Dougerhead already posted on this, but this from the Hill was even more hysterical:
Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.
It’s also an index of how fucked we are when a simple majority vote is consider a “coup”.
Also, too: Unless McConnell is fuming every day, Democrats are losing. As Steve B points out, the strategy is to make the Republicans own their obstructionism, and Reid needs to do whatever it takes to get Republicans to vote against every single popular aspect of the jobs bill, repeatedly.
agrippa
Quite.
danimal
When Republicans squeal like stuck pigs, you know ur doin it rite. They really don’t like it when they receive the level of respect and comity that they provide when they are in the majority. I can’t work up any level of respect or good will for congressional Republicans or their Limbaughian enablers. Screw them.
They need to be destroyed and replaced by responsible conservatives, for the country’s sake.
JPL
Why is there such concern about the repubs using this example to change rules, if they gain the majority? The repubs don’t need an excuse in order to push through their agenda. They will just do it.
cat48
John Cornyn said this was “Tyranny.” Bless his heart.
amk
“shocking development”
“change Senate rules unilaterally”
“Reid’s coup”
“surprise move”
Fuck you, alexander bolton. Where the fuck is your poutrage over the 100% nothuglicans despicable behavior in the past decade? Go fuck yourself.
beltane
This is the party of the 1%. No wonder they find majority rule to be almost treasonous.
JPL
@amk: well said
btw did you take the texas tech survey?
amk
steve benen on this
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_10/defining_the_nuclear_option_do032671.php
El Cid
Wait — wouldn’t this make Reid a loud screaming firebagger interested in making flashy ‘statements’ but not passing legislation successfully?
T. Geithner
It’s a shame we can’t abolish the senate altogether, because it isn’t needed. At least toss that stupid senate rulebook out the window. I’m sick of hearing how “we’d all like to pass the bill, but Senator Cowfuck has placed a super-secret mega-hold on it that requires a 95% majority to break.”
amk
@beltane: Bingo. The 1% treasonous bastids indeed.
El Cid
@beltane: The 1% would be slumming. You’re not really doing your job in office unless your priority is the 0.001% starting point.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
I just want to know what happened to Harry Reid. This Harry Reid sure ain’t the one we’re used to seeing.
I blame it on the pod people. And if this is how they make their host body act, I’m all for accepting the rule of our new Pod People Overlords.
Comrade Javamanphil
Why we can’t have nice things, in three simple steps:
1) McConnell kills puppies on the floor of the Senate
2) Reid states there will be no further senate work until McConnell cleans up the blood
3) Press Corps reports “Reid, in an unprecedented move, forces McConnell to scrub puppy blood from Senate carpets! American people blame both sides for puppy killing.”
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage: I think it was McConnell just going a bit too far. Cloture occurred on a bill. Therefore, according to Reid, it was time to vote on the bill. McConnell wanted to turn it into one more chance at a game. Reid said no.
priscianusjr
@JPL:
FlipYrWhig
@El Cid: Insofar as it occurred in the service of, you know, passing legislation, I’m going to go with “No.”
Paul in KY
@T. Geithner: But then the Imperial Governors & their battle stations will be the galactic arbitriers.
But I guess that’s what you want…
Svensker
@Comrade Javamanphil:
Because the American people would never have heard about Republicans killing the puppies in the first place.
Otherwise, excellent work!
Napoleon
This whole incident just proves what a complete incompetant Reid is, and in the larger picture the Dems are.
So he waits what, 3 years into the Dems having a majority in the Senate, and after they have lost the house and it appears on the horizon that there is a pretty good chance they loose the Senate and NOW he decides to pull something like this on a bill that has no chance of passing the house, and it hands the Rep a ready made reason to completely do away with the filibuster in 15 months.
Percysowner
@Napoleon: After the way the Republicans have behaved these last few years, if they gain the majority in the Senate, the filibuster will be gone anyway. Do you honestly think they will allow a mechanism to stand that can be use against them the way they have used it against the The President and the Democratic majority? The only way it would come back would be in the final days of a session after they lost the Senate. It’s time for Reid to do what he needs to to get the Republicans on the hook for their actions.
CaptainFwiffo
This is the thing he decides to go to the mat for? Not wall street reform, or judicial appointments, or taxes, or health care, or jobs? He decides to go nuclear over a spat about rules so that he can sorta win one news cycle but not really.
He used a majority vote to overrule the parliamentarian, not to actually get the jobs bill passed, but to prevent a procedural vote that would let McConnell incorrectly claim that Democrats voted against the jobs bill.
This might be the stupidest thing to happen in the Senate since… Well, it’s the senate, so it’s probably the stupidest thing since yesterday, but that still makes it pretty stupid.
Nylund
@JPL:
I don’t care if the GOP does the same thing in the future.
First, the GOP will always do something nasty to push through their agenda regardless. The rules only seem to get in the way of Democrats anyway. It’s like the reconciliation nonsense. It was an unprecedented travesty of democracy when the Dems did it for the ACA (according to the GOP and the media), but no one batted an eye when the GOP did it for the tax cuts. The ability to scrap the rules just evens the field since they only seemed to hold one party back anyway. So what if the GOP pushes things through in the future using this tool? They would’ve pushed it through by some other means anyway.
Second, the Senate rules are terrible anyway. This may pave the way for a Senate not boggled down by archaic procedure and parliamentarian tricks in the future. Yes, this will likely hurt the Democrats at some point, but bringing the Senate into the 21st century, in my mind, is the greater good.
And third, this may end up being a one-off event. This does indeed establish a precedent that it’s ok to disregard the parliamentarian in the future, but that doesn’t meant that will surely always happen. Although, in a way, I hope it does. The parliamentarian procedures are all BS anyway and provide way too much ammo for Senators to twist the meaning of the votes they (or their opponents) make. This should at least make the Senate run in a more straightforward manner.
The fact that even the most well-informed followers of politics in this country need an explanation of rules and procedures just to understand the legislative process every time a major bill comes up is a big sign that something is wrong with out system. Reconciliation, holds, cloture votes, motions to proceed, etc. Uggh…Just vote dang it.
rikryah
more of this Harry Reid
Napoleon
@Percysowner:
I 100% agree with you , that was always why I think they should have done away with holds and filibusters first thing 3 ½ years ago. That is why I prayed that the Reps would pull the nuclear option with judicial appointments.
So if he is going to hand them a reason they will sell to the press as being “they did it first” why do it for something 3 years after they take the majority for something that will not pass into law? That is insane.
If you are going to take the heat (and he will) you might as well get something tangible out of it.
He chose the worst of both worlds (caveat though, if he suddenly puts Obama’s nominations to and up and down vote with no blocking then I withdraw that criticism, but he will not).
terraformer
In a surprising development, some Republican legislators in Minnesota are actually siding with Democrats to block the noxious Anti-gay marriage amendment to the state’s constitution. They say it infringes on a conservative tenet against federal intrusion into personal issues.
Amazing – honest conservatives. Would that we have not only more and better Democrats, but as long as we have to have adversaries, can we also dream of more and better conservatives, too?
Villago Delenda Est
@terraformer:
Not to worry. Rush will beat them back into the ranks on his show today.
After all, he did it to sniveling coward Herman Cain on Monday.
flounder
+1
This is the simplest distillation of the current climate I have seen.
I personally think the optics are great as well, as I believe that most Americans are really turned off by a parade of botoxed guys in suits gnashing in a southern drawl and spewing crocodile tears.
WereBear
Well, they had me at:
I’m easy to please that way.
Less Popular Tim
@terraformer:
er, but this would be state, not federal, intrusion into personal issues, it’s about the state constitution, not the Constitution.
Many conservatives purport to object to federal intrusions into state policy, as opposed to any government (state or local) intrusion into personal issues. So a state could outlaw abortion, but the federal government shouldn’t impose laws about that. This position (states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution) isn’t inherently dishonest, although it is almost always used dishonestly by conservatives, i.e., states rights are invoked only when conservatives agree with the state but not the federal government (see, e.g. California Medical marijuana or emissions standards on the one hand, vs. abortion rights)
Epicurus
Senator McConnell? Go. Fuck. Yourself. That is all…
bob h
While he is at it, why doesn’t Reid just declare a moratorium on nomination holds and tie all the bottled-up nominations to this bill?