Skip to main content

View Diary: Harry Reid: 'What a shame.' (363 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe because Harry Reid said he did (24+ / 0-)

    prior to the vote. And then quickly changed his mind, backed off, and cut a nonsensical deal with McConnell.

    “Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men experience it as a whole. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” - Helen Keller

    by Jason Hackman on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 03:42:09 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe saying he had the votes was just bluster (0+ / 0-)

      he was using in negotiating when he didn't have the votes. We will never know.

      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself. Harry Truman

      by ratcityreprobate on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 04:17:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I think we conclusively know (7+ / 0-)

        From TPM

        Reformers in and out of the Senate believe that Reid tapped into their enthusiasm to advance his goal. “Reid said he wants to make it easier to move on bills,” said a pro-reform aide. “This doesn’t do that. He still has to negotiate with McConnell to get on a bill. It’s a negligible difference to how the Senate operates today.”

        The outside reform source accused Reid of “a total 180 reversal.”

        “Everything we were seeing led us to believe … that he was very serious about including [the shifting of the burden component],” the source said. “But that all hinged on him using the constitutional option, which I don’t think he ever really intended to do.”

        “Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men experience it as a whole. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” - Helen Keller

        by Jason Hackman on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 04:31:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Even Bernie Sanders said they on had 47 or 48 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ratcityreprobate

      votes.  Harry couldn't telegraph to the right that he didn't have the votes othewise we wouldn't have even got what we did.  

      •  He didn't get anything, but then... (8+ / 0-)

        he didn't want anything. More, according to TPM:

        On a private call with the Bay Area Democrats on Wednesday, Merkley identified Reid as the key person in the talks, and he urged activists to target members of Reid’s leadership team ahead of their meetings next week, according to people on the call. He also characterized Democratic Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Joe Manchin (West. Va.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) as wrestling with his proposal, sources say.
        That's 49 by my count. What's worse? Calling Reid a weak leader who can't move 1 vote from a Boxer or Leahy or Feinstein? Or that he didn't want real reform in the first place? Nothing fails by one vote unless it was intended to seem like it failed by one vote. More TPM:
        According to conversations with pro-reform Democratic aides, party leadership sources and outside opponents of the filibuster, Reid’s main goal was ultimately not to weaken the 60-vote threshold that reformers desperately wanted to change. Instead his objective was to eliminate mandatory gaps between votes in order to move legislation and nominees that have cleared a filibuster more quickly — which he achieved.
        So my reading of this issue is that Reid underestimated Republicans once again, cut Merkley off at the knees as if he was an upstart, and took a deal that was well short of what he needed to make the senate run somewhat normally again. That's not just my reading:
        "In 2010, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sold out Senate Democrats by striking a 'gentleman's agreement' with Republican Minority Leader McConnell instead of pushing for strong filibuster reform," said Becky Bond, CREDO's political director. "And now he's done the exact same thing, again. When will Democratic Leadership learn the lesson that Republicans will not negotiate in good faith?"
        He had the votes, he just didn't use them.

        “Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men experience it as a whole. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” - Helen Keller

        by Jason Hackman on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 06:58:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jason Hackman, DarkestHour

          The idea that a strong leader who really wanted to couldn't whip one more vote is absurd.  I guarantee that each of the holdouts had something they valued more than that vote which Reid has the power to take from them if the don't fall in line.

          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

          by jrooth on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 05:40:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It would have passed. (6+ / 0-)

        If Reid wanted it to. He could have twisted arms. Held a vote. Who wants to be the Senator blamed for sinking it? It would guarantee a well funded primary challenge from the left.

        Reid didn't want it to pass, since then he'd actually have to try to get things done (that he doesn't actually want passed).

    •  Ask Jeff Merkley (4+ / 0-)

      he had the votes but he weaseled and tried to get the Merkely Udall bill replaced by some piece of crap compromise offer by Levine McCain and then in the end just had a good old gentlemens handshake with the turtle.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site