Chuck Hagel Blocked: Harry Reid Says He Doesn’t Have The Votes

[Purveyor]

By TIM MAK and MANU RAJU | 2/14/13 10:35 AM EST Updated: 2/14/13 1:07 PM EST
Chuck Hagel’s path to the Pentagon struck another major roadblock on Thursday when Senate Republicans kept up their threat to filibuster, throwing the nomination into limbo as Congress prepared to quit town for a weeklong recess.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor that Republicans were blocking Hagel over their demands that he and the White House give more information about Hagel’s background and the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks.

Angry Democrats slammed that move, contending Hagel has cleared every bar on his financial disclosures and that he has nothing to do with Benghazi – and that the appearance of a headless Pentagon would only invite trouble for national security.

Nonetheless, senior Democratic aides said Thursday morning that Hagel’s nomination did not appear to have the 60 votes it needs to overcome Republican objections before a key Friday procedural vote, setting up a scenario in which the Senate might not act on Hagel until Feb. 25 at the earliest.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/harry-reid-blasts-gop-over-chuck-hagel-block-87659.html#ixzz2KtmpW82a

[dgibby]

1. Harry Reid needs to stand in front of a mirror

and rant until he turns blue in the face. He has no one to blame but himself. I don't want to hear him whining about what the mean old republicans are doing. He and he alone is responsible for this mess. He needs to put on his big boy pants and deal with it.

[bigtree]

3. Reid can't vote in place of the Senators who held out on the filibuster changes

Since everyone gets to pretend like they had 51 votes to end the filibuster rules we can puff up like we're some kind of heroes.

Fast forward to a republican Senate majority and everyone bashing him now would be asking him why he's unable to use those missing rules to stop republican legislation.

But, we'll pretend, for now, like scorching the earth and wiping out the entire filibuster is going to actually produce more Democratic votes.

[dgibby]

8. I don't want to end the filibuster.

I want them to have to talk until they drop and have to be rolled out on a gurney because they're too exhausted to walk. I want a government that functions, and I don't think that's too much to ask. I'm actually old enough to remember what a real filibuster can accomplish, and I can also remember when we had a functioning Congress.

[bigtree]

18. I can accept that he went forward with what he had, right now

. . . and vowed to 'revisit' the issue if republicans continue to abuse the privileges.

Of course, it will be framed like he's some sort of dupe. Thing is, he can only act as far as his Democratic caucus will allow.

[LiberalAndProud]

4. I guess the leadership will take the heat for it.

I hope you understand that with the backing of more Democrats, we would be watching a "full talking filibuster" today.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/harry-reid-has-51-votes-filibuster-reform.php

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) told reporters that the Merkley-Udall “full talking filibuster” approach likely won’t happen because it “does not have 51 votes.” But he said a more modest package that Reid has put forth to McConnell, aimed at shifting the burden from a governing majority to an obstructing minority, would pass.

[dgibby]

9. I know,

I'm just as sick of spineless dems as I am of obstructionist repubs. The gov. is nonfunctional. If this continues much longer, I have no hope for this country ever recovering. We need someone like Lyndon Johnson running the senate. I didn't care for him personally, but he sure could run his shop.

[leftynyc]

12. If you don't think the first

thing McConnell would do is get rid of the fillibuster, you're dreaming.

[dgibby]

17. As I said in another post, I don't want to get rid of the filibuster,

I want to strenghten it, make them work for it.

[leftynyc]

21. Excellent idea

Make them read the phone book. Make it hurt.

[pampango]

2. I know they think they're keeping their base happy and preventing a primary challenge from the right

but talk about shooting yourself in the foot with Democrats and independents. It's like they learned nothing from last year's debacle. They may succeed in 'defeating' Obama on the Hagel nomination, but that will not be the 'win' they think it is.

[HooptieWagon]

5. I thought Harry had a deal with Rs inre approving nominees?

I guess that didn't last long. Even North Korea's word is better than Republican's. Way to go Harry, you dumb ass. You had your chance to fix republicans filibuster and obstruction. You trusted them. You fucked up.

[bullwinkle428]

13. I was about make the very same post - I swear on my mom's life that this

was one of the provisions of the whole "fiscal cliff deal" on January 1. McConnell allegedly agreed that ALL of PBO's nominations would go through without a fight!

Harry and his fucking "gentleman's agreements" with Turtle-Man!

[KharmaTrain]

6. The Media War Now Begins...

...the rushpublicans hope they can create the media buzz that Hagel can't be confirmed and put the pressure on the White House to withdraw the nomination. It's not just Hagel...this is to embarrass this administration as there are also "holds" on Brennan and Lew's nominations. This has now turned into a pissing match to see who can and will outlast who. The rushpublicans care little about governing...they're only going to pander to their shrinking base and big money masters.

Shame on the 9 Senators that I know of who wouldn't support the talking filibuster...now let's see who can stare down who. The legislative is fully dysfunctional...

[sadbear]

7. Some DU'ers assured me that there was real filibuster reform this time.

I'm waiting for them to take it all back.

[deutsey]

10. My. What a shock.

[dmosh42]

11. The filibuster rule is pure bullshit and not covered by constitutional law.

From what I have read it was included as an agreement in the early 1800s, and survives as a rule set up in the senate chambers. Challenges should be allowed legally as it surely is a danger to national security.

[oldhippie]

16. On what Constitutional grounds would you challenge it?

"Danger to national security" is not a cause of action. It's an opinion.

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

How does it violate the Constitution?

[dmosh42]

23. Ooops, ok, I stand in error on that after I re-read my constitution.

[OldDem2012]

14. The more the GOP Tea-Nazis exercise their self-proclaimed right to obstruct....

....the more likely more will be sent home in 2014, and the closer the Democratic Party will come to a complete majority for the President's last two years in office.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. Channeling my inner Dude here:

And what was all that shit about Benghazi? What the FUCK, has anything got to do with Benghazi? What the fuck are you talking about?

[indypaul]

19. The U S Senate

Last edited Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:32 PM - Edit history (1)

is rapidly approaching the same degree of historic governance as that of the
Senate of 1855-1860. I am therefore pleased to announce a new award to Senator
Graham of the Robert Barnwelll Rhett Award. Since both Senators from
South Carolina appear to have the same reasoning about nullification and the
ability to expound the theory of obstructing progress. Since when is 51
no longer a majority of 100?

Let's have a vote and move on.

[EastKYLiberal]

20. Meh. Arrest them one-by-one for jeopardizing national security...

Until they schedule a vote.

[Ter]

24. Stop

n/t

[WinkyDink]

22. Next up: a Democrat?