I am really pissed. I didn't learn anything new about what a modern filibuster is composed of from the clarifications provided to thereisnospoon... I knew that stuff.
The fact is... Reid should not have caved to an administrative filibuster. It DOES NOT MATTER if that filibuster looked like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington... Reid could say, "well, we are going to bring this through to an up or down vote, just like we gave the Republicans on their judges." And, "Why should a judge making a six figure salary deserve and up or down vote, but America's poorest workers don't?"
They would have to answer that, all the talking head shows would ask that, it WOULD be a filibuster. And if they just voted no to cloture and left the floor... FINE, let that show on C-SPAN, let the Democrats spend a day or two asking the Republicans why they don't show up for work, why, when they vote to "continue debate" they are not debating. Perhaps, I would say, "they don't really want debate, they don't really intend to convince us this bill is wrong, they know it to be right, but seek to defeat it anyway. America, you should think long and hard about why that is the case."
I am so sick of excuses not to fight. And in this case there is no amount of argument that can convince "but we really did calculate that we would lose this battle"... um... no, because this is the same leader that DIDN'T USE THE FILIBUSTER IN THE MOST IMPORTANT FIGHT, for the SCOTUS, for the judiciary in general. He didn't use it because it was too weak to use, now it's too strong to object to.
BULLSHIT. btw, another point would be, if you all are right that Reid had no choice, I guess who is leader doesn't matter as much as you said, either. While the neophytes tell me that the leadership is really all the matters, that the leader controls the agenda, I see that in fact the minority can also control it, I see that "centrist" dems can control it by voting with republicans in committee.
What a naive political class we have created here.
Learning the hard way? Ok, I'm patient.
PS: but one more thing I'm not patient about... Reid and the Democrats. They know this. They know they could fight. They knew they could fight the SCOTUS nominees. They DON'T WANT TO.
Remember, please, just one piece of truth from the storm of ideas which is supposedly so hard to fathom... politicians do what they want to do. If they did not fight for the first version of the Minimum Wage Bill, it's because they DON'T WANT IT. PERIOD.
No excuses, even if the excuses are TRUE, you understand me? Even if TRUE, they are still excuses, we judge on reality, that means, "things that actually happen"... you don't fight for a Minimum Wage Bill, then you didn't want it enough to fight. Presenting a logical argument why it's logically impossible to fight it is bullshit.
NOW: BTD can come in my thread and tell me I just don't get it, there is some parliamentary issue I don't understand... bullshit, my argument is not based on such things, it's based on the structure of the national debate and on holding Harry to the characterization of the filibuster he gave while in the minority. Think I'm missing the point if you like, but the point here is:
Democrats always have a detailed explanation of why they would have lost anyway, and sadly think such an explanation is just as good as trying.
blech. I might have a softer way to put this, but BTD confiscated my gloves.