PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Why did Reid try to change the rules on his bill?


petegz28
07-29-2011, 08:29 PM
Right after the Boehner bill was tabled McConnel offered to vote immediately on Reid's bill. Why didn't Reid take him up on it? (orange?)

Instead Reid tried to have the rules changed for a vote on his bill so it would only take a simple majority instead of the 60 votes normally required.

Pretty fucking chicken shit

alnorth
07-29-2011, 08:45 PM
Right after the Boehner bill was tabled McConnel offered to vote immediately on Reid's bill. Why didn't Reid take him up on it? (orange?)

Instead Reid tried to have the rules changed for a vote on his bill so it would only take a simple majority instead of the 60 votes normally required.

Pretty ****ing chicken shit

You got confused. McConnell wanted to waive the requirement to wait on cloture till tomorrow and vote right now because he apparently has 41 votes at the moment. So, he knows cloture would fail, which would force another delay. If he's got the votes to defeat cloture now, then it makes sense to strike and not risk losing a vote later.

Reid wants a day to work on getting that 7th republican vote and figure out what he needs to change to make it happen.

edit: well, first Reid checked to see if anyone objected to ending debate and proceeding to a vote. That is one of those impossible things that never succeeds, but you always routinely try. Its not like there's a divine right to require a supermajority to pass bills in the senate. That might be where the "he tried for a majority vote" confusion was. Well no kidding, of course he would ask first to see if there would be a filibuster.

petegz28
07-29-2011, 08:48 PM
You got confused. McConnell wanted to waive the requirement to wait on cloture till tomorrow and vote right now because he apparently has 41 votes at the moment. So, he knows cloture would fail, which would force another delay. If he's got the votes to defeat cloture now, then it makes sense to strike and not risk losing a vote later.

Reid wants a day to work on getting that 7th republican vote and figure out what he needs to change to make it happen.


You didn't answer the question. Why was Reid trying to get a simple majority?

kstater
07-29-2011, 08:53 PM
You didn't answer the question. Why was Reid trying to get a simple majority?

Because that's the way the Senate is supposed to operate?

alnorth
07-29-2011, 08:56 PM
You didn't answer the question. Why was Reid trying to get a simple majority?

True, I answered in the edit.

It isn't like "filibuster" is the default state, on at all times, 24/7 every day in the senate. You actually have to raise your hand, object to ending debate, and filibuster.

Reid simply checked to see if there was any objection to voting because if no one is going to filibuster, well hell, then we don't need a cloture vote. Its not like this was a devious sneaky thing or anything, Reid knew damned well they would filibuster, he just asked if there was any objection to going forward with a vote, and the GOP metaphorically laughed and said "yeah right, nice try"

HonestChieffan
07-29-2011, 11:02 PM
Reid is a POS. House should just table his bullshit and repass the Boehner bill. FU Harry.

alnorth
07-29-2011, 11:14 PM
Reid is a POS. House should just table his bullshit and repass the Boehner bill. FU Harry.

The Boehner bill is an idiotic waste of time which will never pass.

If the choice is that stupid bill or default, then the answer will be default. Then, without a deal, financial armageddon will happen by the end of the year. Then the GOP will get all the blame. Then they will be utterly wiped out in 2012.

And then.... huge tax increases, far more than I'd want to see, followed by new left-wing spending galore.

You need to win two elections in a row to get any sort of mandate. The republicans are massively overplaying their hand.

HonestChieffan
07-29-2011, 11:45 PM
The Boehner bill is an idiotic waste of time which will never pass.

If the choice is that stupid bill or default, then the answer will be default. Then, without a deal, financial armageddon will happen by the end of the year. Then the GOP will get all the blame. Then they will be utterly wiped out in 2012.

And then.... huge tax increases, far more than I'd want to see, followed by new left-wing spending galore.

You need to win two elections in a row to get any sort of mandate. The republicans are massively overplaying their hand.


There is no mutual exclusivity in the issue. The fact you don't like Boehners bill does not change the fact the Reid is a political scumbag POS.

Reid's bill is even worse than Boehner's bill so we could agree neither bill is worth a damn. Then Reid is still a dirtball little sleaze.

The House has done its job. The votes counted, everyone got to debate bitch and vote. The Senate hides behind a no vote vote with no debate and advances a colossal turd of a bill written by the little jackass from Nevada.

FD
07-30-2011, 11:52 AM
Honest question here, why are the Senate Republicans filibustering the Reid bill? What do they hope to gain from it? I don't see the logic.

alnorth
07-30-2011, 11:57 AM
Honest question here, why are the Senate Republicans filibustering the Reid bill? What do they hope to gain from it? I don't see the logic.

Honest answer, a few of them are crazy, but there are some senate republicans who probably want to use their leverage to get the best deal they can get.

In addition to playing some hardball at the negotiating table, at this point the Senate GOP has to realize that there needs to be a lot of "face saving" in the house to get a deal done.

Reid needs to appear to have been "forced against his will" to change his bill to something other than what he proposed (but not what the tea partiers would support), and even though the bill might not be changed all that much, Boehner needs the Senate GOP to "win" so he could then possibly thank the senate GOP for defeating Reid and Obama's evil agenda, put the modified Reid bill up for a vote (bonus points if Reid ends up voting against his own modified bill), pass it with the help of some (but not too many, or that would hurt him) "reluctant" house democrats, and declare victory.

petegz28
07-30-2011, 11:57 AM
Honest question here, why are the Senate Republicans filibustering the Reid bill? What do they hope to gain from it? I don't see the logic.

Uh, you got that backwards...

Democrats enforce filibuster against their own debt bill

Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber, but it's actually Democrats who are enforcing the filibuster on their own legislation, insisting on delaying a vote until 1 a.m. Sunday morning.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/30/democrats-enforce-filibuster-against-own-debt-bill/

alnorth
07-30-2011, 12:01 PM
Uh, you got that backwards...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/30/democrats-enforce-filibuster-against-own-debt-bill/

meaningless semantics. The republicans want a 60-vote threshold no matter what you want to call it. The filibuster is there to give Reid time to bargain because he apparently doesn't have 60 now. If everyone agreed to end debate, bypass cloture, and vote it up or down with only a simple 51-vote majority, Reid would agree to that in a heartbeat.

FD
07-30-2011, 12:02 PM
Uh, you got that backwards...



http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/30/democrats-enforce-filibuster-against-own-debt-bill/

Thats interesting spin, but Republicans are filibustering the bill. The Democrats dont have 60 votes yet, and so aren't pushing for a cloture vote because it would fail. They have the 51 votes needed if the bill itself were allowed to be voted on.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 12:07 PM
Thats interesting spin, but Republicans are filibustering the bill. The Democrats dont have 60 votes yet, and so aren't pushing for a cloture vote because it would fail. They have the 51 votes needed if the bill itself were allowed to be voted on.


How do you fillibuster when there is no one speaking, the senate is not in session, and everyone went home for the night?

Chiefshrink
07-30-2011, 12:09 PM
Right after the Boehner bill was tabled McConnel offered to vote immediately on Reid's bill. Why didn't Reid take him up on it? (orange?)

Instead Reid tried to have the rules changed for a vote on his bill so it would only take a simple majority instead of the 60 votes normally required.

Pretty ****ing chicken shit

As Limbaugh would say, "See I Told Ya So"!!!

Pete, don't know if you read my reply to you yesterday on an excerpt from Limbaugh's show on Thurs but here it is again.

Here is what is going on Pete and why this is a trap. Excerpt from yesterday's Limbaugh show.


They don't want to head off passage of the Boehner bill. They want the Boehner bill to pass in the house. There's a trap essentially that's being set, and I noticed that there's an AP story, and way down at the AP story: "In fact, Boehner's plan has enough in common with Reid's -- including the establishment of a special congressional panel to recommend additional spending cuts this fall -- that Reid hinted a compromise could be easy to snap together," between his nonexistent bill and the Boehner bill. What does that mean? What it means is that over in the Senate Reid really doesn't have a bill. He's got an idea, but he doesn't have a bill. And what he's put forth as an idea hasn't gotten all that much support. But here comes, let's say the House, and Boehner doesn't have the votes in the House yet according to Politico. And this is key. That was as of 9:30 this morning and they're going to be working the Republican caucus all day long before the vote tonight. But, as of now, Boehner doesn't have the votes for his bill. But let's assume he gets the votes. The Boehner bill then goes to the Senate where it's dead on arrival. There are 58 senators that are going to vote against it, by design. However, they've got a bill over there now.

So Dingy Harry can take the Boehner bill and tweak it and rewrite it, make additions to it, take some things out of it, play with it however he wants, and get enough votes from Democrats since it becomes the Reid bill, and then it gets sent back to Boehner in the House looking nothing like his bill, but the rationale for passing the Boehner bill in the House is we've got to do this, the time is up, we're not going to get blamed. So if Reid monkeys around with the bill that he gets from Boehner, and it passes in the Senate, with whatever changes that are not favorable to us, of course, they throw it back in Boehner's lap, and then the pressure is going to be back on Boehner.

Okay, do you sign the Reid bill? Do you pass it? Do you get your guys to vote for it and send it to Obama, basically a Democrat bill. That is what a lot of people -- and I sign on to the theory, too -- this is one of the traps that's being set. The Boehner bill is essentially being used to be a foundation for a nonexistent as of yet Reid bill. And thereby the Boehner bill becomes the Reid bill, therefore Democrat bill all in the absence of an Obama plan. No Obama plan at all in this.


There's no Obama bill. There's nothing set down on paper. So the Reid bill will become the Obama bill. The Boehner plan will become the Obama plan. I think that's the trap. And, of course, the establishment, Republicans are all gung ho. "Gotta get this done. It's the best we can get." Because they're telling themselves there aren't any tax increases in it, and there aren't. There aren't any tax increases in the Boehner bill. And there are spending cuts and there are caps, but what happens when that goes over to the Senate and Reid says, "You know what, I like some of this and I don't like that. Let's take some of this out and put some of this in," and gets his votes for it and the Boehner bill becomes something unrecognizable, then goes back to the House, what are they going to do? They've already passed the Boehner bill under the guise that we can't wait any longer, that AAA credit rating is in jeopardy, all this rotgut BS.

FD
07-30-2011, 12:11 PM
How do you fillibuster when there is no one speaking, the senate is not in session, and everyone went home for the night?

By denying unanimous consent to move forward on debate.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 12:12 PM
They offered a vote immediately.

FD
07-30-2011, 12:13 PM
They offered a vote immediately.

A cloture vote, requiring 60 to pass. By forcing a cloture vote, its a filibuster. They never offered an up or down vote on the bill itself. I don't see the confusion some are having.

alnorth
07-30-2011, 12:16 PM
Another detail that makes me think everyone's just trying to figure out a way to pass something in this 5-act play is a clever move the house is possibly doing today.

It looks like they may simply copy-paste Reid's bill, introduce it themselves, then vote it down to "prove" it wont pass the house.

From there, everyone can follow the script and play their roles, Senate GOP playing the role of "forcing Reid to compromise", Democrats in the house and senate playing the role of "being unhappy", but "willing to vote for this new compromise", house GOP playing the role of "approving" and "declaring victory", all while the house tea party yells and calls shenanigans.

I'm not sure how else this gets done without actually waiting for a market collapse to force a compromise.

alnorth
07-30-2011, 12:17 PM
They offered a vote immediately.

They offered a vote immediately, with a required 60-vote supermajority to pass. That is not an offer to an up or down vote on the bill, that is crap.

alnorth
07-30-2011, 12:27 PM
How do you fillibuster when there is no one speaking, the senate is not in session, and everyone went home for the night?

Old-school filibusters have not been a regular occurrence in a very long time.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 12:32 PM
McConnel requested a vote and the chair refused it....so that makes it a filibuster by the party that was denied a vote.


I like this game.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 12:37 PM
Theater of the Absurd , Harry is at it again....

(Washington Times) — Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber, but it’s actually Democrats who are enforcing the filibuster on their own legislation, insisting on delaying a vote until 1 a.m. Sunday morning.

Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats’ bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise.

“We would be happy to have that vote tonight,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans’ leader, offered.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.

He said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn’t insist on a 60-vote threshold, which has become traditional for big, controversial items to pass the Senate. But the GOP held firm on that demand, so Mr. Reid said he would insist on the full process, which he said would show the country that Republicans were being obstructionist.

“There is now another filibuster. That’s what this is. It’s a filibuster to stop us from moving forward,” he said.

Mr. Reid complained that if the House had been held to the same super majority rules the Senate often operates under, Republicans’ proposal never would have passed over there earlier in the day.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/30/democrats-enforce-filibuster-against-own-debt-bill/

alnorth
07-30-2011, 12:46 PM
A cloture vote, requiring 60 to pass. By forcing a cloture vote, its a filibuster. They never offered an up or down vote on the bill itself. I don't see the confusion some are having.

Actually you know what, you are right. A few people in the media are confused. This is not a filibuster by the democrats, not even technically.

The normal procedure in the senate is to vote up or down with a simple majority. Any time someone objects to a request for unanimous consent to end debate and vote up or down, that is a filibuster. The fact that he's willing to waive the 2-day requirement and vote for cloture immediately does not matter, by forcing a 60-vote threshold to end debate, you are still filibustering.

This is a Republican filibuster, and anyone who says otherwise is simply dead-ass wrong.

alnorth
07-30-2011, 12:48 PM
McConnel requested a vote and the chair refused it....so that makes it a filibuster by the party that was denied a vote.

I like this game.

The GOP is filibustering by insisting on a 60-vote margin to end debate.

WHEN we vote for cloture is irrelevant, if you insist on a 60-vote cloture vote, you are filibustering. Period. Seriously, this isn't hard to understand.

alnorth
07-30-2011, 12:54 PM
if anyone's still confused about why this is a republican filibuster, think of it this way: lets say they did vote on cloture last night and the dems failed 58-42. Does that mean the bill went down to defeat? No, not at all, it simply means that those 42 who voted against cloture said "We're not done debating, lets keep talking". The dems could bring up a cloture vote again and again and again once every few days, and by rejecting it each time, the 42 GOP senators have not killed the bill, they have simply blocked a vote, and they can keep blocking the vote forever until the 58 give up.

The fact that you offer to vote for cloture is not relevant to the question of whether you are filibustering. If you demand a cloture vote, you are filibustering because if you succeed in rejecting cloture, the bill did not die, that just gives you the right to endlessly debate it.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 12:58 PM
Reids himself says the dems are filibustering

alnorth
07-30-2011, 01:01 PM
Reids himself says the dems are filibustering

ummm, no he did not. When he said “There is now another filibuster. That’s what this is. It’s a filibuster to stop us from moving forward,”, he was referring to the republicans.

This is very cut-and-dried with no room for misinterpretation. When you insist on a cloture vote to end debate, you are filibustering. Whether you are willing to waive the waiting period to vote on cloture is not relevant because if the cloture vote fails, the guy who insisted on a cloture vote won the right to block the majority and keep on debating.

A few articles simply got this detail completely wrong.

orange
07-30-2011, 01:25 PM
Reids himself says the dems are filibustering

No, but your writer said (and you ignored):

(Washington Times) Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber

You can see it in all it's glory just above - in your own post.

RINGLEADER
07-31-2011, 01:48 AM
You got confused. McConnell wanted to waive the requirement to wait on cloture till tomorrow and vote right now because he apparently has 41 votes at the moment. So, he knows cloture would fail, which would force another delay. If he's got the votes to defeat cloture now, then it makes sense to strike and not risk losing a vote later.

Reid wants a day to work on getting that 7th republican vote and figure out what he needs to change to make it happen.

edit: well, first Reid checked to see if anyone objected to ending debate and proceeding to a vote. That is one of those impossible things that never succeeds, but you always routinely try. Its not like there's a divine right to require a supermajority to pass bills in the senate. That might be where the "he tried for a majority vote" confusion was. Well no kidding, of course he would ask first to see if there would be a filibuster.

Politicians being political. Shocking.