Harry Reid takes to the Washington Post to explain why the Democrats changed a rule in the Senate last week. We told Reid and the rest of the Senate Dems that they’d be unable to get anything done if they didn’t deal with the filibuster. They didn’t listen. Even the move Reid made to address McConnell’s latest outrageous obstruction doesn’t change much. But let’s listen to Reid:
At the beginning of this Congress, many of my Democratic colleagues wished to change the rules of the Senate to limit the minority party’s ability to kill important, job-creating legislation with arcane parliamentary maneuvers and needless delay. I opposed this rule change, believing we needed to preserve the right of the minority to offer amendments.
Rather than limiting those rights, we came to an understanding with Republicans, who agreed to respect the Senate’s tradition of conciliation in the interest of getting things done. They agreed to stop forcing procedural votes for the sake of slowing down legislation, and we agreed to preserve the minority party’s right to block bills when necessary.
Since then, Republicans have failed to abide by that agreement. Rather than working with Democrats to pass job-creating legislation, they have used procedural maneuvers to kill several common-sense bills — including a noncontroversial small-business loan program — that have previously passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. They have twice nearly shut down the government and forced our nation to the brink of default for the first time in its history.
Rather than listen to people like David Waldman and me, Harry Reid “came to an understanding” with the Republicans. They would not delay legislation just for the sake of delay and Harry Reid would not punish them for their unprecedented obstruction in the last Congress. Let me translate this for you. In the last Congress, when depending on the day the Dems had 56-60 Senators, the Republicans filibustered everything just to make it so less stuff could be accomplished overall. Even when the Dems were able to easily get 60 votes to have a vote on something, the Republicans were able to force thirty hours of post-cloture debate (pdf). They chewed up weeks of legislative time in the Senate, forcing Reid to delay confirmation votes or simply give up on having people confirmed. Hundreds of bills from the House of Representatives died not because they didn’t have support but because the Senate didn’t have any time to debate them.
The Senate had ceased to function, and even a 59-member majority couldn’t impose its will. In this Congress, the Republicans relented somewhat on the simple stalling tactics. More judges have been confirmed. But Reid still considers himself double-crossed.
Here’s what happened:
On Thursday morning, we seemed to be on the brink of passing a bill to curb unfair currency manipulation by the Chinese government, a practice that has cost millions of American manufacturing jobs over the past two decades. The bill — which is supported by business and labor interests — had garnered a bipartisan supermajority not just once but twice. With passage virtually assured, the minority reached for the only tool left to try and derail the bill, confronting us with a potentially unlimited number of votes on completely unrelated amendments.
This was post-cloture, meaning it was after Reid asked for cloture, waited 30 hours, and had a successful vote to invoke cloture. That should mean that you have no more amendments and there is a simple majority up-or-down vote on the bill. However, McConnell asked for a suspension of the rules, which has not been done successfully in the Senate since 1941. He was delaying for delay’s sake. And, additionally, he was doing it to force uncomfortable votes on the Democrats.
Reid tried to negotiate.
We offered votes on four amendments, and they wanted five. We offered five votes, and they wanted six. Finally, we offered votes on seven amendments, including a vote on an outdated version of President Obama’s American Jobs Act, with which Republicans were seeking to score political points. Still, Republicans refused. They came back with a demand for nine votes that required suspending the Senate’s rules. The same logic that allows for nine unstoppable motions to suspend the rules could lead to consideration of 99 such motions.
Under the circumstances, it’s disturbing that Reid allowed himself to be pushed around for as long as he did. McConnell finally became so unreasonable that Reid actually learned the lesson we’d been trying to teach him back in December. The Republicans will not act in good faith and you cannot make gentlemen’s agreements with them. If you don’t play hardball with them they will roll you every single time.
I know it would be nice if this were not the case, but it is. And people are frustrated as hell about it. People are taking to the streets over it. This is just one small example of Reid acting like he understands his situation. But nothing has really changed. He’s still liable to play Charlie Brown to McConnell’s Lucy and try to kick the football. We know how that works out.
could you please explain why this weakling, milquetoast clown is the Majority Leader?
Because the Democrats in the Senate chose him.
And why did they choose him? Because they want a leader who is ineffectual. They don’t WANT someone who can actually throw their weight around and unite the Democratic caucus – their individual power is heightened by having a weak leader.
The problem with the Senate is all of the goddamn Senators. Same as it ever was.
In Reid’s defense, I wouldn’t call anyone who can get Ben Nelson to vote for the ACA “ineffectual”.
You are kidding, right? You mean after the “Cornhusker Kickback”? You remember how well that worked out, right?
My point is merely that he got it done.
Indeed.
Yeah, but the chickens are now coming home to roost. What will the new chickens do with their legacy?
Prohibition “got done,” too.
“You remember how well that worked out, right?”
Yeah, the bill passed.
it’s that they want an ineffectual leader. But you’re still not far off about why they selected Reid. They want someone safe. They don’t want someone like Pelosi who might not look too good in their home state. They don’t want the most liberal senator out there as the face of the party. That’s related to what you’re saying, but it’s not the same. Reid could be a lot more effective at pushing a safe agenda. After all, it’s not possible to push a progressive agenda. There are maybe five progressive senators, at best (Sanders, Harkin, Boxer, S. Brown, and Leahy). And each of them has at least one major blind spot.
There are maybe five progressive senators, at best (Sanders, Harkin, Boxer, S. Brown, and Leahy).
Not Franken & Merkley? I think there are seven. But the point stands is that they want a weak leader. Why else have someone from a seat that’s not safe?
Yes, I think that’s fair. Simple oversight on my part.
Barbara Mikulski, all 4’9″ of her, is on her way to your house to kick your ass for that.
Okay, you’re right. And Durbin is fairly progressive, too, and would be moreso if he weren’t in a leadership position.
over the past few years, I have become less and less of a Durbin admirer.
Me too, but I ascribe that to him being in the leadership. Left to his own devices, or even as Majority Leader, he’d be better.
Boo, my Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has been on the right side of most of the Senate votes (and a champion for repealing DADT), she is also one of the few folks I’ve seen standing up for the ARRA.
I’ll throw in Sheldon Whitehouse to make it eight.
Yes, and Reed isn’t bad either.
I guess I was feeling ungenerous this morning.
what are the major blind spots of these Senators? harkin=ag subsidies, shelden=protecting coal, sanders=gitmo vote, Leahy=???, Boxer=???
“their individual power is heightened by having a weak leader”
Right on target. Individual Senators value the preservation of their individual power above all else.
Democrats don’t oppose eliminating the filibuster rule because it empowers legislative minorities, for example, but because it empowers individual Senators.
Maybe now would be a good time for some senior Senate Democrats (e.g., 2-3 of the following: Baucus, Durbin, Harkin, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, Reed, Rockefeller, Schumer, Stabenow) to go quietly to Harry Reid and tell him they’re going to poll the caucus on changing/ending Rule 22 next time the Republicans pull an obstructionist stunt). (Not going behind his back, but also not asking for permission.)
Or just ask everyone who voted with Reid last week under what additional circumstances they’d vote with him in the future. Then report back to Reid, Durbin and Schumer so the leadership is ready to act next time something like this comes up.
I think they probably have 20 votes to repeal Rule 22.
The problem is that if the Senate operates by simple majority then it is the same as the House and therefore pretty redundant. They’re supposed to be more shielded from political winds, but we ruined that by deciding to elect them directly. More and more, I am coming to believe that the direct election of Senators, while an obvious improvement for accountability and the reduction of corruption, has doomed our democracy.
I’m also not sure that Rule 22 isn’t preventing something even worse, which would be an insane amount of volatility. Because we have winner-take-all elections which force a two-party system on us, and we have developed two diametrically opposed parties, without Rule 22 we’d have a different problem than we have now. Instead of nothing getting done, we see every new Congress undo everything done by the last Congress. Over and over again. Talk about uncertainty in the business community!
It’s really a perfect storm. I never thought I’d say that we need our senators to be less accountable to the people, but the way the parties are aligned against each other right now, that’s the only way we could get them to work together.
There’s always the President to keep things in check. The President and Congress are often from different parties.
And the Senate won’t act just like the House. The six year staggered terms do mean something.
The Senate already acts too much like the House. Take away the filibuster and every last incentive to cooperate is lost. That would be okay in the sense that a party that wins an election should have a chance to enact its agenda. It would be bad in that every time power switched hands, the work of the last Congress would be subject to repeal.
I mean, don’t get me wrong. The problem isn’t that we directly elect senators. The problem is that the Republican Party has gone insane. But that has consequences in our system. In another system, they’d go away and be replaced by something better. They’d become a rump party. Like the National Front parties in Europe.
Can we just abolish the Senate? It is undemocratic in makeup and pretty still an overwhelming, rich old white men club. How do we get rid of it? 2/3 of the states?
you don’t.
So the Dakotas will continue to have as much power as New York and California….that is a major system flaw of government. Plus, majority rule, whether we like the results are not, needs to be how Senate operates.
Yes. Why would two-thirds of the states vote to give all their power away to California, New York, and Texas?
The Senate isn’t going anywhere, ever. And the majority-rules may change if one party gets frustrated enough, but the bar is pretty high or it would have happened after the last Congress.
And why isn’t the Senate going anywhere, ever? Because of Article 5 of the Constitution which states, in part, “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
My non-expert reading of that text is that it would require unanimous approval by all 50 states in order to have Senate representation based even partly on population.
yeah, you’re right. I forgot about that.
Seems to me the bar is much higher for Dems than for the GOP. I don’t believe for a minute that the GOP would have let the rules stand as they are if the Dems had abused them at every turn for years without letup. They threatened to go “nuclear” over a supreme court appointment; who thinks they’d allow a Republican president to get through his entire first term without getting so many judicial and other appointments voted on due to obstruction?
If the GOP retakes the Senate, either they’ll change the rules immediately in anticipation of Dem turnabout, or they’ll proceed on the understanding that at the first peep of filibuster or obstructive behavior, they’re pulling the trigger.
They went nuclear over appeals and district court judges. The Dems never blocked their SCOTUS picks. It was the Republicans who killed off Harriet Miers nomination.
The reason the Republican Party is extremely unlikely to become a rump party in our system has nothing to do with the Congress and everything to do with the Electoral College. The Electoral College, by requiring a majority of its votes to elect a president, provides a huge institutional incentive to create political parties that can attain a majority of votes.
If we had a parliamentary system (where the party in power chooses the prime minister), then we probably would have 3-5 major parties: e.g., a Green/Left party, a Labor/Social Democratic party, a Business/Christian Democratic party, a National Front/Nativist party. Or at the extremes of the parliamentary system we could be like Israel which currently has (depending on how you count) 14-18 political parties in the current Knesset.
If we had proportional representation like Israel, yes.
Seems to me that a simple provision for instant runoff elections would be much more effective at breaking the 2-party stranglehold, and it wouldn’t call for a drastic revision of the Constitution.
That’s v. interesting, BooMan. I’d love to read a whole article about that, if there are any thoughts for you to tease out.
Instead of nothing getting done, we see every new Congress undo everything done by the last Congress. Over and over again. Talk about uncertainty in the business community!
It doesn’t make the British or Canadians worse off. They have problems for other reasons.
Durbin? I just saw him this morning on ABC arm in arm, practically smooching with Kirk, both of them talking about their joint plan to implement the Simpson-Bowles (aka Catfood Commission) recommendations to save a trillion dollars.
Illinois has two Republican Senators.
So the Jobs Bill is mired, with more people than ever watching CSPAN while Patty Murray is finding she can’t get the deficit committee to decide if they want coffee or coffee at the table. Tic Toc
Sounds like Obama’s strategy: conciliation. Harry Reid didn’t pop up with this strategy in a vacuum. This has Obama’s fingerprints all over it. Remember Lieberman and how that all worked out. I remember how often Pelosi would be chomping at the bit to let loose with liberal torrent of truth, only to be stepped on to toe the Obama line of–what’s the word–conciliation. It doesn’t look so cute and revolutionary anymore, does it?
Reid is “leader” because he greases the wheels of power and the elite. You know? The function of the Democratic Party these days.
So, when I hear Reid and, by extention Obama, whining and complaining about what the could not accomplish, they are merely blowing kisses in the wind. This is the house that they built on conciliation and they laid in the bed with the dogs and are coming out with fleas.
Wah! “Republicans betrayed us.”
To which I retort: “That’s their effing job! Moron!”
The parables are endless and cliche.
Is this like some sort of tourettes with you? You take a story about the wrong actions of the Republicans, who are trying to steal from the 99% and give it to the 1%, the tactical mistakes of Harry Reid, and you immediately try to change the subject to your hatred of Barack Obama.
It’s weird. It’s fact free. And it’s boring.
No, Delonjo, talking about something other than the object of your obsession is NOT “changing the subject.”
There are actually other subjects in the world, and your monomania is blinding you to that.
I mean, seriously, you think Harry Reid only became a conciliator after Obama was elected? COME ON, MAN!
Does Barack Obama steal individual socks from your dryer, too?
Your fetish with Obama is not only undemocratic but is also anti-progressive. Whether one trusts Obama or not there are hundreds of other actors in our representative democracy.
This really thoughtful post by Booman was well done but it was about Reid, McConnell and the Senate. And that makes you a troll for continuing to derail the discussion. I really think you’ve earned a ban from Booman, IMHO.
There are several users who are trying my patience with their decisions to twist every thread into an Obama-bashing conversation. Some people are kind of relentlessly negative in their mindset. Others may just be trolls.
But I haven’t banned anyone for this behavior despite the fact that it is very boring.
The Constitution states “and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,”
nothing in that says that the Senate can simply refuse to bring up a case to render Advice and Consent.
Isn’t it unconstitutional to refuse to consider?
Probably, but the Constitution also states that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings” (Article 1, Section 5). If, under the “rules of its proceedings” the Senate is proceeding very, very slowly, it’d be tough to get the Supreme Court to intervene and call its behavior unconstitutional.
(That said, there’s certainly a lot more that Obama, Reid, et al, could do to raise the cost to the Republicans for their current behavior.)
Yes, I agree that the Senate can do that.
I wonder what would happen if Obama put a time limit on the nomination, and stated that, if by Time X no hearing had been held, he would simply proceed as if the Senate had given advice and consent. The Senate would then have to take the policy to the SC, and they would decide.
Something is needed to push the envelop.