TPM
A few weeks ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a traditionalist who's resisted changes to the way the chamber operates, raised some eyebrows when he voiced support for systemic institutional changes. Three weeks later, it looks like he meant it.
Referencing last year's reform efforts from Democratic Sens. Tom Udall and Jeff Merkley, Reid said on the floor, "These two young, fine senators said it was time to change the rules of the Senate, and we didn't. They were right. The rest of us were wrong."
Was this just said in momentary frustration, or is Reid now on board with changing the way the dysfunctional chamber does business? It may depend on the election outcomes.
A frustrated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he and other Democrats would likely push for changes to Senate filibuster rules if the Democrats hold the Senate in November, and blamed Republican obstructionism for forcing these changes.
"I'll just bet you ... if we maintain a majority, and I feel quite confident that we can do that, and the president is reelected, there is going to be some changes," Reid said on the Senate floor Thursday morning. "We can no longer go through this, every bill, filibusters on bills that they agree with. It's just a waste of time to prevent us from getting things done."
If Obama wins a second term, it's tempting to think the broken Senate would make policymaking impossible anyway, leading to indefinite dysfunction. Reid is suggesting otherwise -- if there's a Democratic White House a Democratic majority in the Senate, Reid doesn't intend to suffer through another Congress in which mandatory supermajorities are needed to approve nearly every measure.
We don't yet know what "some changes" might include, and if Republicans maintain a majority in the House, reforms might only affect nominations, not bills.
But the more leading officials realize the Senate wasn't designed to work this way, it didn't used to work this way, and it can't work this way, the better.
Leave a Comment:
Meh. I'll believe it when I see it. I have very little faith in Harry Reid anymore.
I can't remember who once described Democrats as constant underdogs. They fail to do anything when they have majority powers, but raise commotion when they are out of power, drafting bills and what-not that they know will not have majority support and actually be passed, just to say they invoked those legislative promises for their donators.
After Wisconsin, I believe that the opportune time for political courage passed the Dems in 2008 and now we'll have to wait - probably another decade - before such an opportunity presents its self again.
I can only hope that the Democrats in office at that time have more of a backbone than the current crowd.
That depends on your definition of nothing. Obamacare is something, something big, so is ending the Bush-Cheney oil wars. Killing National terrorist, I would say that was something, just ask Bin Laden, Oh, wait a minute, you can't.
If you have very little faith in Harry 'Spineless' Reid and The Capitulator-In-Chief Obama, you have more than I do.
The problem originated not in the Filibuster, but in the modification of the definition of Filibuster to make it a "hold". When a member or members had to physically carry out the Filibuster by holding the floor through talking sooner or later it would end. When they can simply say they are doing it and need do nothing it never ends. Of course under the new rule James Stewart would never would have gone hoarse, but the climax of the movie would have been missing too.
They should take a vote and ask how many Republicans know that.
They changed the rules in order to try to get things done. The old rules were as disruptive as the new rules. The only thing the old rules offered was a chance that a price would be paid for gumming-up the works. Still the practice of using a filibuster to block progress was prolific enough to cause folks to change it.
A rule should never be made in the first place if it is meant to tilt favor to one side. That spells the end of democracy. It is already being run by republican rule which means they will continue to tax the middle class and the poor to pay for their own salaries while they do nothing to earn it .....absolutely nothing, why are we paying them anything, we should all refuse to pay them until they start working. Every middle class and poor citizen should seek tax exempt status, we're done footing the bill.
Unfortunately, it'll be just in time for the Republicans to wipe out the 20th century. Way to get ahead of the curve, Dems, after the opportunity to get an effective stimulus, a single-payer health insurance system, do something about climate change has passed and fix the problems that needed fixing. Now, Dems are being made to look like it was they who couldn't fix the problems (while Republicans obstructed those fixes) and Republicans (who could have been extincted in 2009) have risen from the dead to argue they should allowed to fix the problems they caused with ideas that caused the problems.
If it weren't for impotent and incompetent, what would the Democrats be?
And if Republicans win in November, it's a foregone conclusion they'll get rid of the filibuster to accomplish their unrequited dream of 80 years. It's their last chance and they mean business.
Yea, ok Harry! Can you people on the Hill actually get a spine, a coherent message - use the TRUTH, and act as though you mean it and don't give a dayum - it's working for the GOP so far!
You can bet your bippy that if the Republicans take control of the Senate, the rules will be changed a lot more than Reid is contemplating.
This would seem to imply that Obamacare has breaking medical news - spinal transplant trials might commence in January!
@!$%# you, Harry Reid, you spineless sack of @!$%#! Wonderful. We now have the worst of all possible worlds. If the Dems retain the Senate but lose the White House, they look like hypocrites if they refuse to change the filibuster. If the Dems retain both the Senate and the White House, they'll probably chicken out. And if the Nazipublicans take the Senate and the White House, they abolish the filibuster and blame the Dems for opening the door to it.
Well said, Alan. Reid has been a disaster. Had he had the sense to change the rules in 2008, the Dems could have made some real progress and likely not have been trounced in 2010. But hey, just looking at it logically, what sense is there in the "progressive" party choosing an old Mormon as its leader? It's ridiculous on its face, and Reid has performed as one would have expected.
STEVE
I like you but get a REAL CHART!
This one only goes thru 2008; and it is EVEN WORSE in 2011 and the first half of 2012.