So, I'm guessing Reid expects the Senate to go Republican?

[Marr]

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/harry-reid-demands-changes-filibuster

He's shown a real talent over the years for enabling right-wing legislation with procedural rules, and keeping his hands nice and clean.

[Tx4obama]

1. No. He expects the Senate to stay with a Democratic majority, but ...

we will not have 60 dem senators for a super-majority and without 60 'yes' votes you can't get cloture in order to move a bill (or nomination) forward for a floor vote.

More info here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101727981

So, if the filibuster rule is changed in January 2013 then we Dems will need only 51 'yes' votes to get things done

[SwampG8r]

3. will they finally have to actually

filibuster?
i hope this piulls the rug out from under the whole cloture vote scam
if they say they want to filibuster them make one of them stand there hour after hour after hour defending their horsemanure
it is so frustrating to hear the rationale behind the whole cloture thing as its set up now
i say you wanna filibuster the you better keep talking buddy

[Tx4obama]

6. We probably won't hear any details until closer to the end of the year n/t

[SwampG8r]

11. i would watch cspan

24/7 if thos elittle twerps had to actually get up there and bloviate for.....ha ha yeah for how long there senator?
get talking buddy

[Tx4obama]

12. And I think that all the Senators should have to sit at their desks in the Senate chamber when ...

Senators are on the floor talking.

That is how it was in the OLD OLD days before senators had offices, back then all they had was the senate chamber desk - they would sit there all day in the senate chamber and do their work and HAD TO listen to what all the other senators had to say.

[SwampG8r]

14. agreed

sometimes when stupid people are allowed to talk unabated they hear themselves
but yup everyone of them has to stay and listen

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. Eh?

How will getting the filibuster rules overturned help Dems if the Senate goes red?

[Tx4obama]

7. Reid isn't planning on changing the rules until January 2013, the first day of the new session

that is when the rules can be changed with only 51 yes votes.

We will know November 2012 if we hold the Senate still or not.

So, if for some reason we end up losing too many senate seats in November election, then Reid won't be changing the rules in January 2013 -- but the damn GOP might.

[napoleon_in_rags]

15. A statistical look at who uses the filibuster most would be enlightening.

My money is on the Republicans.

[MrSlayer]

4. He's a fool.

The rules should have been changed in 2007, 2009 at the latest. Without the house it doesn't matter much.

[SwampG8r]

5. i agree

one part of "winning' the majority is you get to set the rules
we let a lot of chances to fix the rules slip by in the years you list

[BlueCaliDem]

8. I believe the last time he was able to change the rules, and didn't, was Jan 2011.

After he nearly lost his seat to some rightwing delusional woman, he returned where Udall and Merkeley had proposed changing the filibuster rule during the first two weeks of the new Senate. He did nothing more than arrange a "gentleman's agreement" with McConnell and let it slide.

Reid has been an abysmal Majority Leader, imho.

[Tx4obama]

9. It does matter even without the House.

The reason Reid is 'pissed' right now is that the House passed a bill and Reid tried to get a vote on that House bill and the GOP in the Senate even blocked that bill from getting a Senate floor vote.

-snip-

Reid's call for changing the procedural rule, which requires 60 votes to end debate on a bill, came after Republicans refused to take up and pass an otherwise noncontroversial bill aimed at reauthorizing the Export-Import bank. Republican leaders said they wanted more time to offer amendments, which forced Reid to file a procedural motion delaying the vote to Monday. Sixty votes will be needed to end debate on the bill, and a simple majority will be required to pass it. The bill regularly clears both chambers with little fanfare and already passed the House unamended and with an overwhelming majority.

"I have been here in Congress 30 years, but this is a new one. Even bills that (Republicans) agree on, they want to mess around with. In years past, this would have gone through here just like this," Reid said, snapping his fingers. "The House passed something 330-93, and we're here playing around with it? It should be done. We should have passed it yesterday. This thing is going to expire."

-snip-
Be sure to read the rest of article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/harry-reid-filibuster-reform_n_1510167.html

Also, only the Senate (not the House) votes to confirm judicial and administrative nominees - and the GOPers have been objecting/filibustering cloture on those nominees/votes almost on 'every one of them'.

So it does matter a lot even when the Dems have only the Senate and not both chambers.

[bigtree]

10. so he's going to engineer a rule that will allow us to overcome the filibuster?

That's good news. I thought only the rw spun good news for Democrats as some kind of fault.

[Marr]

16. It's a rule that would go into effect in the next Congress.

He expressly avoided making this rule change when it should've been done-- several years ago.

By the way, do you ever *not* imply that people you disagree with are disguised right-wingers?

[bigtree]

21. I only question those who make broadside attacks against the Democratic party

It was you, Marr who posted that our Democratic leader was deliberately enabling right-wing legislation. You make an attack like that on the party and you expect no one to notice or care? I doubt it. I can't imagine you wanted a substantive debate over your little dig at our party leader.

I will say this. There is another explanation for your bullshit that I'd offer. I have noticed that some folks purporting to be progressive often use language against the Democratic party which is very similar to right-wing criticisms. Makes no difference, I guess. Bullshit is bullshit.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. we will have a majority in the Senate but

the ThirdWay won't allow this rule change to happen - it would make triangulation more difficult.

[white_wolf]

17. Unless of course, we get a majority of the Third Way democrats...

then I'm sure they wouldn't mind changing it. Of course, in that case it doesn't really matter which party holds the Senate. A ThirdWayer is little different than a Republican and a Blue Dog is no different.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. ...who will say that it's not "bipartisan" to change the rules

I'm all for a rule change that requires a filibuster to consist of someone actually standing up and talking, not just pouting.

[StitchesforSnitches]

19. Funny how the GOP was able to ram through legislation during the Dubya years

with only 55 members in the Senate yet Harry can't get squat done unless he has 60 votes.

The problem is and always has been, Harry Reid as Senate Majority leader.

It is not the rules Harry it is YOU that is the problem.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. That was because Blue Dogs and others often supported it

There is and was no party loyalty by some

[StitchesforSnitches]

22. Agree those 'Other' Dems

are a HUGE part of the problem.

If it were up to me they would not be in the Democratic Party but unfortunately it is not my call.