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

[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.