Getty Images
Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) 13-hour filibuster brought renewed attention to the debate about civil liberties and counter-terrorism, but it also reinvigorated proponents of reforming how the Senate functions -- or in most cases, doesn't function.
In fact, Paul's timing helped reinforce a larger argument. Yesterday morning, Senate Republicans filibustered a qualified judicial nominee with a wave of their hand. We also recently saw Senate Republicans, for the first time in American history, use a filibuster to deny a cabinet nominee an up-or-down vote, again with no real effort. These same GOP senators recently vowed to use filibusters to block President Obama's ATF and CFPB nominees.
And yet, there was Paul, showing what a filibuster is supposed to look like. The Democratic leadership apparently noticed.
On the Senate floor Thursday, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) capitalized on Paul's talkathon to invoke the importance of a traditional filibuster where obstructing senators occupy the floor and speak until one side gives in.
"We should all reflect on what happened yesterday as we proceed with other nominations, including a number of judicial nominations," Reid said. "This can be a Senate were ideas are debated in full public view -- and obstruction happens in full public view as well. Or it can be a Senate where a small minority obstructs from behind closed doors, without ever coming to the Senate floor."
Referencing Paul's speech, Reid added, "That is a filibuster."
Well, yes, that's true, but while the Majority Leader explains what kind of Senate the institution "can be," I hope he also reflects on the fact that he's protected the dysfunctional status quo more than once.
On Oct. 27, 2010, Reid appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show, asked about filibusters, said, "The Republicans, just this time have abused the system, and it's going to have to change. We'll have to look at ways to change that, because there should not be 60 votes in the Senate."
A few months later, at the start of the 112th Congress, Reid had an opportunity to reform the rules, but he backed down, accepting instead a hand-shake deal with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), which effectively changed nothing.
Two years later, after voters re-elected a Democratic Senate majority once again, Reid had another opportunity to reform the filibuster, and he again chose not to. The Majority Leader said, "I'm not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold," which is pretty much the opposite of what he told Rachel in October 2010.
And so, here we are again, with Reid understandably frustrated, lamenting a situation in which "a small minority obstructs from behind closed doors." It's within the Majority Leader's power to pursue reform options; the question at this point is whether Reid will ever be prepared to act.
Leave a Comment:
Nice speech, Harry. Now let's see you DO something about the problem.
I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath while waiting for him.
He thinks he's going to shame them into stopping the obstruction?
Republicans have no shame. His little speech will do absolutely nothing.
These gop/tp are doing all that they can to obstruct any and all progress for America they are nothing more than an anchor to America and they need to go!
This congress is the biggest waste of time and money for America!Where are all of the jobs that you all promised the American people?Trickle-down theory my arse!
These gop/tp are just flat-out gaming Our system and their main goals are to over-throw Our Government so They can take over and run Amuk(as they are doing currently)and destroy all our lives and ways of life for their their own greedy benefit!They are control-freaks and if you or someone that you know does not believe this,you and your aquaintances are complete Fools!
Btw,Harry Reid Abides by the Rules,the Constitution and the laws of Our Great Country,Unlike these gop/tp Idiots that are doing all that they can to destroy it(including Judge Scally-Wag)!!
I keep trying to shame the shameless, sometimes I need a little head slap into reality.
It's nice to see the actual talking. Nobody trying to shut him up, although the tag team of McCain and Graham did rebuff Paul. Illustrating the lack of unity in their own paarty.
Now, I gotta say. I am all for letting a person have their say, the Rs were careful to say that is a legitimate Libertarian view Paul was spewing, even if he did have some applause lines with Jane Fonda being "allowed to live". My interpretation.
Well, they had a point, people with different views and political leanings should be allowed to speak and live.
Unlike some of those that troll on message boards.
I think the drones need to go under military, not secret CIA. I think I agree with Wyden. I do not really approve of drone strikes in general, but to gather information in foreign countries and have oversight by Congress would be more aligned with our Constitution.
We have concerns and I am glad there is some daylight showing on this now.
Truth be told, I think we could have ended these wars (I was protesting Iraq when Shock and Awe began- a driver was glad to inform me of that) a long time ago. I understand we have terrorist here and elsewhere. We need to comply with our own Principles to enforce the laws and protect ourselves.
Speak softly but carry a big stick, summed up the U.S. slow to war, Congressional Declaration of War and Executive Commander policy. Paul has a point there, although he has some very bad points as well. IMO.
We cannot just secretly bomb indiscriminately with CIA.
I understand trying to stop extremist dictators and we must remember the WWII sorrow. How do we stop people from hating each other?
I recommend those of faith to turn prayers that direction and dedicate themselves to ending hatred rather than prying into peoples' lives. Better to cultivate fruit there.
N. Korea saber rattling, for what? Use that energy to feed your people. We could say the same thing here.
I swear our Congress has been reduced to two types of Republicans, the ones with R's on their voter cards and everyone else in there.
So what have the Republicans been doing before Rand? Sorta filibustering, kinda filibustering, just saying the word "filibuster" to get the Senate Dems throw up their hands and give in?
Thanks Harry - now they're all laughing at us.
There are 2 theories about why Sen. Reid did nothing o filibuster reform.
1] He did not have the votes to do it. In this case today's speech was aimed at a few Democratic Senators.
2] He wimped out. In this case the speech was aimed to shame shameless Repubs and will do nothing.
Take your pick.
According to Sen. Sanders there were 47-48 votes to change the filibuster.
Harry Reid is the living embodiment of the definition of insanity: doing the same thing that has failed in the expectation of a different outcome.
Harry did a great job as minority leader, and should always be remembered well for that, but he has not been an effective majority leader (it takes different kinds of abilities) and he needs to let someone better suited to the position take charge. Patty Murray springs immediately to mind.
i agree.....harry reid is too much of a wimp
Clearly he is a clever man. He is close to the needed votes for at least the talking filibuster. However his inaction is evidence that he is not sufficiently motivated to pay the price for winning those votes.
.
I don't think you primary the Landrieus to motivate them. It will be hard enough to maintain a Senate majority in 2016. So no- you don't wound the Dems in the swing states. You hit the guys in the safe DEM seats who are lukewarm about comprehensive reform that Mann and Ornstein favor. What this does is get the DEM caucus to take the calls for reform with the seriousness they deserve.
So which Dem Seats are safe, but are vulnerable to a Primary Challenge?
1. the Hawaii seat temporarily filled by former Lt. Gov. Schatz. He will likely run for the seat against Hirono who probably has greater strength. However, they would likely both take a position in support of broad reform.
Are there any other 2016 Senate seats is solid DEM states vulnerable to a primary challenge?
Funny I don't remember a "fire reid" bus crisscrossing the country partially resulting in a massive shelacking flipping the majority....
I've seen a lot of folks calling Reid names which should be ladled onto the Republicans. That said, this government is grinding its gears and it needs a forceful leader who won't be hoodwinked by the intransigent gopTP shell games time and time again.
It would be my guess that Reid is now under pressure from a group of Dem senators to reform filibusters during this session because Republican promises mean nothing. Reid is signaling to the Republicans that they are running the risk that when there are 51 votes to change the rules on filibusters, it is going to happen with or without Reid. Now it is up to the Republicans to decide where they want to go. More filibusters are pushing more Dems in favor of reform and that may happen this session.
Possibly he is also getting the impression that loyal Dems are getting pretty pissed off. I don't know why the DNC bothers calling me any more because all I do is yell at them, recite the litany of complaints I have against them and then give them zero money.
Today another one called. He was a knowledgeable operative not some telemarketer. I focused some of my time on Reid and my inclination to fund the primarying of institutionalist DEM Senators. Most was focused on the F-Up in the DCCC 2012 effort.
I think I overused the term livid describing my emotions about the severe breakdown in leadership that led to the failure in fund raising and the loss of so many districts that voted for Obama.
My position is that I am making direct contributions to campaigns and refuse to go through DNC organizations until they demonstrate some more competence on getting policies and candidates in place.
How odd? I never get calls from the Dem party for contributions even though I have in the past. But I do get robocalls at election time.
Perhaps it is due to my sunshine personality, and they cannot resist my snappy banter as I review their past performance.
I am a little confused- What you are saying is you got calls from the DNC before but not now? Did they stop calling after November, or earlier?
Me- I got a call from a telemarketer after the fiscal cliff thing and after some other GOP shenanigans maybe 3 weeks ago- I forget what the emergency for that one was. The timing coincidence led me to suspect they were attempting get maximum leverage from outrage- to motivate people to contribute generously in the moment of highest passion.
I appreciate these guys are trying to fight the good fight, and the paid fundraisers are just doing what their script says, but the operatives have no idea how transparent their silly manipulations come off. It is insulting.
I am getting slews of email but no calls except for candidates at election time. They have my number, address, etc., so I don't know why they are not calling me. Maybe my contributions are considered insignificant.
CPAC the next generation of nut jobs you mean.
Can't
Practice
Actual
Compromise
I'm curious: what role does CPAC play in the filibuster reform discussion?
I don't know that they play an Actual role other than being a showcase of ideological purity and a reminder of how important the ability to deny your opponents the ability to act is
I don't have a problem with what Sen. Paul did yesterday. Actually, that is how the Senate should act, how filibusters should be done. If a Senator or Senators don't like something, stand up and tell us why and not just hide behind the curtain so no one knows who you are. Harry Reid should now use the action by Sen. Paul to enact filibuster rules that state a Senator MUST do a talking filibuster to oppose any nominee or bill. Then invoke cloture after a certain time with a majority vote to advance or defeat the nominee or bill. That's called democracy.
Dear Sen. Reid,
Until you are actually prepared to DO something constructive about the filabuster please sit down and be quiet, after all you could have done something when this Congress convened yet you chose to believe McTurtle and co. would be "gentlemen" an honor a handshake. As if after 4 years, an election in which the GOTP are still whining about the shellacking they took would stop, and you believed him, P.T Barnum was right "you are the sucker that was born" to believe "honor" would factor into anything the GOTP would do!
Thank you Harry Reid.
For what? He hasn't done anything. Or is that what you're thanking him for?
Good Job electing this guy Nevada
Let's remember that their alternative was Sharron Angle.
mpguy
We could have run a walrus and defeated Angle. Why did we get stuck with this moron?
Well, maybe when Harry's term is up (preferably before then) Nevada can find another good D, if he is that bad.
I do think there Lebowski Dude below #9.1 has the real reason- not enough votes? I am not familiar with other methods, but at least they should have to talk, that is what it's FOR.
I was shocked at the Sharon Angle support in NV, how can anyone go for that for SENATOR? Second Amendment solutions taken to the fringiest of the fringe. Yes, people want a gun, fine. But wtf? Are they thinking Obama's going to drone them while they are in their basement?
See my reply above, Sen. Reid didn't have the votes to change the filibuster.
However, once before the Senator exercised the "nuclear option" during a Congressional session - October 2011. Reid marshalled 51 members out of a caucus of 52 and changed the rules (I'm not certain which ones) because, surprise!, McConnell had failed to live up to the "gentleman's agreement."
It's only my personal belief, but I think Sen. Reid has the votes to change the filibuster rules, but only when/if McConnell again fails to live up to their agreement. IOW, several Senators were reluctant to agee to filibuster changes at the beginning of the session, but did agree that, should the Senate Majority Leader decide McConnell has failed to live up his part of the bargain, then those Senators will vote to change to filibuster.
The filibustering of the judicial nominee doesn't bode well for the agreement lasting much longer.
Shall we start a pot?
Where is the beef Harry?
Oh, this label has an expiration date on it, and you seem to have outlived the shelf life and may be approaching half life.
Whatever carrot or stick was involved in derailing the filibuster reform, I think it's time for Sen. Reid to come clean and reveal why he wasted this opportunity.
What did he find more compelling than abolishing the environment where a minority can prevent even holding a vote on legislation the majority of Americans want? Although he was elected by Nevadans, as Majority Leader, Sen. Reid's actions impact citizens across the country. And we want answers.
JL: He did not have the votes in his own caucus to reform the fillibuster. Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown both confirmed that, and those are trustworthy guys. This notion that Harry Reid is personally thwarting progress on the fillibuster is not factual. Keep the pressure on Reid, he is the leader and accountable in that context, but the notion that he is for a dysfunctional Senate is not honest.
just a reminder for the passive spineless dem posters, who cheer lead a dysfunctional senate , along with the rest of the gop ..... congratulations
And do not repeat speculation as fact DUDE , you can only get away with that at fox entertainment.com , so head on back there , Reid refused to even allow a vote on the deal , so no one will ever know , until we have an actual vote to count , which can still happen
Dude - note the word personally. Harry himself was not in favor of filibuster reform. He's on record. He's on record in this very article.
He's the one with the most power in the Senate. It's mostly his fault.
We need another speaker.
Pat: So you are calling Bernie Sanders a liar? And Sherrod Brown? Harry Reid is not a dictator, if he had the votes he would have held the vote, or there would have been a mutiny. You are free to think Bernie Sanders would go on MSNBC to lie about this, but most of us see Senator Sanders as an honest man. To me it seems like you just want an easy answer to the problem, one you can spout out then high five, instead of taking the time to discern all the information available. Much easier to yell at Harry Reid and others than to consider all angles.
Dave: You certainly could be correct about Reids take on this based on that statement, and that is a legit reason to favor a change in leadership. Reid might indeed be one of the old guard who did not favor reform. But that does not mean Reid had the votes, and Reid has not ever to my knowledge bucked the majority of his own party. Any Majority Leader who does that is gone. I favor putting pressure on Reid, but I speak out against those that infer or say something below board happened, or that Reid wimped out.
Dude-
Pelosi was a leader of the Democrats in the House. She was not their servant doing whatever the majority wanted. That's what being a leader in the congress is all about. That's why the leader has the power of committee appointments - among other things.
The votes weren't there because Harry didn't even pursue it. HIS vote was against it.
He needs to go. Now.
Pelosi is a great leader, and she never took a losing vote to the floor. Only idiots like Boehner do that.
Senator Reid is just not confident that the Democrats are going to hang on to the senate. If he keeps up this behavior, we won't.
Clearly the anti gun super pacs should have opposed Senator Reid for his high NRA rating. Then the nation would have Sharon Angle's wisdom in the Senate. The man has shepherded national healthcare thru the Senate, which Mike Mansfield and George Mitchell nor Robert Byrd were able to pull off...perhaps he has some idea what he's doing?
Harry Reid has done alot for progressive causes, and been a good Majority Leader. Now he is taking flack from folks with short memories and a misunderstanding of the facts. He is in charge, so he will have to deal with it, but obviously he did not have over fifty votes to reform the fillibuster, a dictator Reid is not...
Actually, Harry was part of the problem with healthcare. He allowed the bill to be holed up in committee for ever. Remember that buffoon Max Baucus? Remember that horrible summer of 2009 with the out of control town halls? That all happened while it was stuck in committee.
Harry has been a big problem for the last 5 years minimum. He should not be in a position of power.
The truly sad thing is that he was all we had going in Nevada. And it took a nutcase like Angle for him to win. Democrats deserve much better than Harry Reid.
Lyndon Johnson couldnt get a healthcare bill through the senate....what the heck do you want?
Harry Reid is living proof that neither party has a death grip on integrity. He was too cowardly to change the rules when he had the opportunity, the Republicans saw that as blood in the water, and will now feel embolden to block everything in Congress just to make the Black President look bad. I'm not really sure if Reid is even a Democrat anymore.
Establishing precedent further weakening the filibuster could potentially grease the wheels for an obamacare repeal, a wall st reform repeal, or 1 or more scalia type supreme court justice appointments should the Republicans win the next 1-2 cycles(history STRONGLY favors them in 2014) I know the vast majority of this board wants Nancy Pelosi in charge of both houses but I'd imagine she would carry around 40 percent of the vote in Nevada(being crushed by sharon angle) pushing the agenda to the far left will blow up as badly as tea party insanity if not worse
Senator Reid is just not confident that the Democrats are going to hang on to the senate and wants the current rules when this happens. This will happen if he continues this way.
You know while I have very little respect for Rand Paul (I think he is a wacko), I do respect how he filibustered yesterday. That is what should happen in order to obstruct. I don't agree with what he was actually blocking, only how he did it.
Terrific lets have 50 Dianne Feinsteins and 50 Rand Pauls to go with 218 south chicago reps and 217 oklahoma reps things will really move forward then. Who is the last liberal elected in Nevada anyway? Donnely rated A by NRA so is Mark Warner so who would like George Allen and Richard Mourdock to replace them? Get in touch with reality this isn't Sweden or even Australia the country could maybe be moved 5 percent(hard to quantify that literally true) more to the left or the right if that.
Senator Reid had his chance to reform the filibuster, and he's failed each and every time. I've grown tired of it. I think it's about time that the next time we have a new Congress, the Dems elect a new person to serve as the Majority Leader.
Maybe ol' Harry is worried about what the Repugs will start doing if they win back the Senate in 2014, ---not that that makes filibuster frustration more palatable. This may be the last chance (decade) they'll ever have to destroy Social Security, Mericare, and Medicaid. Control of both chambers would be a huge step, especially without a filibuster. Still, Harry should make it a less pleasant process.
Too little, too late Harry...you had your chance and you pissed it away. Don't pretend for one minute that you think the talking filibuster is the way the Senate should run because you opted to NOT fight for that which you today praise. You're a fraud, a fake, a phony, and not at all a worthy fighter for your constituents or the country, Harry Reid, and you should be voted out in 2014. For someone who was a boxer at one time, you certainly don't have the heart or spirit of a boxer that is of any use to you in the Senate. There must be a more feisty and determined candidate who could replace Hapless Harry.
What did Reid get in exchange for letting the Republicans continue to force the 60 vote majority requirement that is a) NOT how the government was designed to work, and b) only undermines the President's, Reid's party's, and all the constituents' agendas that put them both into office to fulfill. What did he get for it? and why is he still there?