Now that Harry Reid is all concerned about the lack of "confrontation"

[CTLawGuy]

I trust we will see a major reform of the filibuster next Congress? Assuming he practices what he preaches.

[jobycom]

1. Why? How does that follow anything Reid said?

What does a filibuster have to do with Reid's comments on Obama's style?

[KeyWester]

2. Reid telling Obama he isn't tough enough on the GOP

is pretty laughable.

I agree with Reid , but he isn't the one who should be speaking these words.

[jobycom]

4. Who should be, then? CHuck Norris? Is he tough enough?

:shrug:

[KeyWester]

5. Boxer, Franken, Sanders, Durbin

People who actually have a spine.

[AlinPA]

7. Harry Reid is the biggest "wimp" in Congress. He even sounds weak when he talks about

his "friends on the other side of the aisle".

[CTLawGuy]

3. if you are going to criticize someone for something

you should not also be guilty of doing the same thing...

so, to spell it out... Harry Reid shouldn't criticize Obama for being non-confrontational if he acts the same way. And considering that it is the Senate that is the monkey wrench causing all the problems with passing legislation, I'm assuming that Harry has decided to become more confrontational, and a good first step would be filibuster reform so that the President's agenda is no longer sandbagged by stupid republicans.

[jobycom]

6. What does that have to do with the filibuster?

Why would ending the fillibuster be confrontational enough to justify Reid's comments? One could easily argue that defending and protecting the fillibuster was confrontational and tough.

And why shouldn't someone who is non-confrontational (assuming Reid is, just for the sake of argument here) be able to point out that someone else is non-confrontational? If anything, wouldn't that person be better placed to recognize the fault? If a criminal in prison for drug use tells kids not to do drugs, isn't that a more meaningful message than some high school principle telling kids not to do drugs?

To spell out my problem, it's two-fold. First, claiming that Reid has no room to criticize Obama distracts from Reid's point, which should stand or fall on its own. And second, tying a specific issue to Reid's right to speak just means no one really has the right to say anything, since that method could be applied to anyone. How can someone criticize healthcare who has healthcare coverage already, for instance.

Combining unrelated points just eliminates both points. There's just no focus to any of the arguments around here anymore.

[Saturday]

8. Reid just needs to enforce the fillibuster not change it.

If R's say they will fillibuster then make them do it. Reid can say whatever he wants about Obama but IMO he is a hypocrite for saying what he did, that's my take. I actually think his words were taken out of context though and blown up by the media to cause conflict. What a surprise.

[Exilednight]

9. He doesn't need to reform the filibuster rule .............

he just needs to actually make the repugs filibuster.

This is one of the unknown things about the filibuster. In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. Reid is the Senate Majority Leader.

Personally, I would bring the measure up for argument, and then open debate, and plainly state that nothing else goes forward until this debate over. Eventually they will have to stop talking and a vote can finally take place in which only 51 votes are needed to pass a measure.

Personally, I would enjoy watching this kind of freak show.