Is Harry Reid a wimp?

[babylonsister]

Is Harry Reid a wimp?
Posted by Jonathan Zasloff

All along the blue blogosphere, the cries ring out for Harry Reid's head--or all the Senate Democrats. And it has been a pretty bad couple of days if you're a progressive. In the last week, the putatively Democratic Senate has:

1) Failed to break a GOP filibuster on a bill restoring habeas corpus;
2) Failed to break a GOP filibuster on the Webb Amendment; and
3) Managed to condemn MoveOn.org for suggesting that maybe David Petraeus is not the second coming of George Marshall.

The question, of course, is why Harry Reid lets them get away with it. He can't change the Senate rules, of course, but he can make the Republicans stand there and openly tell the public why it doesn't want soliders to have adequate rest. It would make a good sound bite: "The Democrats want to protect the troops; the Republicans want to protect the President." So why doesn't he?

I asked a colleague of mine who is an expert on Congress. This is what she said. Take it for what it's worth:

1. The Democrats are very invested in the notion that they can get the appropriations bills enacted in a timely manner. This shows their ability to govern.

2. The Democrats are also very invested in getting S-CHIP reauthorized. Many Republicans are VERY nervous about not getting this done: their governors and publics are screaming at them about this. The Democrats may not be able to override the President's veto, but would be happy to have him veto S-CHIP and undermine the Republicans in their districts.

more...

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/political_science_/2007/09/is_harry_reid_a_wimp.php

[beaconess]

1. How can the Democratic leader "break a filibuster" when he only has 51 Senators on his team?

Harry Reid did an excellent job in keeping every single one of his troops in line and even attracting some Republicans to vote with them. But it's extremely unfair - and unreasonable - to expect him to gather 60 votes when he only has 51 to work with! Even Lyndon Johnson probably couldn't have managed that!

From your post: The question, of course, is why Harry Reid lets them get away with it. He can't change the Senate rules, of course, but he can make the Republicans stand there and openly tell the public why it doesn't want soliders to have adequate rest. It would make a good sound bite: "The Democrats want to protect the troops; the Republicans want to protect the President." So why doesn't he?

Actually he has - in fact, you quoted him almost verbatim: "They want to protect the president more than they want to protect our troops," he said just the other day.

[Vincardog]

2. He does not need any votes not to schedule a vote. He does not have to let the rePIGs have a chance

to vote on any of their hateful amendments.

[beaconess]

5. Do you understand the Senate rules? They don't operate the same as House rules

In these instances, he often doesn't have a choice about scheduling a vote.

But you've changed the markers. First you claimed that he should have been able to stop the filibuster. Now you're claiming he shouldn't have scheduled the vote in the first place. Both arguments completely ignore how the Senate operates and what Reid has to work with. Perhaps if you better understood all of this, you would direct your anger to those who are actually causing the problem instead of at those who are trying to do something about it.

[Vincardog]

9. The OP said "why can't he stop the filibuster". I said the Majority party

controls the schedule and is the chair of all committees. The damn hate amendments should never get out of committee or be allowed on the floor for a vote. Remember when the rePIGS had control and the Democratic Seniors could not get a word in edgewise?

[ccpup]

3. I agree with you

but perhaps it might be better next time to have the Repugs go ahead and do an old-fashioned filibuster instead of CONSTANTLY capitulating and giving these Neanderthals what they want. When we were the Minority Party, the pugs just walked all over us and yet we show them a sense of respect and kindness they will NEVER return. I sometimes feel like an abused partner who gets fucked over, but still somehow believes it'll be better next time if I give them a second chance only to get royally fucked over again ... and not even in a good way! I'm steadily losing patience with the Dems inability to grow a fuckin' backbone.

[beaconess]

6. There is no such thing as an "old-fashioned" filibuster anymore

The Senate rules were changed in the 1960s to no longer require that the minority actually stand up and talk and talk and talk in order to mount a filibuster. They just refuse to allow the matter to go to a vote.

Also, the problem is not the lack of backbone, it's the lack of Democratic Senators. The Dems are, amazingly, all on the same page and are voting one solid block on most of these measures. But they just don't have the numbers to overcome a Republican filibuster, much less a presidential veto.

[ccpup]

11. thank you for the clarification

beaconess. Unfortunately, the facts you offered still don't disguise the fact that many -- myself included -- see the Dems being walked all over by the repugs and doing little, if anything, to stop it. I just think we're being too nice! The future of our Democracy -- not to mention thousands of our soldiers' lives overseas -- is at stake and we're allowing the Minority Party to evidently call the shots. So, I'm still waiting for that backbone, although more Senators always helps. As for the repug filibuster and the Presidential veto ... let them do it and then hit the airwaves HARD with the same message of repuglican obstructionism. I still think the Dems get caught wide-eyed and flat-footed when it comes to controlling the message. Sure, the media will spin it to the repug's advantage, but the Dems can spin it right back and continue spinning it back until the it becomes obvious whose "side" the media is on.

[beaconess]

13. The Republicans DID filibuster! They got more than 40 votes to block the bill

And because they did, it did not get to a vote that could have led to a veto.

Once more than 40 Republicans block the bill, it's blocked! The Democrats took it as far as they could!

[ccpup]

17. okay, okay

(sheesh!)

[Jim__]

4. He can make the repukes filibuster.

Let the repukes spend the next month holding up all Senate business rather than allow the Senate to vote on whether or not soldiers get as much time at home as in the field. He does not have to fold because he doesn't have 60 votes.

[beaconess]

7. You may think that it's appropriate to hold up all Senate business to make the point that

the Republicans are opposed to allowing the soldiers to have adequate rest periods, but that would be a complete waste of time, not to mention a dereliction of the Senate's duty to conduct all manner of business. And it wouldn't change anything. Not a single Republican would change their vote, the outcome would eventually be the same. At least through cloture, the Senators are all on record so that people can see which ones are voting against the interests of the soldiers. But tying up the Senate to just make a point - that won't change the outcome in any way - is not how the Senate should spend its time.

[Jim__]

8. The point is that Reid wouldn't be holding up Senate business.

The repukes would. And they'd be doing it to prevent even taking a vote on whether or not we can provide some real security for our troops and their families.

If Reid keeps backing down, then McConnell is still running the Senate. And if the Dems don't challenge them, then their threats cost the repukes nothing.

[beaconess]

10. It doesn't matter who is holding it up - it would be held up to the detriment of the country

just to make a point, that won't change a single vote.

I don't want the Senate not to consider the SCHIPs program, that expires next week. I don't want the Senate to be late on spending bills that help to fund food stamps and Medicaid and school lunches and job training programs.

I think it's foolish and shortsighted for the Senate Democrats to shut down the legislative branch just to make a point - a point that everyone already knows - a tactic that would most likely backfire on the Democrats, making them even less able to get anything accomplished.

I guess we'll just have agree to disagree.

[Jim__]

12. This is a bill the repukes claim is crucial to national security.

Yet, they say if you don't word it exactly the way we want it, we'll prevent a vote on the bill. If the bill is critical to national security, they can't filibuster it. If it isn't, they're lying. Either way, if the Dems stand their ground, they win. If they too afraid to stand their ground, they're impotent.

[beaconess]

14. Where do get that? The fact that it's critical to national security has nothing to do with whether

they can filibuster it.

You keep demanding the Democrats do something they have no power to do. The Senate rules give the Republicans the right to filibuster - they used it. There's nothing the Democrats can do about it, no matter how wrong the Republicans are or how right the Democrats are.

[Jim__]

16. They didn't use their filibuster power. They only threatened.

If the bill is critical, they can't block it. If the Dems have the stones to stand up, they win. Right now, all they're doing is backing down to a threat.

[beaconess]

18. They DID filibuster - filibusters don't work the way they used to with people

talking and talking and talking. What the Republicans did the other day IS a filibuster. The Democrats tried to overcome the filibuster the only way you can - by filing a cloture motion and then voting to cut off debate. They needed 60 votes to do that, but only 57 (including every Democrat) voted yes meaning that debate continues and the bill will not be voted on for now.

What I think people are having trouble understanding is that it is no longer required that Senators stand up on the Senate floor talking in order to keep a filibuster going. The filibuster is in effect until cloture, i.e., 60 votes to end debate - is invoked. Until there are 60 votes to allow the measure to be voted on, the filibuster is essentially continued.

[Jim__]

24. That's not exactly correct.

You're probably referring to Rule 22 which says they don't actually have to give floor speeches. However, the Senate Majority Leader may require a traditional filibuster:

In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can be just as powerful as an actual filibuster.

That's from wikipedia. If you don't trust wikipedia, here's another source with the same information. The Senate leader can also keep the bill pending indefinitely. He does not have to fold his hand.

If the dems want to be leaders, they're going to have to stand up and lead. These are not trivial issues, it's about war and peace.

[sendero]

23. I'm so tired of this..

... the bottom line is they CANNOT GET ANYTHING DONE because they FOLD LIKE A PAPER NAPKIN every time there is the slightest obstacle.

Harry Reid CANNOT get 100% compliance with an important vote, something the Republicans do ALL THE TIME. He IS A WIMP.

You can spin it all day but it is a fact.

[beaconess]

27. He HAS 100% compliance

But when you only have 51 votes (really 49, as pointed out by another poster) and 60 votes are required, 100% compliance isn't enough.

[cornermouse]

15. Is Harry Reid a wimp? Yes. n/t

[Peregrine Took]

19. Is the Pope Catholic? n/t

[jlake]

20. Maybe...maybe he is just too nice and trusting....

either way he is not right for the job.
We need someone FIERCE!

[beaconess]

21. Who is "we?"

Harry Reid represents the Democrats in the Senate, not the Democrats across the country. The Senate Democrats overwhelmingly elected him their leader and there is no evidence that they are unhappy with him or want someone else in the position. Apparently, the Dems (and that would include Kennedy and Feingold and the other most liberal Senators) don't want anyone more fierce.

[Larkspur]

22. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will go down as the most inept Majority Leaders the Dems ever had

They've taken Congress' approval rating below Darth Cheney's and are on the way to single digits.

Neither have shown that they are willing to reframe the debate and continue using right wing frames to debate the issues or faux brohuhas the right wing cooks up.

[OHdem10]

25. I think he is a little too trusting and really does want

Bipartisanship.

All the Democrats need to be aware it is not in GOP's best
interest to help Democrats. GOP plays Harball politics.
If they can go home smear the Democratic Senate in order
to gain political advantge in coming election, they wil.

This is why they will string out this war.IMO-- Gop sees it this way:
As long as long as we are there and fighting--we are not losing.
We may not be winning( as I would see win) but We ARE NOT LOSING.
Let us pretend a Democrat wins: The winding down of the war
is going to be messy(no matter who is president)This gives
the GOP the opportunity to go on TV daily and smear our
President. GOP: I told you those Democrats cannot run wars.

If Bush gets forced to start draing down troops, it gets
messy. WH will find a way to frameit to make the Dems
look bad.

Either way the Dems are going to catch it.

[CreekDog]

26. Reid has 49 votes, it takes 60 to break filibusters

He should have 51, but minus Lieberman and Tim Johnson, he ends up with 49.

[Vidar]

28. Yes.