I blame The Senator from Nevada who could have changed the filibuster rules but didn't!! nt

[kelliekat44]

[SoCalDem]

1. Could have TWICE..failed both times

Mushmouthed weasel..(no disrespect intended toward furry animal-weasels)

[smokey nj]

15. Actually he had 3 opportunities - 2009, 2011, AND 2013.

[SoCalDem]

22. In 2009 we also had the house, so he probably did not see any reason for it

The stupid "rule" should have NEVER been put in place..and should be gone.. There will be times when we are not in the majority, but hopefully over time that may change permanently ....(if too many people don't get discouraged and stop voting)

[smokey nj]

27. The perfect time to do it was when Democrats controlled both houses.

[SoCalDem]

31. Amen.. That should have been day-one business

followed by :
single payer
elimination of gerrymandering nationwide
updating the voting rights amendment
closing Gitmo
reinstating gun laws
letting Bush taxes end and immediately re-doing tax rates as they were during pre-Reagan years
reinstating Glass Steagle


for starters

[graham4anything]

2. Harry Reid is a great tactician. Best not to ever cede any power that might haunt later.

A side that loses a battle later lead to wars won
This was one battle.

The war is going to take years.

[gateley]

4. We might have been able to win this battle, though.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. Question ...

if the filibuster rules had been changed ... What would have happened?

Gun Control, or rather the gop's opposition to what 90% of the American people and, more importantly, 80+% of Independents and gop voters support, would be a non-issue to use against the gop in 2014.

Understand now?

[gateley]

44. You think people are actually going to go out and vote in 2014?

And we would have had SOME advancement for 2 fucking years.

This is NOT a political weapon -- this is one attempt to keep us a little safer.

Understand?

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. Yes ...

I really think people are actually going to go out and vote in 2014 ... In fact, I will be working to get out the vote. What about you?

EVERY ISSUE IS A POLITICAL WEAPON. And this attempt to keep us a little safer is NOT in danger.

Name one Democrat that will, has said, or even implied that they will vote to cut SS? There aren't any ... not one.

And how can any goper vote to accept the raising of taxes, even in order to get the cut to SS (that isn't really there) ... they will be primaried and they will likely lose.

And any goper that does vote to cut SS will realize a lose of support because voting seniors out number deficit hawk teapartiers.

Understand?

[gateley]

46. I really hope you're right. SS is what turned the people against W (those

who were supporting him). It's sacrosanct!

I think SS might get out the voters, I don't think gun control will, but I could be wrong. I also have a concern that they will convince people that chained CPI or other "minor changes" won't really affect them.

And I ALWAYS work to get out the vote. Here in Washington it's all mail-in. Last election I drove people to the post office and GAVE people stamps.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. True ...

But President Obama isn't running in 2014 and Democratic messaging will smash any attempt by the gop to tie individual Democrats to the CCPI, while directly connecting, as a party, the gop to it.

And I ALWAYS work to get out the vote. Here in Washington it's all mail-in. Last election I drove people to the post office and GAVE people stamps.

Great ... Hope to hear about your GOTV efforts between now and 2014! Trading stories helps those of us in the field.

[AndyA]

5. Some don't have years. Some have had their years taken from them.

Not much in there to comfort survivors. While this war is going on, more and more innocent victims will die. How many before it's finally ENOUGH?

[graham4anything]

8. This bill wouldn't have ended the deaths. A reinterpretation of the 2nd will stop it.

That can only happen in a few years, most likely 2018-2019.

The poison pen amendment actually would have caused deaths in the states that already have great gun control.

Soon as I heard about that amendment, knew that it had to be defeated.

Who will be the last one to die is a good battle cry if the people keep shouting it at the polls and run the NRA out of time.

Remember-this bill was only a start, and would not quickly have stopped all the legal and illegal guns in the nation. Any one of which can turn into the next mass shooting.

[MyOwnPeace]

32. Well said!

[jeff47]

9. If you believe a Republican majority won't eliminate the filibuster

I've got some ocean-front land in Nevada to sell you.

[JEB]

10. Yeah, except Dems

seem to be too chickenshit to use the Filibuster when they are the minority.

[SoCalDem]

24. They don't need to end it when they are in charge (see Bush years)

They know that there are always just enough blue dogs who will vote with them...and our leaders bluster on about filibustering, but usually back down...in favor of "comity"..

[uponit7771]

34. +1

[Skidmore]

35. As if

Dems would play as nasty as the Rs have done for the past decade. Dems just don't fight like that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. And lives. Lots of them,...right?

[gateley]

3. Yep. Some were explaining that it was actually a good thing (I forget the reasons)

but I've not seen anything good come from his inability to make a change.

[graham4anything]

7. President Obama just gave the single most forceful speech against the NRA ever.

And with 2014 right around the corner, he specifically stated that it will take getting a different congress.

Instead of a compromise bill, total defeat of the NRA will be won in the years to come.

They will wish they had voted for this.

Had the 60 been changed, and if in 2014, the house is won but the senate is not(due to who is up as only 1/3 are) it would be much worse to not have the 60 needed than to have won this small battle.

Because this bill wasn't the end all anyhow.

There really is no compromise on guns that will stop the problems but a total win.
(unlike other issue where 10% forward leads to 10% more.)

A total NRA defeat is needed.

[awoke_in_2003]

12. Thanks for the laugh. nt

[hatrack]

13. Oh, a speech? That's so special.

Thanks for the update.

[BlueStreak]

25. I understand your skepticism

I will point out there are two things in this speech I have never heard come from Obama's lips:

1) The opposition lied about what was in the bill. He used the word "lie" several times and didn't mince words.

2) He called for the American people to replace legislators who are not able to act on an idea supported by 90%. If he had done that a year ago, Speaker Pelosi might be taking the vote tonight to get universal background checks into law.

[hatrack]

48. Well la-dee-dah - it took him 4.5 years to use the word "lie" with RW's rabid assclowns?

It took him 4.5 years to finally summon the energy/courage/determination/anger needed to point out to the nation what anyone who's been paying attention already knows:

That the paranoid fringe is running the show in the GOP:

That no one within the nuttosphere will ever, ever be called to account by the Republicans, no matter the absurdity of their claims or the eardrum-shattering volume of their calls to violence:

That Republican members of Congress include those who claim that PPV vaccinations cause brain damage, who claim that the government needs to apologize to BP, a member who publicly shouted "you lie!" during the State of the Union speech, and who claim that the Biblical Flood is evidence that global warming isn't real:

That the then-minority party in 2009 openly stated that its top priority was defeating Obama's bid for reelection in 2012:

And now he gets it? That's nice. And how many days will it be before he's back to "reaching out" and "seeking bipartisan consensus"? My money's on less than one week.

[BlueStreak]

49. I basically agree with you

When I heard all these people gushing about Obama's tough, outraged speech, I eagerly went to listen to it. Other than those two points I mentioned, it struck me as more milquetoast.

There were 100 FDR speeches that were far more direct and passionate in support of the people. But since FDR and Truman, Democrats just don't talk that way anymore. Their idea of outrage is more like Gore's statements during the 2000 recount.

[gateley]

28. I only heard snippets of the speech, but he was powerful. And a radio commenter I heard

said that he didn't speak from a script, but from the heart.

We needed something NOW, a step, progress, anything. We can't worry about what's going to happen in the future, we have to play the hand we're dealt NOW, and I think Harry made the wrong choice in taking this route. And why was he saying no more Mr. Nice Guy, indicating he was going to change it?

I agree there may be repercussions from this vote, but that's wasn't the goal. The goal was to pass the damn thing.

[BlueStreak]

11. It would have been blocked in the House anyway.

Anything the Senate could pass with less than 60 votes would be blocked in the House. 100% of it.

So then it simply becomes a tactical question. Are you better off forcing Democrats to cast tough votes, knowing that no legislation will get passed anyway? or are you better off forcing enticing McConnell to continue his pattern of filibustering?

They decided it was better for the GOP to be the focal point. And that was the right choice. If you think it through, it is practically a no-brainer.

But that all assumed that you make a hard drive at the House in 2014. Today is the first time we have seen the hint of that from Obama. If we learned one thing from his two successful campaigns, it is that he is very disciplined. He doesn't make his move too early.

With the exception of the "grand bargain" which he genuinely believes is possible if he gives enough away, I believe Obama understands he'll get very little else accomplished as long as the GOP holds the House. So basically there is one chance to progress remaining, and that is the 2014 elections. That being the case, it is best to consider all these daily skirmishes as steps toward 2014.

And if we do take the house in 2014 (and hold the Senate), Obama and Reid will change the filibuster rule for the last 2 years.

So basically, there was no upside to doing it while we didn't control the House, and there was a huge downside if we lose the Senate in 2014.

[graham4anything]

14. +1. Obama roped the dopes again. Thanks for reminding folks about the House.

[graham4anything]

16. Please post this as a standalone new thread.

[BlueStreak]

21. OK. It is here ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251300233

[gateley]

29. Tell that to Joe and the families of the victims, and the 90+ % of Americans who want progress on

this.

And frankly, we can't worry about what will happen in 2014 -- we have to do what is best for us NOW. What, we keep losing EVERYTHING until 2014? Then what have we accomplished?

[rainy]

6. There was no filibuster here. It actually went to the floor

for a vote and all voted. I thought we only needed 60 to bring the bill to the floor for debate. When did we need 60 votes after debate?

[BlueStreak]

17. Good question. I don't know. It seems to have been offered as an amendment

so maybe that is why it needed 60 votes.

I didn't understand earlier this week when Reid said he would take a vote on it because bringing up a bill can be blocked with a cloture fibibuster. But maybe Reid was able to bypass that by offering it as an amendment. The result was the same, but at least this forced Republicans to be on the record rather than simply voting against cloture.

[jeff47]

50. The filibuster was on amending the bill to a more popular version of background checks

The existing bill requires more background checks, and will be filibustered before it comes to a vote.

[krawhitham]

53. 60 to open debate and 60 to close debate

[Progressive dog]

18. So do I

along with all those other Senators who allowed the old rules to continue, The Senate is broken.
If I hear one more person defend this undemocratic legislative body, I will probably have a leftist hissy fit.

[DCBob]

19. I blame the Republicans who insisted on filibustering this bill..

and voted against it.

[geek tragedy]

20. The NRA-sponsored Cornyn amendment got 57 votes.

The only thing that killed it was the filibuster.

And the Cornyn amendment was a much bigger deal.

[tritsofme]

23. Right...so how would that help you pass the bill through the GOP House?

[DevonRex]

26. Who, Harry,who doesn't work for Obama

and can always use the filibuster as the means to not pass something that would be unpopular in Nevada and in places like Montana and North Dakota and Idaho and Utah where his friends and relatives live?

In case anybody forgot the reference http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17151.html

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. He works for the people of NV and the Senate Democratic Caucus

[uponit7771]

33. +1

[UnrepentantLiberal]

36. Didn't see your OP before I posted mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022695855

[adieu]

37. More like

"cluck, cluck"

/amirite?

[ewagner]

39. I'm in! n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

40. Heckofajob, Harry!

Who do you work for, again?

[Plucketeer]

41. In the words of someone of Reid's intellectual strata: YOU BETCHA!

[KoKo]

43. You mean "Harry the Big Talker"...who "Caves In" at the end?

That Harry... Harry Reid.

sigh...is all I have to say about him. Hey...he didn't vote for it though...because HE KNEW the votes would shove it down. Good old Harry...the Vote Counter...who tried to look like the Good Guy on this. Sorry Harry...we know what you do by now. Can't fool us any more!

[Jakes Progress]

47. Lots of blame to go around. But he deserves a share.

[bvar22]

51. The Senate Democratic Caucus CHOSE Harry Reid to do EXACTLY what he is doing.

They chose a conservative Senator from a Conservative State,
who is KNOW for Waffling,
to LEAD and Speak for ALL of them.
It lends the Democratic Senatorial Caucus plausible deniability.

Blaming ONLY Harry Reid for NOT changing the rules ignores the much larger
problem with today's New Democrat Centrist Party.


Aside from all that,
are you enjoying the Kubuki Theater?
Unfortunately, I've seen this one before,
and it ends badly for the Working Class & The Poor.

[krawhitham]

52. HE DID NOT HAVE THE VOTES to change the filibuster rules or so says BERNIE SANDERS

Bernie Sanders said Reid only had 47-48 votes on the Jan 25th episode of the The Ed Show, he said 7 or so Dems would not back the motion

20:20 into the show

or
http://www.wegoted.com/theEdShow/entire-shows/?NID=805