.
Is this strategy? Coordinated?
Or happenstance?
Has there been any comment from the WH on Reid's capitulation?
lunatica
(53,410 posts)That's a mighty stretch there pilgrim.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)already knew we would working against our "elected officials" in order to do anything.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,237 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)....ways that don't look like weakness, we Democrats will all be on the same page.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)now on when the DNC calls and asks for money I am going to tell them if there isn't a FDR democrat running am not going to give them money..
leftstreet
(36,111 posts)Lesmoderesstupides
(156 posts)Besides Pres Obamas words rarely if ever are the same as his actions so your theory does hold water.
Still Sensible
(2,870 posts)the current, gerrymandered make up of the House already cements a ceiling on the potential amount and speed of progressive legislation in the next couple years.
I don't think the President and Reid sat down and said "gee, here's a great plan to fuck liberals!"
In the near term, my disgust for the tepid deal Reid brokered with McConnell is because it doesn't do very much to open the floodgates and get the President's appointments expedited.
If Reid, for lack of votes, had to abandon the "speaking" filibuster, I certainly wanted the onus switched to the minority so that they would have to actually produce the 41 votes... instead, the onus remains on the majority to produce their 60. For the life of me, I can't understand why Reid couldn't/didn't at least do that.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Reid played us all.
"Reformers in and out of the Senate believe that Reid tapped into their enthusiasm to advance his goal."
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Reid didn't "capitulate". He just knows how to fucking count. When is DU and the progressive community as a whole going to attempt to get better at Senate math?
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)This reportedly was his plan from the get-go.
"Reformers in and out of the Senate believe that Reid tapped into their enthusiasm to advance his goal."
He played us.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)because in their/our living rooms, on our couches, in our basements, in our bedrooms, the solution always is, "All we gotta do is ...", because that's as far as it'll go - from their/our living rooms, on our couches, in our basements, in our bedrooms, onto the internet.
Whereas, in DC, the Statehouse, City Council Chambers, those capitulating, caving, triangulating folks, are not afforded that luxury, someboby actually has to do something with what they come up with, and not all of them are on your side.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)RedstDem
(1,239 posts)yes...
or more precisely, duh!
forestpath
(3,102 posts)After President Obama put SS cuts on the table in December, what he said about it and Medicare in his inaugural speech didn't get my hopes up.
So, I don't think he and Harry Reid needed to coordinate with each other because they already knew exactly where the other one already really stood anyway.