Skip to main content

View Diary: Good Cop/Bad Cop. That's wtf is goin' on. (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  why would he veto the trap he laid for them? (0+ / 0-)

    Reid couldn't end the abuse of the filibuster.  He didn't have the votes.  

    that's how our democracy works. while the republicans abuse it, we tend to honor it.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:04:41 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You must not have noticed: it's a trap for us. nt (0+ / 0-)

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

      by nailbender on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:26:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  not at all (0+ / 0-)

        they are being blamed.  their base wants cuts and will vote them out if they don't do it.

        their base will also vote them out after the cuts..

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:38:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well if politics didn't affect actual people, (0+ / 0-)

          you'd be right. But the cuts are real and they affect Dems and wingnuts alike.  You know, people.  But yeah, brilliant politics.  Who knew it would turn out like this, right?

          No one could have predicted.  

          "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

          by nailbender on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 03:56:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Source this. (0+ / 0-)
      Reid couldn't end the abuse of the filibuster.  He didn't have the votes.
      •  were you not paying attention? (0+ / 0-)

        even some of the new members who we thought would vote our way chickened out.

        it was on the frontpage!

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:11:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Facts. Inconvenient, aren't they? (0+ / 0-)
          Durbin also backed up Reid's claim that he had the 51 votes necessary to use the so-called nuclear, or constitutional, option...
          As opposed to your, "out of your ass" claim:
          Reid couldn't end the abuse of the filibuster.  He didn't have the votes.
          And:
          even some of the new members who we thought would vote our way chickened out.

          it was on the frontpage!

          Reid said he had 51 votes, Durbin confirmed this. And:
          McCaskill, too, hinted that more could have been done had Reid gone forth without Republicans...
          There are three Senators, including the Majority Leader himself, directly contradicting you.

          BUT, and exactly to the point of my diary:

          Durbin also backed up Reid's claim that he had the 51 votes necessary to use the so-called nuclear, or constitutional, option, but he said the goal was always to avoid using extreme measures and instead reach a compromise that both the majority and minority would be comfortable with.
          (emphasis mine)

          Reid had no intention of de-fanging the Republicans by simply making them publicly stand up and actually filibuster. Not doing away with the filibuster, not screwing the minority in the Senate so they couldn't filibuster when they needed to. Reid had no intention to force the Republicans to do their dirty work under public scrutiny.

          That's because for Good Cop/Bad Cop to work, the Good Cop needs the Bad Cop.

          The worst thing that could happen to the Democratic leadership would be to have an actual super-majority in the Senate. The Good Cop scam fails if the Bad Cop is obviously powerless to be Bad.


          Source:
          Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell Reach Filibuster Reform Deal

          •  3 of them were soft votes (0+ / 0-)

            meaning they couldn't be counted on when the actual vote came around.

            the 51 votes was leverage to get the deal.

            -You want to change the system, run for office.

            by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:38:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  A simple, "I was wrong." Would have... (0+ / 0-)

              ...sufficed.

              You've been spanked. Go away.

              •  not at all (0+ / 0-)

                they didn't have the votes. had more Dems supported it, things would be different.

                51 votes was almost the entire Dem caucus.  we did not have everybody's vote on this.  the statements by Reid were leverage to get a deal.  

                -You want to change the system, run for office.

                by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:43:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Being wrong on the internet? Not a problem. (0+ / 0-)

                  Being too [fill in appropriate expletive here] to admit it and move on?

                  Credibility fail.

                  You deserve no further interaction, so you'll get none.

                  •  if you watched the video (0+ / 0-)

                    then you saw it come right out of his mouth.

                    i am right and you are wrong.

                    http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/...

                    -You want to change the system, run for office.

                    by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:51:26 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're double sourcing. (0+ / 0-)

                      And that source was before the fact.

                      During the negotiating process. Thus, part of the negotiations.

                      I reiterate one crucial point:

                      ...the goal was always to avoid using extreme measures and instead reach a compromise that both the majority and minority would be comfortable with.
                      This means that Reid never intended to fight for the talking filibuster. So your negotiating points do not contradict what was stated afterwards, and once again, my Good Cop/Bad Cop premise is vindicated.

                      Keep Googling though, I'm sure you can find something else to twist into a defense of the indefensible.

                      •  i am sure you will continue to twist (0+ / 0-)

                        reality to fit your narrative.

                        they didn't have the votes for the most extreme proposal, which was a different proposal from the other two.

                        this is why you guys can't compete on this level.  please try to keep up.

                        -You want to change the system, run for office.

                        by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 02:03:55 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Since you're a last-worder... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...meaning one of those sad individuals who can't stop posting in a contested thread until you get the last word, feel free to post that last word here.

                          Your logic and evidence is clearly flawed. Any sincere third party observer would acknowledge that, so I don't need to continue the "No Sir!" "Yeah, huh!" hairsplitting mess.

                          Now, take a deep breath, and post that last comment that will help you feel victorious!

                          •  hey you just got schooled for not paying attention (0+ / 0-)

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 02:12:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  multiple deals were being worked on (0+ / 0-)

                            this is why sad individuals like you aren't players.

                            you don't even have your facts straight.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 02:12:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  facts are inconvenient huh? (0+ / 0-)

                            btw, this is fairly common problem so I shouldn't be so hard on you.

                            it's fairly common for the various proposals to be mixed up and it's also sometimes difficult for people to understand the votes.

                            it happens.  like when republicans pushed through Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.  people who research it see the last vote and think Dems supported it.

                            without understanding the process congress goes through to create shit sandwich legislation it's very easy to get confused or for politicians to straight up lie about their intentions when voting.  if you pay close attention then you'll know all of these facts.  

                            like with Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.  Republicans pushed the bill.  The first vote only had one Dem voting for it.  However, republicans were working on getting a few others to avoid Clinton's threatened veto. In the end they made a deal.  Which is normal.  Dems would support the bill if some changes were made and Clinton would sign it.  But, the bill was written and pushed by republicans.  They were close to a veto proof vote and Dems had to compromise or get nothing they wanted.  The nuance here is sometimes painful.  It's easier to simplify or gloss over the details. That's also the quickest way to mistake the facts.  Yet it happens on a regular basis here and elsewhere.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 02:23:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  no it's the day of the negotiations (0+ / 0-)

                        some of the media had articles that day

                        others the next day.  you can't be that obtuse.

                        you would know all this if you watched it go down on CSPAN.

                        we did not have the votes for the most extreme proposal. you would understand the different proposals if you actually followed this closely or watched CSPAN.

                        -You want to change the system, run for office.

                        by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 02:06:03 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  more sources for ya (0+ / 0-)

                        Senate Democrats have the 51 votes necessary to weaken the filibuster, the top two Democrats declared unequivocally on Wednesday.

                        Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he’s continuing discussions with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) over a bipartisan resolution. But when asked if he has the 51 votes for filibuster reform via the constitutional option if that fails, he didn’t mince words.

                        “Yes,” Reid said.

                        Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) told reporters that the Merkley-Udall “full talking filibuster” approach likely won’t happen because it “does not have 51 votes.” But he said a more modest package that Reid has put forth to McConnell, aimed at shifting the burden from a governing majority to an obstructing minority, would pass.

                        http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...

                        -You want to change the system, run for office.

                        by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 02:07:33 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  the talking filibuster didn't have the votes (0+ / 0-)

                    you fail to understand the different proposals

                    there were three.

                    -You want to change the system, run for office.

                    by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:55:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  btw the whip told us this (0+ / 0-)

                it was frontpaged here.

                http://thehill.com/...

                -You want to change the system, run for office.

                by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:46:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Note that your source is from before... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...the deal was struck, mine was after the fact.

                  •  it's the same 24 hour period (0+ / 0-)

                    you fail to realize the multiple proposals being talked about.

                    Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) told reporters that the Merkley-Udall “full talking filibuster” approach likely won’t happen because it “does not have 51 votes.” But he said a more modest package that Reid has put forth to McConnell, aimed at shifting the burden from a governing majority to an obstructing minority, would pass.

                    -You want to change the system, run for office.

                    by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:56:51 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  if you were watching CSPAN then (0+ / 0-)

                    you would have seen it.

                    -You want to change the system, run for office.

                    by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:57:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site