"Why did Harry Reid go nuclear? Here's why, in one image"

[Emit]

?1384383164

Make that two images:



Via: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/21/1257328/-Why-did-Harry-Reid-go-nuclear-Here-s-why-in-one-image?detail=facebook#

Updated:



via:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024070567

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024069779

(My apologies, folks, for the dupes!)

[Pisces]

1. Excellent illustration!!

[malaise]

2. That fugging simple

Rec

[Brother Buzz]

3. Fuzzy math

[Tx4obama]

4. I think your first image is wrong. See the new one below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024070567

[BlueStreak]

9. Either way, the double line of Obama is distracting

It takes all the power away from the point. Instead of being hit between the eyes with the obviousness of the problem, my first reactions was "what's wrong with that chart?"

You only need the last line, not the one before that.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

5. We should be forwarding and posting these everywhere, plus

forwarding and re-tweeting Harry Reid's video of McConnell pleading when he was For eliminating the weird filibuster rules before he was against them.

[gcomeau]

6. Ummm, which is it?

The first graphic you posted has very different numbers from the one that was on display next to Reid today (see post 3 in this thread). Which are both different numbers than in your second graphic.


Confusing.

[Emit]

8. It's both and Reid's is updated from the Kos diary

Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)

The one Reid had on display is correct - with updated numbers; but, the point remains. This graph shows the recent progression and puts things into more recent context.

Correction in post #20

[gcomeau]

12. It can't be both

The totals for Obama on Reid's graph (Even with the projected numbers it reaches 72)and the totals for Obama on the second graph (82) are different.

They can't be different and both correct. There's only one Obama presidency we can be talking about here, historical perspective or no.

[Emit]

20. One represents U.S. Circuit & District Courts Nominees; the other represents Executive Branch Nomine

One represents U.S. Circuit & District Courts Nominees; the other represents Executive Branch Nominees as follows:



Sources (From Congressional Research Services):
by President Obama During the 111th and 112th Congresses
Barry J. McMillion
Analyst on the Federal Judiciary
June 1, 2012
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42556.pdf

Confirmation of U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations in Presidential Election Years
Denis Steven Rutkus
Specialist on the Federal Judiciary
Barry J. McMillion
Analyst on the Federal Judiciary
July 12, 2012
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42600.pdf
http://www.c-span.org/uploadedfiles/Content/Documents/rules_memo_111213_1243.pdf

******************************************************************


PFAW Memo: GOP Exceeds Expectations…on Executive Branch Obstruction



Source: People for American Way

PFAW Memo: GOP Exceeds Expectations…on Executive Branch Obstruction



To: Interested Parties
From: Marge Baker, Executive Vice President, People For the American Way
Date: November 18, 2013
Re: GOP Exceeds Expectations…on Executive Branch Obstruction

Earlier this year, People For the American Way released an analysis showing the unprecedented level of obstruction faced by President Obama’s nominees to the executive branch. At that time, 16 of the President’s nominees to the executive branch of government had faced filibusters from Republican senators and were the subject of cloture votes after Republicans refused to allow an up-or-down vote on their nominations. That number was on pace to reach 28 nominees by the end of President Obama’s second term.

Since then, things have only gotten worse.


~snip~

http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2013/11/pfaw-memo-gop-exceeds-expectations-executive-branch-obstruction

[Tx4obama]

10. The first one in the OP has old numbers. n/t

[Scuba]

7. Yet Repukes will scream "abuse of power" and the media will echo it into next year.

[Laelth]

11. Frankly, I could care less WHY he did it.

I am simply glad that he did.

The measure passed. It's time to ...

[font size=48 color=blue]CELEBRATE![/font]



-Laelth

[Plucketeer]

13. The bottom two lines of that graph....

show the fruits of McConnells declaration awhile back. Those lines are a record of his intents and accomplishments. Ta-ta Mitch!

[bradactor63]

14. Harry Reid going nuclear

love this thanks

[SoapBox]

15. K & R

Too bad we won't see these charts on the limp media channels.

[Scurrilous]

16. K & R

[Cosmocat]

17. Jackasses

just flat, unmitigated, jackasses ...

[Cha]

18. Oops.. I just did all those graphs too in an OP. Think they're

a great way to show why this finally came to pass.

Thanks Emit!

[Gothmog]

19. According to Norm Ornstein at AEI, McConnell wanted the nuclear option triggered

Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein are two of my favorite authors and really now about the partisanship in Washington. According to Ornstein, McConnell forced Harry Reid's hand on the nuclear option http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/norm-ornstein-republicans-forced-reid-s-hand-on-the-nuclear-option

Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told TPM that Republicans forced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to "go nuclear" after his Democratic majority took the historic step Thursday and ended the filibuster for executive nominees and non-Supreme Court judicial nominees.

"For whatever reason, the Republicans decided to go nuclear first, with this utterly unnecessary violation of their own agreement and open decision to block the president from filling vacancies for his entire term, no matter how well qualified the nominees," Ornstein told TPM in an email. "It was a set of actions begging for a return nuclear response."

He also speculated that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) secretly wanted Democrats to go nuclear so he could use the same tactic to end the filibuster entirely if and when Republicans take the majority.

"McConnell's threat, it seems to me, makes clear the strategy: let Dems take the first step, and we will then bear no blame when we entirely blow up the Senate's rules after we take all the reins of power," he said. "That other Republicans like Corker, McCain, Alexander, Murkowski and so on, went along, shows how much the radicals and anti-institutionalists now dominate the Republican Party. Which is sad indeed."

I agree that the GOP forced Harry Reid to use the nuclear option and I doubt that the GOP will respect Senate history or rules if they are in control of the Senate

[UTUSN]

21. r k nt

[Art_from_Ark]

22. Well, Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas as Chief Justice

was *threatened* with a filibuster, and Fortas eventually resigned from the Court.