Were you in favor or majority rule when the Republicans were in the majority?

just asking....

This is not hypocrisy. Rational people on both sides ought to be for the traditional system which was based on the norm that 60 vote supermajorities would not be insisted on except in rare and extraordinary circumstances.

Rational people on both sides oppose requirement of the supermajority as the founders rejected it when applied to all legislation. The GOP leadership has rejected the norms, and so the rules that depend on those norms guarantee not protection against majoritarianism, but a dysfunctional government paralyzed during multiple simultaneous crippling crises.

Reid's action doesn't just guarantee his place in history as a buffoon, he provides an archetype of the political cynic who prizes self interest over patriotism.

It's time to primary these bastards, and you don't do it from within the DNC.

I'm cancelling my membership in the DSCC, and the DCCC. Advise like minded liberals to do the same. Perhaps Organizing for Action will apply themselves to this problem, but if not, there are plenty of other liberal PACs who could apply Victory Lab techniques to mobilize the vote against these opponents of progress.

Hey Messina, we are waiting for some indication OFA will be redeploying to the competitive legislative races for 2014. The DNC is back to business as usual- asleep at the wheel.

Is OFA going to sit it out again, or not?

Have you the ability to follow an argument? The issue is filibuster reform not abolition. But then, you appear to be a right winger and so unwilling or incapable of actually participating in a rational discussion.

Just observing.

I hope it is clear I was responding to 'stormguy53' (Full-of-wind-guy)

John: Please click on the video Steve posted above, the Sherrod Brown one. Sen. Brown says literally the same thing I did yesterday that compelled you to call me a "wimp" and a "chickens#%&". Apparently you want the Democrats to self destruct and infight like the Republicans are doing because of your ideaology. As Sen. Brown explained, this would not stop the House from obstructing everything anyway.

Point #1: I, for one, am in favor of majority rule. I believe that was the provision in the Constitution for both bodies of Congress. The filibuster is, as Rachel pointed out last night, for special issues that deserve special consideration in the mind of the senator conducting the filibuster.

Point #2: I was shocked at the double-speak at the beginning of Sherrod Brown's interview. What was that about? He danced around and talked about everything but the Senate's vote on the filibuster. Me thinks there's more to this story than meets the eye.

JL, put yourself in Brown's shoes. It is safe to assume he is no dummy and that he understands the necessity of 60 votes means that dems are forced into making right wing proposals. He was on O'Donnell's show and not unsurprisingly, he did not burn his bridges with the colleagues he hoped to persuade later. Instead he adopted their argument and put a marker down when the House is in DEM hands, he will be expecting them to agree with him.

Or did you expect him to flame these people he wishes to persuade later?

Emotionally gratifying maybe, and I am sure he could have used much more colorful language than I did. But it would have injured achievement of the goal of reforming the Senate.

John, I'm confused by your post. Which colleagues is Brown expecting to persuade? What argument did he adopt? And WHEN do you think the House will ever be in Democratic hands? Gerrymandering has rendered this all but impossible, from what I can see.

But especially, an interview doesn't have to be either obfuscation or flaming. There are other possibilities, such as saying the Senate wasn't ripe for the change, that more time was required to get a bloc firmed up, whatever. It's the evasiveness that struck me. Alarm bells go off when I hear that, whichever side does it.

Always nice to have Stormtrooper come along and give us another demonstration of Publick Idiocy. Computers are far too user-friendly nowadays, since they allow Homo Sap - the biped lacking frontal lobes and opposable thumbs - to post just like a real human being.

Thanks TC...I see that once again when you cant dispute the facts you simply attack the poster. Glad to know that you havent changed at all.

just saying...

Ledbowsky

My Senator Harkin came out after the vote and said this was all sad and pathetic , So yes , that still makes such dems WIMPY , no matter how you try and cut it

Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 01:20 PM PST.

Mitch McConnell fundraising on killing filibuster reform

by Joan McCarter .

http://www.dailykos.com/

Regardless if you are Dem or Gop, the rules allow Senators to be all things to all people. This is political gold- it's heroin that politicians have a hard time saying no to. To liberals in their state, they have plausible deniability. The Senator can say they could not vote for liberal measures because the bills never came up for a vote. To conservatives, the Senator can say the same thing: their hands were tied.

Note that every powerful lobby- not just Big Oil and Wall Street would be against reform because they would lose significant leverage to block Senate actions against the interests of their clients.

So which Dems opposed the measure? All the Senatorial junkies and the usual suspects on the Dem right wing.

Which argument did Brown adopt? That proposition that reform is pointless since nothing will pass the House anyway. So the stock trick you do with this is co-opt your opponent's lame excuse. You don't dispute it, but amplify it, because if you establish dominance of the meme that Desired action X did not happen because of condition Y, then when Condition Y changes, you have leverage to jump up and say, look- Y changed therefore we can now do X.

You only have that leverage if everyone accepts that that this was the only, or the main reason that Senate reform didn't happen.

There are two arguments why the situation with the House will not change anytime soon. Both of them are not necessarily true.

• False Meme that Gerrymandering means Dems are doomed: This is empirically demonstrable as being false. Is it plausible to assume that people who voted for Obama could be persuaded to vote for the DEM candidate for house? In 14 districts, the DCCC failed to convince voters they should vote that way, and Nancy would have 14 more easy pickups for her caucus. Now let's assume that the DEM house candidates had more lattitude than Obama and could differentiate themselves, indentifying just 3 more percentage points of persuadable voters. The kind of sophisticated techniques to identify supporters and motivate them to vote documented in the Victory Labs book increase the points easily by three and sometimes double that. But let's assume candidates for 2012 had used the OFA techniques and could persuade those who weren't sure about Obama- just 3% of those folks. We would have had 27 more seats. I am not making this up. If you want to check, the spreadsheet is here.
• As was demonstrated in the House this year, we can pass legislation with the support of moderate republicans. All that is necessary is to get the bills for an up or down vote. There is a little used means of bypassing the House leadership that has not had much need prior to conditions today. This is called the discharge petition. Basically if you get a majority of representatives to sign it, you can force a floor vote, thereby bypassing GOP efforts to block it.

So the House situation is far from hopeless. Here's one scenario. This year, the Senate GOP effectively blocks Feinstein's Assault Ban. Another massacre happens. Organizing for Action mobilizes huge demonstrations and agitation in the states of DEM Senators blocking Senate reforms. Reid decides the time is right to employ the nuclear option on sweeping rules reforms. The Dems opponents succumb to pressure and vote for the reforms. Feinstein's bill passes the Senate but Boehner holds it up in committee refusing an up or down vote until it is "properly considered"- hoping it will die. The 30 days required before a discharge petition can be considered is expended, and OFA again mobilizes pressure on Dems and GOP representatives in swing districts to sign the petition. It goes to a floor vote and passes.

At this point, progressives realize they have a prototype for pushing through much more progressive legislation than what was thought even remotely possible with Boehner in power.

John: Your infatuation with Discharge Petitions is not at all realistic. You project your views on what is fair and right to House Republicans who don't share your values and concerns. Not to even mention that any Republican who signs one of those loses committee assignments. You send such a mixed and convoluted message. On one hand you want to primary what you consider conservadems, but you go ahead and count their votes on your side in your little dreamed-up scenarios. It's like you call for a big shake-up, then completely dismiss any possible negative outcome from that shake-up...

Right. And all the LGBT gains in the last 2 years were unrealistic. And having a Black president was unrealistic. And when the going got rough, Rahm Emmanuel's colorful language to the President that ACA didn't have a chance to pass was the "Realistic" voice of the technocratic party hack. Loser predictions becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. Worse they become interlocking. EG: there is no reason for OFA to organize pressure on centrists to sign discharge petitions because the Bill will fail in the Senate anyway due to the 60 vote supermajority. Therefore the one who signed the petition will face retribution from his leadership and the electorate for nothing. And the Senate should not do reform because nothing will pass the House.

The argument is circular. Nothing happens because every entity in the dance refuses to make a positive step for fear of getting their toes chopped off. They have a very plausible argument that their selfless sacrifice is childish because it will be for nothing- all pain for no gain.

The Hacks have good reason to be cynical, but that cynicism guarantees a loser attitude about pressing for change. Dems who don't force votes are their own biggest enemies. Everyone understands the argument about living and fighting another day.

Except that the "fighting another day" never comes.

You claim discharge petitions are not realistic, basing your bald assertion that GOP centrists in fear of losing their next election would not sign them. It is a self fulfilling prophesy.

I don't know if you caught the Ed show, but Bernie Sanders said they could only get 47 to 48 votes. Reid couldn't be bothered to hold off for 8 weeks and twist these guys' arms. One Maddowblog commenter- probably Day quipped- this is why you don't put the defensive coach on offense. Reid is looking with great concern- and rightly so- to the challenges for the 2014 Senate races. He didn't say he was against the 60 vote rule- he just didn't want the Senate making a bunch of hard votes that would energize the GOP opposition, and weaken Dem incumbents. It's a defensive play. Everyone gets that.

You missed that line of argument and I can tell your heart is in the right place but frankly, I think you have wised up too much. You will find that your street wisdom about political "reality" is actually foolishness. I hope you do not learn this lesson too late.

John: I missed the Ed Show, did he apologize to Harry Reid for claiming his deal was all about guns? Doubt it... You have a notable intellect John, and a determined fighting spirit. We both want a better America, but we disagree alot about how to go about doing it. I appreciate the dialog, the labels not so much. Have a nice weekend and keep putting that thinking cap on, it's a pleasure to read your posts.

(link to video- 5:10)

Look- inside game politics is not so foreign to people outside of public office. Anyone who has been a player in medium to large companies knows about these kinds of trade offs. Sometimes you bend, other times you see an opening- a plausible scenario for success and you make a bet and go for broke. So this is hardly an argument for self defeating quixotic symbolic stands against opponents which have no practical hope of success. In Any business involved with dyanamic conditions like High tech or polticis, you pick your opportunities carefully, but if you never take any risks, you may last in such a defensive position for an extended amount of time, but you have set yourself on a death spiral.

Also, anyone in such positions also knows how radically different the real situation is on the inside compared to what perceptions are on the outside. Folks understand that, but anyone who falls for that appeal is a fool because if we accept the principle that we are too ignorant to take any action, then the electorate must lend its unquestioning support to elite insiders. Sorry, no abdication. If elites have a defense, they can treat the electorate like adults and explain in now, or later when they offer what they will when they are primaried. Citizens can and must proceed with the information that is publicly available. Pelosi pushed a discharge petition on the middle class tax cuts. She clearly is not shy about using it in the future. Messina and Obama are saying they are going to play an aggressive outside game to put pressure on members of congress. If there is a 60 vote majority in the Senate, and Boehner never brings a centrist measure to a vote, then the GOP member never has to cast a vote that might injure their chances at re-election. By stripping these shields from such centrists, maximal pressure can be brought to bare on members to sign the discharge petition on something like Feinstein's bill. Either they sign it and you get the bill passed, or they decline, and you annihilate them in 2014 over their support for weapons being used to massacre children. It's good enough for a few points in the polls.

As RM showed, Reid admitted that Merkley and Udalf were right, and the graybeards were wrong. Reid offers no excuses or explanations for his clear self contradiction. You can't even offer the house excuse or the difficulty of the 2014 Senate races, because all that was known at the time he said that Merkley and Udall were right. He is simply playing us for fools and declined to press the rule change through. If the vote was really that close, then it is very hard to believe that arms couldn't be twisted, or sweetheart pork deals couldn't be made to get the additional 3 votes. As for the "wasted" 4 to 8 weeks needed to do the twisting and ginning up grassroots pressure on these Dem senators, it is puny compared to the 2 years of Senate inaction this fiasco of an agreement has condemned us to.

Yup -- no doubt. And the Dems will roll over.

Yes, these corrupt excuses for human beings, like Reid, need to be primaried and the earlier a pot is accummulated to fund progressive challenges the better.

I'm happy for you, now share those drugs that gave you that hallucination. I'm thinking with spineless Reid as "Majority Leader" it's not gonna happen!

My understanding is that the rules question will not come up again until the start of the 114th Congress. America and the world need movement on supremely important issues now--not in two years

It would have been better if Reid had left the door open to the changing the filibuster rules in this session if they are continually abused. That could have been a warning to Republicans that if public opinion on the Senate plummets to single digits because of filibusters, the rules would be reexamined. Then Republicans would have to rethink their strategy to filibuster everything.

Good grief.

Missy: Harry Reid did not have the votes to do what alot of folks wanted, including me. Some here have reacted with insults and sarcasm, but they don't have to govern like Harry Reid does. Had Sen. Reid held a vote that fell short, he would look like Boehner trying to herd cats. You don't have to be an optimist to accept what happened with calm and rationality, you simply need to be a realist IMHO.

Missy: Harry Reid did not have the votes to do what alot of folks wanted,

Fact-less comment stated as FACT

Some here have reacted with insults and sarcasm, but they don't have to govern like Harry Reid does.

And some on here pretend to be mind readers and psychically know things about the senate with no solid proof to back it up

Had Sen. Reid held a vote that fell short, he would look like Boehner trying to herd cats.

That is right folks , we have to sacrifice and accept a dysfunctional senate , because Reid does not want to be EMBARRASSED , it has nothing to do with doing wall st or the conservatives bidding

I'll go with what Rachel and Mr Benen have to say , instead of the weak minded sheepled , and willingly uninformed

You don't have to be an optimist to accept what happened with calm and rationality, you simply need to be a realist IMHO.

In this case , REALIST means having zero balls to do the job you are elected to do , and promised to do , and selling out america to the minority GOP southern strategy

REID: Oh, we could have done it [filibuster reform] in the last Congress. But I got on the Senate floor and said that I made a mistake and I should have helped with that. It can be done if Obama is re-elected, and I can still do it if I have a majority, we can do it with a simple majority at the beginning of the next Congress.

Pat: See the above video. You just accused Sherrod Brown of lying to the American people. Sherrod Brown is someone I believe much more than you, an internet person. You are trying to strawman this by claiming you are for the Republicans if you are not having a hissy fit over this. Thats malarkey. Just the fact that you feel you must insult others shows how weak your position is...

The senior dem senate leadership , excluding my dem senator Harkin , has decided to sell out dem voters on this subject , no matter how much you want to try and color coat it or deflect

What do you imagine you are going to say to these senators when they blame the gop for obstructing everything a month from now?

Are you at all aware of Limp Dick Harry's history of folding in the face of difficult choices?

The elections did have consequences and anyone who isn't in congress will be feeling them.

good question even tho i doubbt anyone will can this be taken to court and challenged

SCOTUS will not touch this because it's a political question and really isn't justiciable.

Disgruntled: You insult Sherrod Brown too? He said exactly what I said. Apparently you wanted Harry Reid to take a bill to the floor without the votes, so he could look like Boehner and start 2013 with a turd.

Why look! He shows up below to explain it all. Yes, I know. It's because there was less to filibuster. And who said it was all against Reid? Did you count multiple uses of Reid's name in what I said, DUDE? You are Unbelievable, DUDE. Hey, yo Daddy Mitch is calling. He needs somebody to provide cover for Reid and the rest of his Democratic posse.

Disgruntled: Well... did you watch Sherrod Brown? Is he "lame"? Is Sherrod Brown the reason Democrats suck? Is Sherrod Brown a liar? Sherrod Brown is very popular, and is a frequent guest on TRMS, so lets hear what you think of what Sen. Brown said...

What, is Brown some sort of inoculation against Democratic spinelessness. As if Brown defending it makes it OK? As if somebody's popularity is an argument? You're a freakin' clown, DUDE. Read what I said, you limp noodle.

Disemboweled: Actually, Senator Brown is a Statesman, which a quite a contrast with your childish style. After the fiscal cliff deal when you had your feelings hurt and pledged to never come back to Maddowblog, I knew you would be back with your insults and negativity, duh. It's impossible to have a reasonable debate/discussion with a serial insulter like you who won't even acknowledge the opinions of others. Brown told the simple truth, and you are not capable of responding to it because you know it refutes your pity-party narrative.

Brown claims obama can pass the dem agenda through EXECUTIVES ORDERS , that is a preposterous joke , no matter how much people dry hump it

Pat: Senator Brown is not going to pretend that the House Of Represenitives is going to suddenly start doing the right thing. Thats the bottom line. The man is very honest, and Rachel actually thanks him for his honesty at the end. Go ahead and continue to throw yourself a pity party, obviously you have company, but the majority of the rest of us will move on. Harry Reid has done alot for America, and he will continue to.

Go ahead and continue to throw yourself a pity party, obviously you have company, but the majority of the rest of us will move on

Not only have you claimed the exact opposite of the facts Mr Benen has presented , you are now trying to claim the people posting here are not saying , what they are all saying , get a grip dude

I smell gop out caste

Very well said. It's not worth blowing up the Senate just to have everything stall anyway in the House. Sherrod Brown explained this last night on TRMS.