For those of you playing at home...here's what just happened.

[brooklynite]

Reid called for a rule change to majority vote for cloture on Executive nominations (except Supreme Court)

He was overruled by the Chair

He then called for a procedural vote to overrule the Chair (requiring a majority vote)

Republicans voted "Yes" (upholding the Chair), Democrats voted "No" (overruling the Chair)

The "No" votes won. (passing the rules change)

McConnell then reversed the process...calling for a rule change to 60 bvotes.

He was overruled by the Chair

He then called for a procedural vote to overrule the Chair (requiring a majority vote)

This time, the Democrats vote "yes (upholding the Chair) and the Republicans vote "No" (overruling the Chair).

Everybody clear?

[el_bryanto]

1. This is why I favor hat based electoral policies

Everybody should be required to wear hats that clearly state their position and what it means - even if those hats reach heights of 20-30 feet, it's a small price to pay to make things clear.

Bryant

[Orrex]

23. That's the best idea since 1787

[FarCenter]

24. Sweden did have the Hats Party and the Caps Party

The Hats (Swedish: Hattarna) were a Swedish political faction active during the Age of Liberty (1719–1772). Their name derives from the tricorne hat worn by officers and gentlemen. They vied for power with the opposing Caps party. The Hats, who ruled Sweden from 1738 to 1765, advocated an alliance with France and an assertive foreign policy, especially towards Russia. During their tenure, they involved Sweden in two expensive and disastrous wars, in the 1740s and 1750s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hats_(party)

The Caps (Swedish: Mössorna) were a political faction during the Age of Liberty (1719-1772) in Sweden. The primary rivals of the Caps were known as the Hats. The Hats are actually responsible for the Caps' name, as it comes from a contraction of Night-cap, a name used to suggest that the Caps were the soft and timid party. The Caps represented mostly peasants and clergymen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caps_(party)

[sharp_stick]

2. Somebody should rewrite all the rules

in that maze of idiocy to get rid of the arcane stupidness that pretty much makes up every day somebody opens the door.

On Edit: Thanks for clarifying.

[JoePhilly]

3. No ... oops ... I mean Yes.

[Laelth]

4. Yes. Procedurally, that is what I saw.

I would have preferred the complete elimination of the filibuster, but I will take what I can get. This is a serious advance for our republic. I am thrilled.



-Laelth

[sofa king]

12. It's also a serious tell from the GOP.

I don't want to help the goons, but those votes could have been stopped by competent Senate opposition. We all saw Harry Reid himself do it every day for eight horrifying years, which is all one needs to say about that.

One good guess we can draw from this is that the Senate GOP has a poor response time and absolutely terrible staff. Thank you, Patrick Henry College, for fluffing up Republican Senate staves with privileged but incompetent evangelical creationist legislative analysts.

A more convoluted guess might be that moderate Republican Senators (who are more likely to be competent in opposition than the drooling Tea Partiers) have cut a side-deal with Harry Reid to get some shit done while the Tea Partiers spin in confusion.

Tonight Republican staffers will be drawing straws to see which among them has to actually read Jefferson's Rules for the first time. There is no guarantee that they will learn anything--their dogma keeps biting them in their assets.

[Laelth]

13. Quite true.

They blew it, and to that I say, "Thank goodness."

This is a major advance for our entire republic. I am thrilled.



-Laelth

[sofa king]

17. What do you think about the timing of it?

I notice that this move comes very late in the first session, and I'm puzzling over the utility of bringing this out of the bag right now.

For example, the Senate is going to go into recess in just a few days, so as far as judicial appointments go, the President could have simply filled the vacancies during the recess, right?

It seems to me then that this move must have been a deck-clearing for some future action. I have no clue what that could be, but since this was a move that will have reverberations for decades to come, it could be really big.

[Laelth]

20. Honestly, I have no clue.

This is very odd timing. With that, I agree. Ordinarily, rules changes only occur at the start of a new Congress. I have no clue what this move is about in terms of party strategy. Do you have any insight on this matter?



-Laelth

[sofa king]

21. Well, I could spitball...

It could be that this move opens up further procedural options, which in turn leads to some larger objective. This could be the fingerhole in the dyke that you plan to push the battleship through later. Medicare expansion, maybe?

It could be that the White House wishes to correctly align its administrative positions with the party that actually holds the White House. One huge reason why the GOP has stonewalled nominations across the board is because many of the President's own offices are being run by Bush stay-behinds. So you knock down judicial appointments one day, and maybe use the same procedural move to unstick the log jam of other Presidential appointees soon after. This is something you would want to get done before next year's election season. Last time we saw a number of attempts to internally generate "scandals" within the Obama Administration, perpetrated and leaked by Republican stay-behinds within the Obama Administration. So the setup might be for a week or so of nomination approvals designed to wash some of the scum out of the Executive Branch works.

A step beyond that might be that the planned flushing of Republican moles is a preliminary step in legal proceedings, but I highly doubt that.

Or, it could be that the timing of this somehow improves Harry Reid's chances of passing a new, modified set of Senate rules at the beginning of the next session. Don't know how that would work, either, and I'm not sure it's wise to speculate about it, either.

If I may step over to the crazy side for a moment, there could also be a national security element to this move. The Republican federal government shutdown in the middle of a war almost met the letter of the definition of a fascist fifth column movement. This move could be the opening shots of an all-out counterattack against the GOP, designed to prevent them from destabilizing the government and the economy.

In the past two elections, Democrats have made astonishing gains in statewide elections like Senate races, but Republican stonewalling, if successful, also has a highly negative effect on Democratic Members of Congress. If we can find a way to make their stonewalling temporarily ineffective, their own media organs will do us the favor of putting the GOP on the wrong side of actual progress, progress that the voters overwhelmingly support.

Whatever else is going on, it's important to keep in mind that President Obama has been carefully lining up Republican Senators for a crushing blow in 2014. If Democrats can flip the House and capture a supermajority in the Senate, we have a two-year window to actually get something done. That is certainly the President's ultimate goal, and he and Harry Reid have worked brilliantly together in the past to achieve similar goals. So we can assume that they are working together on this.

Edit: the President just dropped the "national security" line in his press conference.... Don't completely discount the crazy, just yet.

[Laelth]

22. Gracious!

There's little more that I can say other than it is clear you have thought about this a lot more than I have. I seriously appreciate your insight. If half of the possibilities you envision are true, this is a momentous day for us all.



-Laelth

[Sheepshank]

26. loving the synopsis

I'm of the mind that Harry Reid rarely is a one policy fixer type of guy. This 'nuclear option' likley has multiple facets that can be resolved in one blow. I think you have clearly defined several of them. While reading, I realized that debt ceiling is likley to be an regurgitated issue shortly after the first of the year too...got that covered perhpas?

[msanthrope]

15. I wanna buy this post a drink, and read it suggestive passages on franking. nt

[sofa king]

18. Excuse me while I go check the mail!

[msanthrope]

19. Check the upper right corner! nt

[Wounded Bear]

5. Honor your partner....do si do.....the dance goes on...

It's a good thing this passed, but it is largely kabuki theater.

The Repubs want to block all appointments so Pres Obama doesn't "pack the courts" until their guy is in the white house and they can "pack the courts."

And it only covers appointments, not all the other bills pending/blocked by the minority because....well, freedom and shit.

'Bout time, though.

[Kablooie]

6. Who is the Chair?

[brooklynite]

7. For today, it's Leahy...but "The Chair's Ruling" comes from the Parliamentarian

[NV Whino]

8. Thanks for the, um, clarification

[maddezmom]

9. Yes clear

[renie408]

10. Is this anything like Bridge where you get to pick the trump?

[Baitball Blogger]

11. So, if you were using the analogy of a football game,

What was the final score and who won?

[msanthrope]

16. Simple...this time, Charlie Brown didn't believe Lucy. nt

[NightWatcher]

14. but did the groundhog see the shadow of the bunny before or after the 1st full moon?

[freshwest]

25. Oh, I'm kicking your thread.