Is Harry Reid really this stupid, or is it some sort of an act?

[Charles Kozierok]

Regarding the pending Hagel filibuster:

"This is the first time in the history of our country that a presidential nominee for secretary of defense has been filibustered," Reid said on the Senate floor, after Republicans wouldn't agree to an up-or-down vote. "What a shame, but that's the way it is."

Well, duh! It was only a few weeks ago that everyone was telling him that the GOP was going to continue to act like this. And he still caved on filibuster reform.

You'd have to be an idiot to be surprised at their behavior, so is he really an idiot, or is it just some sort of act? Unbelievable.

 

[randomrogue]

What happened with filibuster reform a few weeks ago? I feel like I'm out of the loop.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Since it was the start of a new session, and since the GOP had demonstrated their willingness to abuse the filibuster in the previous one, many people were calling on Reid to take the steps necessary to reform the filibuster process. One idea many tossed around was forcing a return to the "talking filibuster" -- meaning, just like in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

So what happened? Basically nothing. Reid caved because he has no spine and/or because he's foolish enough to think that when the Republicans get power, that they will not do to him what he was afraid to do to them.

 

[Blackjack200]

He's not surprised, but he still has to highlight their behavior.

More and more I think The Democrats are playing the Republicans like marionettes. They really have a knack for baiting the Republicans into fights that make them look bad, and then pointing and saying "OMG, look at that!"

Of course the Republicans are just as much to blame in all this.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If Reid is playing some sort of a game here, I think he grossly underestimates the collateral damage. He's making the Democrats look at least as bad as the Republicans.

He's also alienating and discouraging his base, and making Obama look bad as well. Both increase the chance that 2014 will be a repeat of 2010.

 

[randomrogue]

If Reid is playing some sort of a game here, I think he grossly underestimates the collateral damage. He's making the Democrats look at least as bad as the Republicans.

He's also alienating and discouraging his base, and making Obama look bad as well. Both increase the chance that 2014 will be a repeat of 2010.

Assuming they have the votes to change it back to how it was then maybe they'll just let the Republicans hang themselves a few more times before making the change.

I'm not saying that's right but it's food for thought. I personally get disgusted each time I see the obstructionism and I sure am not blaming the Democrats for it right now.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If your opponents have a track record of behaving poorly, and you have an opportunity to do something about it but let it go, do you not deserve some of the blame for when they predictably continue to behave poorly?

Sorry, the whole thing reminds me of this cartoon. This is from 2011, during the debt ceiling crisis, and it appears a few people still haven't learned anything.

 

[fskimospy]

I think he figures that the democrats may lose the majority in the next election and wants to keep the filibuster around for it. I also think this is enormously foolish because I guaran-fucking-tee the Republicans will neuter it the next time it helps them.

Stupidity.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yep. I think we both said that last time this topic came up.

The Democrats have no balls whatsoever. It's pathetic.

 

[sandorski]

It looks like a game of Chicken. Both Parties knowing what needs to be done, but neither wanting the blame for it. So they keep forcing themselves into a painted corner, where at some point they'll both just play the old, "I had no other choice but to.." schtick.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I've always been uncomfortable with Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, because he simply doesn't exhibit much in the way of leadership - he just seems like an empty suit.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I've always been uncomfortable with Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, because he simply doesn't exhibit much in the way of leadership - he just seems like an empty suit.

He seems like a cartoon character to me. Certainly not someone I look at and think "leader" when I watch him carry himself. It's almost as though with the strength and courage to lead are too smart to get involved in politics in the first place.

 

[Fern]

Is Harry Reid really this stupid, or is it some sort of an act?

Regarding the pending Hagel filibuster:



Well, duh! It was only a few weeks ago that everyone was telling him that the GOP was going to continue to act like this. And he still caved on filibuster reform.

You'd have to be an idiot to be surprised at their behavior, so is he really an idiot, or is it just some sort of act? Unbelievable.

Well. I've never found Reid impressive in any regard. But I think he believes WE are stupid.

Firstly, and I've posted elsewhere, this isn't a filibuster. It's a proper use of the cloture rule. Reid knew some Senators wanted additional info from Hagel before he decided to schedule the cloture vote. He knew the Repubs would try to stop it from passing. I believe he knew the vote would fail and did it for political purposes: He could get the Dem base all wound up and yelling "FILIBUSTER" and flaming the Repubs. Looks like it worked.

IMO, much to do about nothing. Just more political gamesmanship and posturing.

Fern

 

[HumblePie]

Charles, one thing to point out, the minority party has "abused" the filibuster since it's inception. If you look at past Congress balances, every time one party ends up the minority party it then uses far more filibusters than the previous party that was the minority. Both sides do it and justify it by saying they are practically "1-upping" the other side from the last time they "abused" it.

The filibuster has a point. It is to prevent the rights of the minority, even in Congress, from being trampled upon by the majority. Can it be reworked to prevent deadlock? Sure.

I also think that a filibuster needs to have the minority support to impede a proposal for any long length of time. Meaning that if it is just 1 or 2 people in Congress using the filibuster just to whine, cry, and being generally assholes, then that is abuse. But if you have dozens of more in the minority party with real issues against a proposal then that is something a filibuster helps solve. It allows the minority party to air their grievances with a proposal and hope for a better solution for all.

In the case of Hagel, a large portion of the GOP has a problem currently with his proposed new assignment. Many of them want their grievances heard before he is put into place. That hasn't happened yet as the GOP in this case has listed very specific bits of info they want to know before making their decision of yes or no. While I personally don't care if Hagel is made SOD or not, I do not think the current "filibuster" against his proposed assignment is at all an abuse.

And a bit of what Fern said.

 

[fskimospy]

Well. I've never found Reid impressive in any regard. But I think he believes WE are stupid.

Firstly, and I've posted elsewhere, this isn't a filibuster. It's a proper use of the cloture rule. Reid knew some Senators wanted additional info from Hagel before he decided to schedule the cloture vote. He knew the Repubs would try to stop it from passing. I believe he knew the vote would fail and did it for political purposes: He could get the Dem base all wound up and yelling "FILIBUSTER" and flaming the Repubs. Looks like it worked.

IMO, much to do about nothing. Just more political gamesmanship and posturing.

Fern

This is absolutely, by definition, a filibuster. You might think it is a good idea to do, but that in no way changes what it is. The senate has a majority ready to confirm him, Republicans will not let debate end. That's a filibuster.

Then again there is basically nothing in the senate that is not filibustered at this point. It needs to be abolished in its entirety.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If it's really just a "one week delay to gather more information", fine. We'll see in a few days.

I'm skeptical. If I was wrong I'll be happy to admit that I overreacted.

As for the filibuster, sure, it's a good idea in concept. But like all measures of this sort, its use is based on unwritten rules and assumptions that it won't be abused.

Congress of late has shown that they are no longer willing to use it as good faith. The Republicans, having noticed that they are down 55-45 at the moment, have decide to transform the senate into a legislative chamber where 60 votes are required to do pretty much anything.

The filibuster needs to be reformed so that it is used only in truly exceptional cases, and so that there is an actual cost to the one doing the filibustering.

 

[fskimospy]

Charles, one thing to point out, the minority party has "abused" the filibuster since it's inception. If you look at past Congress balances, every time one party ends up the minority party it then uses far more filibusters than the previous party that was the minority. Both sides do it and justify it by saying they are practically "1-upping" the other side from the last time they "abused" it.

The filibuster has a point. It is to prevent the rights of the minority, even in Congress, from being trampled upon by the majority. Can it be reworked to prevent deadlock? Sure.

I also think that a filibuster needs to have the minority support to impede a proposal for any long length of time. Meaning that if it is just 1 or 2 people in Congress using the filibuster just to whine, cry, and being generally assholes, then that is abuse. But if you have dozens of more in the minority party with real issues against a proposal then that is something a filibuster helps solve. It allows the minority party to air their grievances with a proposal and hope for a better solution for all.

In the case of Hagel, a large portion of the GOP has a problem currently with his proposed new assignment. Many of them want their grievances heard before he is put into place. That hasn't happened yet as the GOP in this case has listed very specific bits of info they want to know before making their decision of yes or no. While I personally don't care if Hagel is made SOD or not, I do not think the current "filibuster" against his proposed assignment is at all an abuse.

And a bit of what Fern said.

I don't think the 'rights of the minority' argument holds water. The Senate is ALREADY designed to protect the rights of the minority. As it is currently structured you could prevent any and all legislation not covered by reconciliation using senators that represented just eleven percent of the US population. Sure that isn't going to happen as states like Rhode Island are heavily Democratic, but that shows just how skewed the Senate really is. Currently, Republican senators represent less than 1/3rd of the population of the US, but can prevent almost all legislation from being passed. Does that seem like a good way to do things?

Our system of government already requires the approval of the House, the Senate, and the President to pass anything. Why on earth should we support a new mechanism that isn't in the Constitution that makes government work even less?

 

[soccerballtux]

I feel like this thread title is inflammatory.
This is my opinion.

I am conservative.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Perhaps it's not stupidity but principle.

Let me present the situation in more general terms.

Is it better to suffer occasional abuse or to forever give one, and only one, party power unopposable, unstoppable? An overwhelming partisan force where good or I'll are irrelevant? The One Ring?

I have to choose the former even though it chafes at times. No act is in isolation. Change the rules and change future history.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps it's not stupidity but principle.

Let me present the situation in more general terms.

Is it better to suffer occasional abuse or to forever give one, and only one, party power unopposable, unstoppable? An overwhelming partisan force where good or I'll are irrelevant? The One Ring?

I have to choose the former even though it chafes at times. No act is in isolation. Change the rules and change future history.

Parties aren't monolithic entities and eliminating the filibuster wouldn't grant one party unopposable, unstoppable power. There are two other elected chambers of government and for a party to wield such power it would have to control all 3. Again, the idea that a caucus that comprises both Bernie Sanders and Ben Nelson would act together all the time strains credulity.

If we have a rule in a chamber it should be so that the legislation and duties it performs are better for it. I see no such justification for keeping the filibuster around.

 

[soccerballtux]

Perhaps it's not stupidity but principle.

Let me present the situation in more general terms.

Is it better to suffer occasional abuse or to forever give one, and only one, party power unopposable, unstoppable? An overwhelming partisan force where good or I'll are irrelevant? The One Ring?

I have to choose the former even though it chafes at times. No act is in isolation. Change the rules and change future history.

edit, sorry, my comment was unrelated

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Parties aren't monolithic entities and eliminating the filibuster wouldn't grant one party unopposable, unstoppable power. There are two other elected chambers of government and for a party to wield such power it would have to control all 3. Again, the idea that a caucus that comprises both Bernie Sanders and Ben Nelson would act together all the time strains credulity.

If we have a rule in a chamber it should be so that the legislation and duties it performs are better for it. I see no such justification for keeping the filibuster around.

Then you would agree that when the republicans return with policies and proposals and various agendas that there be no effective minority voice? What happens after a hundred years of this? You are thinking short term. I'm looking down the road. It's a pain, but the need for effective resistance has proven of value throughout history. We are not more enlightened than all before us that we can say "never worry, never doubt." One day Sanders may be replaced by the likes of the former administrations Gonzales.

 

[fskimospy]

Then you would agree that when the republicans return with policies and proposals and various agendas that there be no effective minority voice? What happens after a hundred years of this? You are thinking short term. I'm looking down the road. It's a pain, but the need for effective resistance has proven of value throughout history. We are not more enlightened than all before us that we can say "never worry, never doubt." One day Sanders may be replaced by the likes of the former administrations Gonzales.

No, I'm looking down the road, it's the people who want to keep the filibuster who are being shortsighted. Its use is ever escalating and the Democrats will pursue the same strategy as the Republicans have since 2006 when the day comes that they lose their majority and it is badly damaging to effective governance. This isn't the endpoint of filibuster abuse, this is just the beginning. From this day forward I fully expect basically all Senate action to require 60 votes for...well.... forever.

Our Constitution is already set up with checks and balances on power, the filibuster is not mentioned anywhere in it. Furthermore, the Senate already exists to give outsized power to minority populations, that's basically the whole point. To even further expand this to the point where eleven percent of the US population can wield an effective veto on almost all government action is taking that principle to such an extreme level that it is indefensible in my opinion.

 

[Fern]

This is absolutely, by definition, a filibuster. You might think it is a good idea to do, but that in no way changes what it is. The senate has a majority ready to confirm him, Republicans will not let debate end. That's a filibuster.

Then again there is basically nothing in the senate that is not filibustered at this point. It needs to be abolished in its entirety.

It's not a filibuster.

The cloture vote is there to close debate. The Senate has a long standing practice of allowing members to debate until they feel they're finished. Some senators have expressed a desire to debate further, some wanting more info etc. In respect of their colleagues some Senator who already know they will vote for or against Hagel voted 'no' on cloture. There is no attempt here from we know to delay indefinitely or refuse a vote. It is expected to occur when they reconvene next week.

Reading a phonebook and other examples of filibuster are different altogether. Otherwise, you're claiming every cloture vote, no matter the reason, is a filibuster, and that makes no sense. The cloture would have just been called a filibuster in the first place. No need for two names for the exact same thing.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Our Constitution is already set up with checks and balances on power, the filibuster is not mentioned anywhere in it. Furthermore, the Senate already exists to give outsized power to minority populations, that's basically the whole point. To even further expand this to the point where eleven percent of the US population can wield an effective veto on almost all government action is taking that principle to such an extreme level that it is indefensible in my opinion.

I have to disagree. By what mechanism does the Constitution prevent partisan collusion? What keeps Bush and the Republican Congress from doing whatever they want as a party? What checks and balances are there if the majority party holds control over 2/3's of government? There is not such thing, but the Constitution does provide for Congress to set rules in place. Spoils system? Where's that in the Constitution either? Winner takes all? Gets control of important committees? There's not such thing either, yet it does happen.

IMO, we don't vote for an office any more. We vote for who controls everything, and the only thing that prevents absolute control are these inconviences to complete party domination.