Mc Connell loses Filibuster Battle, But Winning the War

[Stuart G]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/mcconnell-loses-filibuster-battle-but-winning-the-war.php?ref=fpb

Sahil Kapur- July 16, 2013, 4:45 PM 435
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) lost big in the filibuster battle that ended Tuesday morning. Senators struck a tentative deal to confirm seven nominees to run federal agencies and departments, in exchange for Democrats agreeing not to nuke the filibuster on executive branch nominations — for now.

But McConnell is still winning the war. In his 6 1/2 year reign as Republican leader, the Kentuckian has so dramatically strengthened the minority’s muscle on routine matters that his concessions this week amount to little more than an half step back toward normalcy.

Where McConnell Lost

Earlier this year McConnell corralled 42 other Republicans to sign a letter pledging to filibuster any nominee to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau until Democrats weakened its regulatory authority. That threat went up in flames Tuesday as many of those same Republicans voted Tuesday to advance Richard Cordray’s nomination — in exchange for nothing. The vote was 71-29.

Although McConnell and GOP leaders touted the fact that they persuaded Democrats to agree to replace two recess-appointed members to the National Labor Relations Board — something they have demanded for months — the real NLRB battle was a proxy for whether the minority could use the threat of a filibuster to force changes to the law that they couldn’t achieve through the regular legislative process. Democrats won that battle.

further down.

Where McConnell Is Still Winning

At the end of the day, the 60-vote Senate is still the norm. The minority retains the ability to obstruct with no credible nuclear threat when it comes to most matters.

much more at article...

[msongs]

1. he granted permissions for dems to get some crumbs. what a magnanimous guy nt

[Stuart G]

2. Yes, in getting a few crumbs, everything will be stalled..

for the next 14 months.

[Ed Suspicious]

3. Thats exactly what I was thinking.

We gave up the war all so we could win the battle.


Fuck me running.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. "We gave up the war all so we could win the battle."

That's all Harry was ever after.

[Rozlee]

4. I'm conflicted about this...

in light of the fact that Nate Silver thinks there's a 50/50 chance that Republicans can capture the Senate in 2014. I don't want us to lose the power of the filibuster when we need it. Not that Congressional Democrats ever show the kind of sac that Texas State Senator Wendy Davis ever did in utilizing the filibuster or that Republicans won't bring up the nuclear option themselves if they take control of the Senate. Right now, they seem to know they can gum up the works anytime they want and there's nothing Democrats can do about it.

[Lucky Luciano]

6. Republicans are guaranteed to implement the nuclear option

...the next time they are in the majority.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Just like they did in 2005? ...

Granted this new breed of modern gop is nutty, but I doubt they would go that far.

[Lucky Luciano]

9. Totally disagree. They are completely unhinged.

All etiquette and decorum has gone out the window with those loons.

They attempted to destroy the economy for political gain already - that is crazier than implementing the nuclear option.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. In the House ....

the "Peoples' Body", yes ... the modern gop is nuts; the vast majority of the gop is not tea-party inflicted.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. I'm not conflicted at all on this ...

nor do I see this as anything other than a win.

Reid got what he wanted without making a change that will hurt ... a lot ... should/when Democrats no longer control the Senate.

Sometimes, people need to understand that most times you must advance the ball without giving up your flank.