Reid Uses Nuclear Option; Moron or Actively Sabotaging the Democrats?

[jimmy olsen]

How can he be so stupid? Even if Obama wins reelection, the GOP is sure to win the Senate and they won't be timid on this issue like he was, they're going to take the precedent and run with it.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/senate-nuclear-option-filibuster-reid-mcconnell-vote.php?ref=fpblg

Nuclear Option?! What Really Happened On The Senate Floor, And Why It Matters
Brian Beutler | October 6, 2011, 9:31PM

Did Harry Reid pull the nuclear option in the Senate Thursday night? That all depends what you mean by "nuclear option." Reid did succeed in changing the Senate's rules tonight, but in exceptionally narrow terms. And the only danger for Senate Democrats -- as with setting any new precedent -- is that an opportunistic future GOP majority will seize upon what happened Thursday as an excuse to make much bigger, broader changes to parliamentary procedure, perhaps even nixing the filibuster.

All day -- and really all week -- Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have been involved in a procedural jousting match. McConnell's goal has been to embarrass Democrats -- to force a vote of some kind on the jobs bill President Obama sent to Congress weeks ago, and watch it go down in flames. Reid's goal has been to thwart McConnell, and to call his own vote in the coming days on a modified version of Obama's bill with broader caucus support. That will help Democrats make the case that Republicans alone stand in the way of the American Jobs Act.

Mostly this was about positioning. McConnell wants a version -- any version -- of the Obama jobs bill to fail with bipartisan opposition. He wants to upset Reid's efforts to draw a sharp contrast between the parties over jobs. Knowing that Republicans will filibuster all versions of Obama's jobs bills, Reid wants to make it clear in the public mind that it's the GOP that's preventing a bold jobs package from moving forward.

After going back and forth for a couple rounds, detailed here and here, everything seemed to be set in stone. McConnell wouldn't get his vote on Obama's jobs bill directly, but he would use his prerogatives under the Senate rule to force a vote on what's known as a "motion to suspend the rules" -- an arcane tactic that requires a two-thirds vote for passage, and was destined to fail. McConnell, though, wanted this procedural vote to serve as a proxy for Obama's jobs bill. If it failed, and if Democrats voted against it, Republicans could say Obama's jobs bill went down with bipartisan support -- a talking point they could use for months.

McConnell had the Senate rules on his side. His motion, however mischievous, was ruled in order. The stage was set for a vote. That's when Reid whipped out an ace he's had up his sleeve since he became majority leader -- one that his liberal critics wish he'd used two years ago to end the filibuster and ram the Democratic agenda through the Senate without having to contend with frustrating supermajority requirements. Reid and 50 of his Democrats simply voted to overrule the parliamentarian's decision that McConnell's motion was in order. Presto, McConnell's motion could not come to a vote, and Reid had avoided a political embarrassment -- and eliminated a very small minority right in the Senate.

But this wasn't just about checkmating McConnell. As he said in a statement late Thursday, "The Senate must have the ability to move forward on legislation that has broad bipartisan support. A small minority of senators cannot be allowed to bring bipartisan legislation, like a bill to end China's job-killing, underhanded currency manipulation, to a grinding halt when 14 million Americans are out of work."

To wit, after legislation has overcome a filibuster, only a very narrow set of germane amendments can come up for votes -- unless the rules are suspended. Since Obama's jobs bill is not germane to Chinese currency legislation, it was out of order, and suspending the rules was McConnell's only way to force the issue. This thin reed of minority power has been ripped from its root, because of Reid's play Thursday night.

Still, what Reid did operates on the same principle as the "nuclear option." It is tactically the same maneuver Republicans threatened to pull in 2005 when they pushed to end judicial filibusters. But the issue at stake is much, much narrower -- it ends a ploy that hasn't been pulled successfully in decades, except to delay proceedings on the Senate floor and score political points.

And this is where timing becomes important. Reid has wiped out an extremely small minority right (technically, the right to force a vote on a motion to suspend the rules, after cloture has been invoked on a bill, to consider a non-germane amendment). But he's done so at the nadir of Democratic power with Republicans strongly positioned to assume the majority in 2012. Republicans are furious about it. And now that Reid's done something that hasn't been done in at least 30 years -- and may be unprecedented -- a narrow GOP majority in 2013 could use it as cover to affect much broader changes to the Senate rules. Including, if they want, eliminating the filibuster.

If Republicans win the Senate in 2012, we all may be revisiting this odd procedural maneuver, but with much, much more at stake.

[Valmy]

Even if Obama wins reelection, the GOP is sure to win the Senate

GOP = tainted.

But seriously the best way to destroy the Republicans politically is to let them take power.

[jimmy olsen]

Even if Obama wins reelection, the GOP is sure to win the Senate

GOP = tainted.=

It's just geography, most seats are up in very Republican states.

[Valmy]

It's just geography, most seats are up in very Republican states.

I am just kidding around with you Tim.

[Grinning_Colossus]

The Republicans would have changed the rules anyway. They're not a normal political party anymore. And abolishing the filibuster might be a good thing in the long run.

[DGuller]

I'm personally not concerned.  Senators ruined the Senate. 

It's not like Reid is the only one with nuclear option.  Minority Senators have a nuclear option as well of doing everything in their power to abuse minority rights and sabotage the workings of the government, and that nuclear option has been excercised non-stop for years.

If Republicans win the Senate and strip minority of all rights, then so be it.  Whoever is elected has to have power for a change, or elections don't really matter.

[Sheilbh]

The Republicans would have changed the rules anyway. They're not a normal political party anymore. And abolishing the filibuster might be a good thing in the long run.

I agree on getting rid of the filibuster, or at least reducing the level of difficulty to, say, 55 votes.

[Jacob]

If it can be done, I'm sure the Republicans will do it anyhow. It's not like they've been showing restraint in the procedural shenanigans so far.

[MadImmortalMan]

The filibuster needs to go back to the "Mr. Smith" style thing where you have to actually keep talking.

[Berkut]

If it can be done, I'm sure the Republicans will do it anyhow. It's not like they've been showing restraint in the procedural shenanigans so far.

Yeah, if only the Republicans would be as constrained in their shenanigans as the Democrats! Then everything would be a-ok!

Actually, I kind of wonder how much restraint either party HAS shown. It actually could be quite a lot, since I have no real idea what actually would be possible absent any restraint. Parliamentary rules seem pretty damn arbitrary and complex to me. Are they all pushing the edges, or is there all kinds of stuff neither does?

In either case, I am quite sure that neither party pushes it any harder than what they think they can get away with, or in other words, neither party is constrained by anything other than a completely selfish appraisal of risk and reward.

[garbon]

They're not a normal political party anymore.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, if only the Republicans would be as constrained in their shenanigans as the Democrats! Then everything would be a-ok!

My impression is that the Democrats are more constrained.  I don't think many of them like it and it's not by choice.  I think the Democrats are a more diverse and divided party, so it's easier to pick off enough dissenters most of the time.  The Republicans seem more united, better whipped and more parliamentary.

Actually, I kind of wonder how much restraint either party HAS shown. It actually could be quite a lot, since I have no real idea what actually would be possible absent any restraint. Parliamentary rules seem pretty damn arbitrary and complex to me. Are they all pushing the edges, or is there all kinds of stuff neither does?

I find it interesting because here we've a system with very few rules, just lots of conventions.  So for all of the attacks and silliness everyone kind of has to act in good faith in a certain way or our system falls apart and we probably have to go and write a constitution - which no-one wants.  My impression of the situation in the US at the minute is that though the rules are still fine the conventions are falling away which I think could have negative effects, or could lead into possibly necessary reform.

[Razgovory]

It's just geography, most seats are up in very Republican states.

Considering the maps you show us, your knowledge of geography leaves something to be desired.  Why is the Senate Democratic now if it's a matter of geography?

[DGuller]

It's just geography, most seats are up in very Republican states.

Considering the maps you show us, your knowledge of geography leaves something to be desired.  Why is the Senate Democratic now if it's a matter of geography?

It could be because 2012 is not as favorable a year for Democrats as 2006 was. 

[Razgovory]

It's just geography, most seats are up in very Republican states.

Considering the maps you show us, your knowledge of geography leaves something to be desired.  Why is the Senate Democratic now if it's a matter of geography?

It could be because 2012 is not as favorable a year for Democrats as 2006 was. 

Perhaps, but that's not really geography, unless the East Coast falls into the sea or something.