Senator Reid just made big news on Maddow about changing the filibuster

[grantcart]

First Rachel Maddow is clearly performing at a higher level than anyone else. She doesn't just pass on the latest outrages she goes out and digs stories up and chases people down. She doesn't take a cheap shot but goes to the heart of insanity of the other side and even pulls back in order to give it a fair hearing. She treats everyone with respect.

Tonight on TRMS Maddow interviewed Reid and talked about Republican intransigence in the Senate.

Now Reid's soft spoken manner irritates us because we are all on the Grayson vibe but he said a couple of explosive things, albeit very quietly.

First of all he said that McConnell's entire mission has been to make Obama a one term President and that he had no other motivation beyond that.

More importantly Reid clearly indicated that he was going to pursue a change in the Senate rules to eliminate the abuse of the filibuster. He also tipped what was going to be the selling point by comparing it to abuses of rules in sports (spitball in Baseball and playing 4 corner ball in Basketball) that the country agreed was un American and instituted changes.

"It has to change, it is wrong what they are doing . . . the Republicans have abused the system and it has to change. We have to change some of the rules and I know how to do it.

Reid just went up 50 points in my estimation.


http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/rachel-maddow-talks-with-harry-reid/17yg86vkc

Reid's comments on abuse of the filibuster at 5:30

[LynneSin]

1. Obama just backed him up on that one on the DailySHow

:woohoo:

[aquart]

6. Would you feel safe visiting Nevada if Angle wins?

[stevedeshazer]

11. Yeah.

I'm white.

Nevada is a weird place. Everything goes. If you're white.

disclaimer: It shouldn't be that way. It just is.

[AndrewP]

42. I think you are correct, unfortunately n/t

[BeyondGeography]

2. Now if he can just eek out a win in NV

[Common Sense Party]

54. It's "eke" if you're trying to barely accomplish something

It's "eek" if you see a mouse.

[BeyondGeography]

58. Thanks, Dad

:patriot:

[Common Sense Party]

60. I thought I'd help you go Beyond Geography, all the way to Spelling.

[demwing]

63. Good plan, after you're done you can work on capitalization. /nt

[BeyondGeography]

73. It's official

You're an ass.

:thumbsup:

[pscot]

3. As the Congressman from Philly said to the FBI agent

Money talks, bullshit walks. I'll believe it when they actually vote to change the rules.

[whathehell]

51. Ozzie Meyers!

from Fishtown!

Good ole Ozzie.:rofl:

[swilton]

65. +1

The same goes for Obama - he's so charismatic.

[Scruffy1]

75. Sure he will- to help republicans

[MadHound]

4. I think that messing with the filibuster is a mistake

The reason that the 'Pugs have used it so successfully is because the Dems won't fight back. They won't force a real, live filibuster, but rather the faux filibuster that allows Congress to keep moving. They need to force a real, live filibuster (and yes, they can still do this) and while the 'Pugs are talking all day and all night, having to pee in a bottle, Obama and the Dems can beat them over the head with their obstructionism. Do that a couple of times and the 'Pugs would think twice about doing it again. I think that if the Dems had done this early on, they could have gotten a lot more accomplished.

We need to keep the tool of the filibuster. It is designed to prevent the passage of truly atrocious legislation, and while the Dems haven't used it much lately, we still do need to keep it in the toolbelt, otherwise we will be run over when they are the minority party.

[frazzled]

5. Changing it doesn't mean doing away with it

But you can't use it to block every appointment and every piece of legislation. Or use it merely to delay. No one has proposed doing away entirely with the filibuster, but rather limiting its use to certain situations.

[MadHound]

7. What would those situations be?

Sorry, but I think that it is better to bust a filibuster than change the rules. Again, you start putting limitations on it, and it will come back to bite us in the ass, just as soon as the 'Pugs get back into power.

[frazzled]

15. Senator Tom Udall (D-CO) has proposed a plan

Udall’s proposal does not deviate from the modern-day conception of the filibuster – it still sees a strong role for the filibuster, and endorses cloture as the accepted way to defeat a filibuster. However, it suggests three major changes to the filibuster rules, all of which are designed to streamline Senate proceedings without taking away the rights of the minority party to influence legislation. First, it would change the requirement for cloture to 3/5 of Senators “present and voting,” instead of the current rule, which requires 3/5 of all Senators, or 60 votes in all cases. According to Sen. Udall, this would “level the playing field” by forcing the minority to participate in the debate and cloture votes, which does not currently happen. Second, it would only allow one filibuster per bill, on the final vote, thus eliminating filibusters for motions to proceed, moving to conference, and post-conference passage of bills. This would still allow minorities to block a bill, but eliminate excessive stalling tactics after the votes for cloture have been found. And finally, it would reduce the pre- and post- cloture debating time, which currently adds three days to passage time even if cloture is reached.

In a move perhaps to appease Republicans (as the current minority party), the proposal would also allow the Senate to force consideration of any amendment by majority vote, against the wishes of Senate leadership. This would allow coalitions between minority-party and dissenting majority-party senators to force consideration of certain amendments.

The proposal also makes two changes to Senate procedure that Sen. Udall feels needlessly delay Senate activity. It would eliminate a requirement that Senate committees get consent from the Senate to meet after morning hours and prevent a Senator from forcing an in-chamber reading of an entire amendment unless it was not available beforehand.]

http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2010/10/05/filibuster-reform-a-faint-light-for-united-states-climate-legislation/

[MadHound]

23. M'eh, I certainly don't like consideration of any amendment.

And the rest of it, again, we'll miss it when we're out of power.

[frazzled]

40. Well ...

Just two things:

(1) If you're of the two-wrongs-make-a-right school, go ahead. The cycle of obstruction and polarization will never be broken, and Congress will continue along in its dysfunction.

(2) You could at least put in a "thanks" there for me providing the information needed to see where the thinking is going on the Democratic side of this, even if you disagree with the information provided. Sometimes I feel like it's not worth the effort and time needed to look things up for folks here. Better to just blow something out of your posterior because it seems to generate more respect.

[demwing]

64. Hey!

Thanks for providing the information needed to see where the thinking is going on the Democratic side of this. :)

[toadzilla]

66. since we never actually use it when we dems are out of power, I don't see how it will be missed.

[SharonAnn]

69. Thank you. That's very helpful information. Udall's proposals make a lot of sense.

I have to agree with Reid that the current system is being badly abused by the GOP. It allows them to shut down everything. That has to stop.

A president is entitled to get appointed nominees voted on. The American people have a right to expect discussions and consideration of issues before the Senate, not complete prohibition of even considering legislation.

And the minority has a right to have meaningful input into the discussion(s) and vote(s). They just don't have the right to have total control

[jaysunb]

9. I disagree

Do that a couple of times and the 'Pugs would think twice about doing it again.

These people (Repubs) have no shame or love of country. Haven't you noticed their acts the last 2 year ? They don't care what ANYBODY other than the 40% of this country that hate Obama thinks. As long as they can keep them snarling and baying they'll say or do ANYTHING.

further, Reid can easily do this, as every new Congress makes it's own rules.

If we should lose the House, it will be completely necessary to eliminate the filibuster because there are hundreds of bills and Judges to be voted on . While the House is busy being an idealogical zoo, the Democrats in the Senate can be about the Peoples business that the Repubs used the filibuster to hold up for 2 years. We'll actually be able to govern...

Apologies for going on, but I wanted you to see an "upside" to eliminating the filibuster in January.

[MadHound]

13. Well, until we try, we don't know

And going by historical precedent, whacking the 'Pugs with a couple of filibusters would do the trick. Before you go saying that we're living in unprecedented times, we aren't. Things have been this contentious before, yet breaking a filibuster has worked. Nobody, not even the most dedicated 'Pug, will stand up to national scorn and ridicule.

Also, like I said, you get rid of the filibuster and we'll get far too much shit rammed down our throats when the 'Pugs take back power in the Senate.

We've already had these kind of "I told you so" moments before, think of the Clinton '96 Telecom Act. Let's not have another.

[grantcart]

10. Your wrong about the original intention of the filibuster.

It began simply as a courtesy to make sure that no Senator was cut off in debate.

It was NEVER intended to actually stop votes.

In any case it stayed that way for about 80 years when one guy wanted to filibuster a bill on the railroads.

After that it was used primarily to undermine civil rights legislation.

It was originally 65% of the senators and was changed about 100 years ago because it was abused.

Because the rural areas have become less viable economically and the large states grown much larger the power of small states has grown way beyond the original compromise. Now Senators representing only 17% of the population can sustain a filibuster. At the time of the constitution it would have taken 35% of the population as represented by Senators.

Today the twenty smallest states have 40 Senators and can stop all legislation and yet their population is less than California.

That gives rural voters an effective 20 to 1 ratio of power when compared to Californians.

Its not fair, its not democratic, its not American, it doesn't reflect the founding fathers, it has never been used in the way that the Republicans are now using it, and it has been changed in the past.

The time has come to radically change it.

[MadHound]

16. And what are you going to do when the Dems are out of power,

With a fifty six Senate majority, and they start ramming all sorts of crap down our throats? Feel remorse for being stupid about the filibuster? By then it will be too late.

[grantcart]

24. That is what democracy is about.

Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose and then you prepare to come back.

More to the point it is a tool that is more easily used by the most unreasonable people. Reasonable people will reach a compromise and unreasonable people are willing to "poor sand into the machine of government".

If they "ram all sorts of crap" down the throats of the country then it should be even easier for us to build a more stable majority.

If however the Republicans had a majority in both houses then their extreme radicals would push it for grand high profile and very suicidal gestures, like making Social Security private or optional. This would do one of two things; create an even more internal civil war among the Republicans and/or pass outrageous 'crap' that the whole country would revile.

Two years ago I read an article by a Pro Choice think tank that worked out what would happen step by step if the SC overturned Roe v Wade. What they basically argued was that in 70% of the country there would be no change. In the most conservative 30% of the country the most conservative evangelical groups would take over the Republican Party and pass the most extreme anti abortion legislation that would be found unconstitutional but would nevertheless push those state Republican Party so far right that it would endanger their overall political viability. Now if you think that this is far fetched then consider this; Why has the SC that has a clear Republican majority not found Roe V Wade in error? Clearly they are aware that sometimes winning the battle loses the war.

[MadHound]

30. Wow, so you're prepared to leave this up to the vagaries of political winds and proper manners

Sorry, don't buy that, and not willing to take that risk.

Really now, is having the Congressional Dems actually stand up and fight that repugnant to you? Hell, political careers were made by busting filibusters.

[grantcart]

36. the only principle here is an anti-democratic one.

As for the 'vagaries of political winds and proper manners' that might have some significance in a country that has a parlimentary representation and a strong Prime Minister. However in the US you have divided power between the executive, judicial and legislative and then you divide the legislative into two bodies, so the 'vagaries of political winds' has to be a hurricane to get the 330+ individuals in three different institutions on the same page to pass any legislation.

As for standing up and fighting, there is little point for anyone to stand up and fight when legislation can be stopped with representation from only 17% of the population.

The way to fight for legislation is to fight for it in elections, let the majority effect policy and then hold them responsible for it in the next election.

[Canuckistanian]

22. That works both ways

Look at Max Baucus and the Health Insurance Bill.

Sometimes, Senators from states with TINY populations can be bought easily, yet they have a MAJOR effect.

[depakid]

33. There is also a very compelling set of arguments that as currently practiced, it's unconstitutional

Check it out: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11geoghegan.html?pagewanted=all

[laughingliberal]

18. I can just about guarantee the Republicans' first act if they take over the Senate will be to...

get rid of the filibuster. They threatened to do it last time. Keeping things as they are out of fear of what Republicans will do if they get the majority is not smart. Republicans will hamstring us with filibusters for as long as they remain in the minority. As soon as they're back in, it'll be gone and we'll have missed massive opportunities to pass bills that might have kept us in the majority.

[MadHound]

21. We're not missing those opportunities now because of the filibuster,

We're missing those opportunities because the Dems refuse to fight and bust those filibusters.

This is one of those issues like the '96 Telecom Act, where it comes back to bite you in the ass.

[grantcart]

28. I understand your reasoning but I don't think they will

For one they can't get legislation passed with a simple majority because the President can veto it.

Second they know that the long term trends continue to have them as a minority party (given youth and Hispanic preferences) and that they will do everything possible to enhance minority power for the future.

[laughingliberal]

31. My real hope is we don't have the opportunity to find out anytime soon. nt

[MadHound]

32. Oh please, don't try and bank on political predictions, long term or otherwise

The path to political heaven is strewn with failed political predictions.

And relying on a president, like Clinton and Obama after him who wish to be bipartisan or post partisan or whatever, there's no telling what they will or won't veto. That's how we ended up with NAFTA.

[grantcart]

34. Your reply is largely jibberish so instead of 'banking on predictions' let's simply

bank on principle.

The filibuster is inherently against democratic principles. Over the years it has grown increasingly anti democratic as it has been abused by the minority. The Senate is already an institution that provides substantial checks for the smaller states (the reason for its existence) so that now 20 of the smallest states with 40 Senators have a smaller population than the single state of California. The fact that you think it is somehow valuable to use an undemocratic device when we don't have public support does not lessen the reality that by all definitions the filibuster is an inherently anti democratic device that has no parrallel in any modern democracy.

[deaniac21]

47. You should change you're handle to WiseHound.

[NewJeffCT]

52. They implemented major rules changes when Clinton was president

and they controlled the Senate.

For example, it used to be that if somebody was nominated for a federal judgeship, they would have to get the approval of one senator from their home state. This was usually not a problem if there was one Democratic Senator from a state, or two. However, Republics changed the rules when Clinton was president so that both senators would have to approve, which allowed states with two Republic, or even one Republic, to basically sit on the judicial nomination until they felt like letting them move forward.

That was part of the reason Clinton got so few judges through when compared to Bush, and those judges were more moderate than Bush's judges and took longer to get approved.

Now, with Obama as president, they're just being assholes with their standing holds & whatnot.

[swilton]

67. +1

Reid is Monday Morning Quarter-backing. This sounds like whining - some of those will substitute fig leaves for backbones.

[depakid]

8. Unfortunately, a day late and a dollar short

[grantcart]

17. Changing the Senate rules during the first part of the first African American President

would have caused the right to go absolutely ballistic.

IMHO this is the earliest they could have done it and gotten the majority of the country to accept it.

[depakid]

26. LOL- they'd have done what they did regardless!

If people haven't gotten that through their heads by now, I don't know what it's going to take....

The time, place and issue to have done this with was last February with the stimulus (an EFFECTIVE and properly targeted one that bridged the output gap and provided sufficient aid to the states to counter the anti-stimulatory effects of state layoffs and service cuts).

Had that occurred, the Dems wouldn't be staring down another 1994 (which, unfortunately I predicted at the time would be a probable consequence of the half measure stimulus).

[grantcart]

39. You clearly don't understand the process.

The rules can only be changed by a simple majority when they are adopted at the begining of the session.


You also don't understand how a rule change would have been perceived by independents. Even non party supporters of the President would have been outraged if he had tried to start his Administration with a changing of the rules BEFORE the Republicans obstructed every bill he introduced.

[NewJeffCT]

53. I don't think most people really care about

how senate rules are enforced - yes, the partisans do care.

However, if you had told people, "we're going to make people filibuster like the senate did in the past..." or, "we're going to stop the abuse of secret holds" (IMO, almost as bad as filibuster abuse) - most people would not have cared.

[veganlush]

71. you're right

it has to be done at the beginning of a new session. this will be the first real opportunity, for the reason you mentioned.

[seabeyond]

43. bullshit. i want it all, and i want it NOW. then there is reality. nt

[defendandprotect]

12. I'll keep my fingers crossed for this .... !!! Go, Harry!!

[laughingliberal]

14. K & R nt

[Arkana]

19. I don't know how he'll do it, especially with only 51 or 52 Dems.

And that's even if Reid gets reelected.

[grantcart]

25. It can be done with 50+1.

At the begining of each Senate term the majority submits rules for the Senate that is passed by a majority vote. Once those rules accept 60 vote cloture then you are stuck until the next Senate session.

About 100 years ago the Democratic Caucus did just that to lower it from the 65% that it used to have.

[Arkana]

48. Oh, FUCK YES.

That is goddamn wonderful.

[Tippy]

20. K&R....... Way to go Harry

[mkultra]

27. removal of the filibuster would slide DADT and DOMA repeal right through

the filibuster is shit.

[HughMoran]

29. Yes, Rachel is firing on all cylinders

One of the few people in a position to make a difference who is.

Harry is, of course, saying the right thing - but changing the rules requires a vote too - so I'm not optimistic.

[grantcart]

35. it only requires a simple majority. For 130 years it was 65% of the Senators and Democrats

voted for new rules and presto it was changed.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. He'll push it through just in time for the Republican Senate Majority.

Once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Where the FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN THE PAST TWO YEARS, BUDDY????

[DLnyc]

70. Exactly.

Democrats wouldn't use the filibuster against Alito or Roberts, wouldn't challenge a filibuster when it was even hinted at against health care, ending taxes on the super-wealthy, etc. and now they want to get rid of the filibuster when we're (probably) going to need it.

With leaders like these, who needs enemas?

[Unvanguard]

38. Of course, it doesn't matter if he loses in Nevada.

Do we know who's going to replace him if that happens?

[spanone]

41. harry, why has it taken you 2 years to come to this conclusion?

[Recovered Repug]

59. He wasn't up for re-election 2 years ago?

[KossackRealityCheck]

44. It's easy -- make them actually fillibuster on the floor

This is harder and more destructive than it appears though. I read a blog post some time ago and it explained that there is a lot of business going on in the Senate simultaneously and a really complex set of procedural votes and that actually requiring the Republicans to read the phone book on the floor would be hugely destructive.

At this point though, not making them do it is hugely destructive. Make them do it 2 - 3 times, and they'll get the message.

[Karmadillo]

45. Is there an election coming up? Bad poll results?

nt

[newportdadde]

46. Now that his ass is on the line he finds a spine?

I'd like to see it happen but please get real nothing but reeleciton talk.

[Common Sense Party]

55. This is going to put him over the top.

This cements his win.

[Matariki]

49. After seeing that interview, I appreciated Ried a lot more.

And of course Rachel is an absolutely first rate journalist. Wish more were like her - our national dialog would be a whole lot better.

[grantcart]

50. I agree on all points

[RagAss]

56. Idiot !....talking Big Now???????? ... You had 60 votes !!!!

[cliffordu]

77. Which 60 was that with the fucking blue dogs and the Leibershit??

[tblue37]

57. Why the hell didn't he do it before? Right now he is at risk of losing his seat, and

the Dems might even lose the Senate, though I sure hope they won't. Why wait so long to change it? Why not change it while Dems were for sure in control and major legislation needed to get passed--without being watered down to the point of being useless by kowtowing to the demands of idiots just to get the 60 votes?

[flamingdem]

61. great post!! nt

[lonestarnot]

62. I'll be watching soon and get back with you.

:evilgrin:

[krispos42]

68. The filibuster should either need a 48% minority or be really hard to do.

As in, actually giving continual speeches to hold the floor and refuse cloture.

It's too easy. It's suppose to be a rare, meaningful occurance, not SOP.


Due to the population differences in the Senate, it's inheirently biased towards conservatism anyway. The 41 Repubes only represent 37% of the population in this current Senate.

[letterwriter]

72. Reid just went up 50 points in my estimation

I'd be happy if he went up TO 50 point.

[Lost4words]

74. TL, TL

yawn

[JerseygirlCT]

76. You know

I'll believe that he'll actually act on words like this when he does.

His powder is so dry, I'm quite sure it's blown all away.

No more words, Reid. It's way past time to start fighting for real.

[cliffordu]

78. K&R - Great OP, Gc, and

the comments rawk for a couple of different reasons, cognitive dissonnance being among them....