Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can someone please explain why Harry Reid can not bring up the gun background.. (Original Post) busterbrown Apr 2013 OP
He's afraid of the NRA BainsBane Apr 2013 #1
Because he is perfectly content with the way things are. earthside Apr 2013 #2
It's his own constituents that he Jenoch Apr 2013 #5
are you under the illusion he works for WE THE PEOPLE? Skittles Apr 2013 #3
Hey guys. When I first got here in 2011 the first thing I posted, I mean the first freaking thing busterbrown Apr 2013 #4
he's never been a favorite of mine Skittles Apr 2013 #6
well it was your first post. Heather MC Apr 2013 #7
Didn’t understand protocol... Just got my 1st computer and my introduction to political sites was busterbrown Apr 2013 #9
A lot of anonymous blowhards around here Heather MC Apr 2013 #11
He can, but ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2013 #8
Kind of disagree.. There’s a whole lot of support right now especially in light of. busterbrown Apr 2013 #10
That support will fade ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2013 #12
that's what he would do if he wanted to put on a big show CitizenPatriot Apr 2013 #13
Man, I hope your right!!! busterbrown Apr 2013 #14
That's true:-) CitizenPatriot Apr 2013 #17
Anything with the AWB was never going to pass. premium Apr 2013 #18
Right. But when he did it, people were pissed CitizenPatriot Apr 2013 #33
In a way, he sort of has. sofa king Apr 2013 #15
To demonstrate his political impotence on a weekly basis? hack89 Apr 2013 #16
I don’t think the concept of saving lives is ever considered a weakness..by any segment of busterbrown Apr 2013 #19
I don't see it as an issue that voters are passionate about hack89 Apr 2013 #20
But you know what? shame issues are huge!! yea and I know all about slimy blue dogs! busterbrown Apr 2013 #21
Because the Senate Rules don't allow it. onenote Apr 2013 #22
Your saying theres no other way on a national stage to humiliate these cowards.?. busterbrown Apr 2013 #25
All I'm doing is answer your question. Can he repeatedly bring the amendment up for a vote onenote Apr 2013 #27
I realize your just giving facts .. Thanks! busterbrown Apr 2013 #29
Sadly, I don't know how to get a bill through this Congress. Wish I did. onenote Apr 2013 #30
I think he can marshall Apr 2013 #23
No he can't. See post number 22. onenote Apr 2013 #24
I think he could bring it up more often than he will marshall Apr 2013 #26
So you think he could bring up more often than the rules allow? How? onenote Apr 2013 #28
No, not more often than he can marshall Apr 2013 #31
im baffled. mgcgulfcoast Apr 2013 #32
about what? onenote Apr 2013 #34

earthside

(6,960 posts)
2. Because he is perfectly content with the way things are.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 07:02 PM
Apr 2013

Reid doesn't want any gun legislation.

He is petrified of the NRA.

Get it?

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
5. It's his own constituents that he
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 07:18 PM
Apr 2013

is worried about. The NRA doesn't have a vote in Nevada elections.

busterbrown

(8,515 posts)
4. Hey guys. When I first got here in 2011 the first thing I posted, I mean the first freaking thing
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 07:13 PM
Apr 2013

was a anti Reid rant... and I got kicked off the site.... My have things changed around here.

busterbrown

(8,515 posts)
9. Didn’t understand protocol... Just got my 1st computer and my introduction to political sites was
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:23 AM
Apr 2013

Raw Story April 2011. I immediately started fighting with Paulites. Man that was fun. Thought they had found a hero of “keeping govt. off their backs” They were very confrontational and I loved fucking with them.. So when I found D.U. I was in the habit of being yanked and wanted to see what you guys were like. I immediately stated I was sick of Harry Reid, his age, his manner of speaking..”Holy Cow” his weak attitude of not striking Repubs hard enough etc. Well I got my ass handed to me and this is when Harry was giving Romney a hard time on his taxes.. So there was a ton of support for him.

Well thats the story which I told tonight because you know something.. I might have been right!!

 

Heather MC

(8,084 posts)
11. A lot of anonymous blowhards around here
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:28 AM
Apr 2013

I tend to tick off a lot of them by accident.

They make me laugh.

Harry Reid runs hot and very cold. Lately He has been Antarctic around here.

I think Harry likes to see his lips move on TV. but I would never say that around here LOK

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
8. He can, but ...
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 11:54 PM
Apr 2013

it wouldn't be a smart political move because it would only kill voter enthusiasm.

But you can bet it'll come around several times over the next 19 months.

busterbrown

(8,515 posts)
10. Kind of disagree.. There’s a whole lot of support right now especially in light of.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:26 AM
Apr 2013

Boston Marathon tragedy!!

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
12. That support will fade ...
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:30 AM
Apr 2013

Us, Americans, have very short attention spans, and suffer issue fatigue very quickly, even on important things.

CitizenPatriot

(3,783 posts)
13. that's what he would do if he wanted to put on a big show
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:20 PM
Apr 2013

but if he actually wants to get it passed, he's going to attach it in as an amendment one of these days. He knows it has broad public support.

The vote has already been recorded. The NRA can't do much now. So if he's able, he could put it up under voice vote /unanimous consent to give the senators cover. Fingers crossed.

ETA: Now we can see why he separated all of the gun bills. Everyone was pissed at him for separating them because they thought for sure background checks would pass and assault weapons could ride on it.

busterbrown

(8,515 posts)
14. Man, I hope your right!!!
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:02 PM
Apr 2013

But a big show wouldn’t be so bad... People need to be constantly reminded of how the Repubs are so out of touch..

CitizenPatriot

(3,783 posts)
17. That's true:-)
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 02:07 PM
Apr 2013

I'm only saying this because of his vote change, which led me to think he was up to something. But yeah, I agree, the NRA and GOP (and four Dems) need to be shamed daily over this utter failure.

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
18. Anything with the AWB was never going to pass.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 02:56 PM
Apr 2013

Sen. Feinstein's AWB only garnered 40 votes, not even a 51 vote majority.
He separated the AWB and mag. limit because he knew it would never pass out of the Senate, much less the House.

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
15. In a way, he sort of has.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:41 PM
Apr 2013

The bill in question has been reported out of committee. The vote against it was merely a vote to end debate on the bill and bring it to a vote, so it's not dead, not sent directly to jail without passing go, and otherwise not iced or dormant. It's just waiting on a vote to stop talking about it.

If the President and Senator Reid agree to let the bill "hang" for awhile, which they appear to have done, that's just fine.

As long as it's still in the air, it becomes a weapon of unusual flexibility.

For example, because it's reported out, the entire bill can be tacked on as an amendment to another bill, and the GOP's legislative analysts will have to be watching for that move every day. Senator Reid can slip it back into the legislative calendar pretty much whenever he wishes, which means it can be brought up every single day, potentially. Republican Senators can be called back from vacations and important (and much more lucrative) business in their home states to maintain enough votes to oppose it, and a great many of them don't care enough about the business of the Senate to be easily dragged back, which makes the Minority Whip's job a nightmare.

Those issues are complicated by the fact that Republican staves are generally less competent in procedural affairs than their Democratic allies (Why? Because criminals search for ways around the rules first, rather than learning how to work within them. That is the most obvious difference between American liberals and conservatives in Congress--conservatives seek out corrupt routes to what they want first, then try the procedural route once their dirty hand is played. So long as Democrats control the Senate and the President is the shot-blocker, the corrupt route simply will not work.)

Republican Senators must now also keep to a stringent schedule so that they are never caught with their pants down at a quorum call, which means less golf, less booze, and less tail-chasing for them just as the weather begs them to forget the jobs they barely do to begin with.

And none of the above takes into account the real way that the President and Senator Reid have been getting things done, which is to allow Republicans to procedurally block everything until a crisis point is reached, whereupon the issue gets thrown behind closed doors, the President invokes all the special and secret powers the Republican Senators freely gave to the last guy, and everyone comes out of the locked room agreeing to whatever it is the President wants while claiming victory for themselves.

Of course, all of this would be much easier to know if friggin' journalists would provide the goddamned Senate bill number in their stories, but like medieval alchemists they like to keep that detail to themselves, I guess for job security. Here, I'll save you a step and link you to S. 374.

Edit: I should add that most of the real action on this bill and others like it will simmer at a level far below the notice of the press. For example, I have yet to see it mentioned in the press that not one controversial Republican-authored bill has passed out of Congress since 2009. But that's an important thing to know because exceptions can and will be made for Republican Senators who can be enticed to jump the fence on other votes, like this bill. We may be able to detect signs of movement under the covers if some loopy conservative bill suddenly reaches the calendar, and we'll be able to guess that that bill's author has been turned.

busterbrown

(8,515 posts)
19. I don’t think the concept of saving lives is ever considered a weakness..by any segment of
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 04:28 PM
Apr 2013

our population... The kind of coverage the media gave the 1st vote down of background checks really hurt
the cowards who voted against it... Nobody in their right mind would consider him weak if he continually pushed this vote down their throats every week. 90% of the pop. agrees. Your argument makes no sense..

hack89

(39,171 posts)
20. I don't see it as an issue that voters are passionate about
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 04:39 PM
Apr 2013

yes, 90% support universal background checks but only 4% say gun control is their number one issue. Those that voted no made the calculation that they won't be punished politically - which is a pretty reasonable assumption in the conservative states they represent.

busterbrown

(8,515 posts)
21. But you know what? shame issues are huge!! yea and I know all about slimy blue dogs!
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:15 PM
Apr 2013

We will see how this plays out...

onenote

(42,383 posts)
22. Because the Senate Rules don't allow it.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:38 PM
Apr 2013

The background check provision was an amendment to S. 649. It was defeated. The underlying bill has not been voted on yet. Reid, by changing his vote to "no" is now allowed to make a motion to reconsider the vote rejecting the background amendment. Once. You can't keep bringing up an item that has been voted on over and over. And the procedural agreement on which the underlying bill is being considered does not allow for any new amendments beyond the nine that were brought up and voted on last week, so you can't create a "new" background check amendment and bring it to a vote.

busterbrown

(8,515 posts)
25. Your saying theres no other way on a national stage to humiliate these cowards.?.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:22 PM
Apr 2013

I know all the traditional stuff and I do it. Call and write everyone under the sun.
I say poll those red states and tell the Senators that they are not going to get one ounce of support from any true progressive Dems. living there or funding by national groups. See what happens?

If we loose the Senate, fuck it, let the republicans destroy the country until the people finally get it..Its better than extending this torture for another 100 years. Probably take only 20 years for the republicans
to completely ruin this country..

onenote

(42,383 posts)
27. All I'm doing is answer your question. Can he repeatedly bring the amendment up for a vote
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:38 PM
Apr 2013

The answer is no. He can bring it up one more time. And no one can introduce a similar amendment to the underlying bill.

Could someone introduce a new standalone bill that looked like the Manchin/Toomey bill? Yes. But getting it to the floor would be unlikely -- it might well get filibustered before it could even be debated (i.e., there might not be 60 votes to begin consideration, let alone 60 votes to end debate).
And if its brought up on regular order as a measure that requires only 51 votes to pass, repubs will be able to bring up amendments to the bill that could get 50 votes and we'd be in the position of having to filibuster those amendments, which would severely undercut the message that the repubs are frustrating the will of the majority if we are having to block amendments that could get a majority vote.

So Reid is biding his time and likely will, at some point, bring back up the Manchin/Toomey amendment and try it again. If it fails, then its game over for this Congress (absent something that dramatically changes the status quo). If it was to pass, he'd then try to bring the underlying bill, as amended, to a vote.

busterbrown

(8,515 posts)
29. I realize your just giving facts .. Thanks!
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:43 PM
Apr 2013

So in your opinion how can desperate people trying to avoid more gun violence get a Bill through during this Congress...

onenote

(42,383 posts)
30. Sadly, I don't know how to get a bill through this Congress. Wish I did.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 07:12 PM
Apr 2013

Even if something makes it through the Senate, I don't see any likelihood of it making it through the House without coming back to the Senate in such a stinky form that Democrats would be compelled to vote against it, further muddying the waters in the minds of a public that frankly doesn't pay as much attention to, or understand, the legislative process in general, or the gun debate specifically, as it need to.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
24. No he can't. See post number 22.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:16 PM
Apr 2013

He can bring it up one time as a motion for reconsideration. But that's it. There is no "motion to reconsider a motion to consider."

marshall

(6,661 posts)
26. I think he could bring it up more often than he will
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:25 PM
Apr 2013

You are correct that he certainly cannot do it every week, as there are rules of order. But my point is that he will likely play a game of both politics and strategy. So I don't expect him to immediately jump on this every chance he gets.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
28. So you think he could bring up more often than the rules allow? How?
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:39 PM
Apr 2013

He will play the strategy, but that doesn't mean he can or will ignore the Senate's rules.

marshall

(6,661 posts)
31. No, not more often than he can
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 02:02 AM
Apr 2013

There's a difference between what he can do and what he will do. Of course he can't bring it up as often as he can do. But I don't think what he will do and what he cando will be in sync.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Can someone please explai...