The one thing the Senate Majority Leader never seems to fail at: Failing.
Harry Reid last May, on the Senator floor, apologizing to Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Tom Udall (D-NM) for blocking their 2010 attempt to weaken the filibuster: “These two young, fine senators said it was time to change the rules of the Senate, and we didn’t,” Reid said then. “And they were right. The rest of us were wrong — or most of us, anyway. What a shame… If there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it’s the filibuster rule, because it’s been abused, abused and abused.”
Harry Reid today, after striking a deal with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to ensure anything close to (small “d”) democracy stays decidedly out of the U.S. Senate: “I’m not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold.”
See Ezra Klein for more of Reid’s reasons for striking a deal to make minor procedural changes to Senate rules which do absolutely nothing to change the use — and abuse, abuse, abuse — of the filibuster. See Sam Stein and Ryan Grim for more of an explanation of what the marginal procedural changes to be made actually are.
In short, as many Filibuster reformers are noting today: Harry Reid’s filibuster reform doesn’t actually reform the filibuster in any way.
But let’s spread some blame around. According to Merkley — who had been leading a coalition of Democratic Senators and activists calling for the requirement of a “talking filibuster” (already fairly weak tea when it comes to filibuster reform) — during a conference call last week, he called on reformers to pressure these Democratic Senators who were still “wrestling with his proposal”, as Politico characterized it: Max Baucus (MT), Patrick Leahy (VT), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Barbara Boxer (CA), Joe Manchin (WV) and Mark Pryor (AR).
Presuming the Reid/McConnell deal is adopted today, as it likely will be, another chance to reform — or kill — the filibuster all together will not occur until the first legislative day of the next U.S. Congress, in 2015. All of which goes some way towards supporting the suggestion offered by progressive activist David Swanson during my interview with him last November, that Dems, at least a minority with enough power to undermine their caucus, have little interest in reforming the filibuster, as it gives them an excuse to make sure things they want to act like they believe in, but actually don’t, will never see the light of day in the U.S. Senate.
Last sentence of post = AMEN to that.
Not for the first time I wonder if the Republicans deliberately engineered Reid’s re-election, because a 60-40 Senate led by the cowardly appeaser is better for them than a 59-41 led by someone with a spine and a conscience.
If this goes through, it will be proof that the words “Senate Majority Leader” as applied to Harry Reid is an oxymoron.
Are Leahy and Boxer really against filibuster reform? Here(in the last few minutes of this clip)is Leahy sounding very much in favor of reform. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmRqTsqZy5M
And I’ve seen Boxer on Rachel also speaking strongly for reform of the filibuster. Are they saying one thing and then acting differently? Where’s the evidence these two longstanding liberals are against this obviously crucial/necessary reform?
I’m ready to revise my views, again, that we’re even fucking crazier than I thought, but I’d like some evidence before I do.
The Senate Majority leader’s epic fail at filibuster reform will provide ‘political cover’ for Democrats on legislation ranging from gun laws, to climate change legislation, to keystone xl.
So much for any chance at Climate Change, Immigration reform, further banking or healthcare reforms, etc.
The reason Ried felt he couldn’t pass a tougher filibuster reform is that the conservative Dems don’t want to undermine their power broker status. It’s more impoortant they continue to be deal makers/breakers than the country is able to accomplish anything beneficial.
I have supported you for years…..however now all I can say is YOU HARRY REID ARE PATHETIC!! You have been bought out by the NRA and the tea party Republicans!! HARRY REID YOU HAVE SOLD OUT!! Now go spent time with your SOLD OUT BUDDY JOHN McCAIN!! I also used to support McCain but never again!! Your other new buddies Mitch & John Boehner make you a TURNCOAT!!!
He didn’t sell out anything. Better to have the filibuster threat holding up legislation than to have to take responsibility for the legislation. Now he again has Republicans to blame for inaction on legislation he doesn’t want in the first place.. David Swanson was absolutely correct IMO.
Steve, for once, I am in agreement with you. Maybe anything is possible(except filibuster reform this year).
David Lasagna @ 4:
First, my understanding is that Leahy and Boxer were named by Merkley during that phone call last week, as reported by Politico.
Secondly, I believe (but would need to go back and check) that Leahy had an alternate, more “moderate” proposal to Merkley’s. Leahy’s wouldn’t have required the “talking filibuster”, but it would have reformed the filibuster to put the burden on the minority, rather than the majority, by forcing them to come up with 41 votes against cloture, rather than requiring majority to come up with 60 in favor of cloture. Pretty tepid, and Reid wouldn’t even go for that option, because it would have to have been done with a 51 vote majority (the “constitutional option” or “nuclear option”, depending on whose describing it), rather than via unanimous consent as the Reid/McConnell deal was done.
Filthy, filthy cowards, the Democrats. Never again–I am voting Green until the DLC and these puke cowards are purged from the Dem Party.
You damned, filthy cowards.
… and the first trial balloon sent up afterwards was Schumer on SS and Medicare cuts.
Reid is performing his job quite ably.
It’s just too bad that he works for the elites instead of the lesser people who actually voted him into office.
I don’t know about Boxer, David Lasagna, but here’s a segment of a letter I received from Sen Feinstein in response to my email asking for meaningful reform:
However, I share your concerns over the recent, unprecedented increase in the use of the procedural filibuster. In the first four years of the Obama Administration, there have been 164 cloture votes, more than the total number of cloture votes during both of President Reagan’s terms. Debate is at the heart of a deliberative body like the Senate, but virtually everything has been held up by an objection, even routine and historically non-controversial matters.
Senators are sent to Congress to debate legislation and to vote, and I believe legislation that follows regular rules should not be filibustered before it even gets to the Senate floor. If a bill comes out of committee, it should have a chance to be discussed and not have to go through a cloture vote just to begin debate. Please know that I have noted your support for filibuster reform, and I will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate further considers the use of the filibuster.
All those words to essentially say nothing will change.
Yeah, Feinstein I’m not surprised by. Boxer and Leahy I would be. Swanson’s interpretation sure looks like it has merit.
I never cease to be amazed(and in turn bitterly disappointed)by what looks for all the world to be a suicidally bubbleheaded view of reality by the vast majority of Washington congress people (and the fawning media who serve them) which time and again seems to preclude putting up any meaningful resistance to truly insane and truly minority worldviews.
NOW when a Republican Senator disagrees with a bill costing a large corporation over $150, he actually has to appear on the floor and hold it up with a sneer.
Before yesterday the good Senator could sit in conference with lobbyists and a big bag with a $ sign on the table, then just send a note over to Reid.
If we’re not willing to remove money from elections, we deserve 100 Harry Reids in the Senate, 435 John Boehners/Boners in the House, and 1 Barrack Obama in the White House.
It really is that simple.
According to wikipedia the “silent” filibuster was introduced in 1975 by a democratic congress. Does anybody know if that’s correct? Why was the silent filibuster ever introduced?
Changing my voter registration from D to Whig. Because my hair caught fire and I’m not one for the bald look. But really. Done. No more D for me.