McConnell Threatens to Kill Obamacare With Simple Majority Vote if Reid Changes Filibuster Rules

[bigtree]

from Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78665.html


____ In a tense, 45-minute exchange Wednesday morning unusual even in today’s polarized Capitol climate, McConnell ambushed Reid, warning that any changes in filibuster rules would lead to a slippery slope that could kill major Democratic priorities if Republicans win control of the Senate.

“Let’s assume we have a new president, and I’m the majority leader next time and we’re operating at 51,” McConnell said, “I wonder how comforting that is to my friends on the other side. How does it make you feel about the security of Obamacare, for example?”

“Do we want a simple majority of 51 to ramrod the minority on every issue?” McConnell said. “I think it’s worth thinking about over the next few months as the American people decide who is going to be in the majority in the Senate and who is going to be the president of the United States.”

Reid was having none of it, accusing McConnell of bottling up legislation for the sole purpose of slowing down action and hurting Obama politically. He said Republicans in the House, backed by McConnell, were catering to tea party demands by embracing bills that are outside the American political mainstream. And he blamed Republicans for rendering the Senate “dysfunctional” by forcing him to file needless motions to overcome filibuster threats through the course of even the most routine floor proceedings.

“We’ve tried very hard all different ways to move legislation in this body, but for the first time in the history of the country, the No. 1 issue in the Senate of the United States has been a procedural thing,” Reid said. “How do we get on a bill, a motion to proceed to something? That has taken over the Senate and it needs to go away. We shouldn’t have to do that anymore.”


read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78665.html

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Big 'if' there Mitch.

[ProSense]

2. Wait

"“Let’s assume..."?

Now he's making threats on assumptions of future outcomes?

Let's assume McConnell is an asshole, retroactively.

[bigtree]

6. lol!

[Champion Jack]

7. No need to assume

He IS an asshole

[uponit7771]

9. +1

[fredamae]

17. :) and thank you for the chuckle n/t

[Bok_Tukalo]

3. Duh

No need to state that which is obvious, Senator McConnell.

[brooklynite]

4. So, to be clear...McConnell is promising NOT to overturn ACA, right?

Since, he'd need 60 votes, which even the most optimistic scenario won't give him.

[PoliticAverse]

5. Write a story if Reid actually changes the rules. He didn't bother to do so last time. n/t

[bigtree]

8. this may well be just a re-run of that old, familiar script

. . . where Reid grouses and nothing changes. I'd be looking, though, to see if this open debate brings enough legislators to the surface on this issue who would make the real-time difference in voting at rule-changing time.

[valerief]

10. "Yeah, Harry, minority rules in America! Not minority groups but minority Congress." nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. Fuck that bully.

Let's be honest. Sooner or later that rule is going to change. The pigs threatened us with it REPEATEDLY when we were in the minority. We might as well take advantage.

It's time we fight back. We do better in elections when we actually fight.

These pigs are so fucking cynical, they know their brain dead followers will believe it when they say (and have been saying) "Obama had the majority but couldn't get anything done."

Oh yeah, and good luck with “Let’s assume we have a new president"

[GarroHorus]

12. For the sake of argument, let's assume the GOP takes back the Senate this year.

The filibuster is definitely dead then because those assholes will no way allow Democrats to remotely obstruct the way they have for three years.

[HooptieWagon]

13. Let him. Obama will veto it.

And by the time the Rs might have the WH in 2016, assuming they still control both houses, Obamacare will have been in effect for a few years and people will be wondering how theyd ever got along without it.
McConnell is just a blustering bag of hot air. Reid should treat him, and all the obstructionist Rs, like petulant children... which they are.

[denverbill]

14. Guess what Mitch? That's how is supposed to work, moron.

You are supposed to vote on shit and let it pass or fail. The filibuster was never intended to be a veto.

[HopeHoops]

15. One simple change would work - require the filibuster to require holding the floor while talking.

As it is, all it takes is one asshole to whine the word "filibuster" and the vote is dead. Make the fuckers talk to hold up the vote, the way it was intended. Bernie Sanders is the last Senator to actually do that.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

24. Problem with that is the need for an ongoing quorum to listen to a filibusterer

to listen to a filibusterer.

It wouldn't just be the filibusterer who would get worn down.

And the party colleagues of the filibusterer would love to see a quorum call fail and then adjourn the Senate, killing the bill in question. Party colleauges of the filibusterer would be off somewhere getting great sleep while majority party Senators would have to keep vigilant watch.

[HopeHoops]

25. That's not how I understand the current rules. You just need one to START.

Sanders basically talked to an empty chamber for 8 hours. You DO need to keep the talking going by passing off the podium. It doesn't even matter what you say. I forget when or who, but I remember reading about a Senator who just read from some book for the entire time - totally unrelated to the bill in question.

Personally, I think the filibuster is a total abuse of the Constitution with the MINOR exception that the Constitution does allow for the Senate to determine its rules for the term at the beginning of the term. With the way that the GOP has abused it, I think it should go away. For so long it was a rarely used technique and now it's McConnell's only strategy. It isn't like the GOP has any actual solutions to anything.

[TlalocW]

16. The ironic thing is

If Mitch's wet dream comes true, and they've got 51 senators, and they try and repeal Obamacare. First off, Obama would veto it of course, but it would be deliciously ironic if Reid led a filibuster against the vote before it even went to the pres.

TlalocW

[kentuck]

18. Day late...dollar short...

If the Repubs win the Senate, Reid will not change the filibuster rule. Democrats will still be in charge until January, 2013. Republicans can change it if they want and they probably will so they can over-ride Obamacare and whatever else they do not like.

[Arkana]

19. That there's a big 'if', Turtleface.

If you don't have President Rubberstamp Romney in the White House your plan falls apart.

[fredamae]

20. IF The GOP were So Confident

the GOP will Sweep the nation in a "swath of red" this fall-Why then does he Fear Filibuster Reform? And That Was Fear.
mcconnells "gutteral" response is quite revealing.

[MiniMe]

21. Mitch is "assuming" that the repukes take the Senate AND

the current President loses. Can we retroactively kick his ass

[kentuck]

22. This is when you need a strong Majority Leader...

He needs to call each Senator into his office and know exactly how he is going to vote before calling a vote and I'm sure Harry will do that. If he doesn't have the vote, he should be able to "persuade" him to vote in the Party's favor. I'm not sure Harry will do that?

[standingtall]

23. Repukes tried to kill the filibuster last time they had the majority.

The repukes will kill the filibuster the next time they have the senate anyway. So the dems should kill it now while they have the majority, and can get some stuff done.

[spanone]

26. fuck mcconnell, change the rule the day after we win the election.

[Renew Deal]

27. Don't these guys talk about the "Founders" all the time?

Was the "filibuster" in the constitution? When was it introduced Mitch?