It deserves its own thread: REID HAS GOT TO GO!

[JeffreyWilliamson]

I'm not saying out of the Senate, just out his leadership position.

How much longer are we willing to allow him to betray our party after all they've put us through as a nation? How much longer should we allow him to cave to the Republicans and throw our President under the bus, before we demand that he's cut loose?

58% stimulus and 42% tax cuts? Tax cuts don't grow the economy, and they made their way in there thanks to Susan Collins and her editing pen, over threat of a filibuster. Thanks, Harry.

THEY WOULDN'T HAVE FILIBUSTERED. It would have killed them in 2010. Even if they had done it, SO WHAT? It would have COST THEM EVEN MORE!

[Xipe Totec]

1. Why don't you pick a pug target?

What REPUBLICAN would you get rid of first?

Just asking...

[JeffreyWilliamson]

14. Which one should I pick?

Or should I just let Harry Reid pick his favorite for me?

I suspect he won't do that though, since they're all such good friends.

[Xipe Totec]

15. Any one

just pick.

Or do you have a problem attacking Republicans?

[JeffreyWilliamson]

18. It's not attacking them that I have a problem with...

It's giving them whatever they want, and right now, our party is the one guilty of that.

[Xipe Totec]

19. I still haven't heard you bad mouth a pug

But you have no problem bad mouthing Democrats.

Funny that...

[JeffreyWilliamson]

23. You need to read up on me...

I'm pretty dedicated towards our cause.

[Xipe Totec]

25. Dodging.

Nice try.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

28. Do your research, don't be lazy.

I have a track record. Find it. That's not a dodge. You'll find me calling Susan Collins a nothing a little earlier today.

Look, I have no love for the Pugs, trust me. That doesn't mean I can't find error with our own leadership when they fail us. We've spent far too long arguing that we have a right to criticise those in our government while they branded us as traitors and had us investigated and added to their no-fly lists. If we care enough to stand up to them then we can bear standing up to our own.

We didn't have to cave. They would not have filibustered. Instead of painting me as some kind of Pug lover, why don't you debate that?

[Xipe Totec]

30. Yawn

I have a track record too,

and it does not include attacking Democrats.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

32. We can't stand up claim the high ground against them...

...if we aren't ready to do it to our own side.

Read downthread. I'd call for Vitters head, Brownback and Inhofe, too. Also Collins. Please read instead yawning.

Look, we're on the same side. I'm sure we both want to see our party step up to the plate, and damn the Republicans to the hell they hope we'll go to for being the baby-killers and gays that we are.

But we can still ask for accountability of our own. We can still question our party's leadership. We're the one's protesting out there to have a voice, to respect speech. I didn't get egged in the run up to the Iraq invasion so that I could hold it over my Republican neighbors' that their party didn't listen, only to turn a blind eye to my own later.

[Xipe Totec]

33. I don't care to have you on my side

you seem to attack your own side more than the other.

I certainly don't appreciate your kind of "help".

[JeffreyWilliamson]

35. Wow, you really haven't read anything I've posted before...

All the things I've said, all the fun I've poked at freepers and the chimp. All that, and the one day I call out a person in our own party, I'm painted as someone willing to attack my own side more than the other.

My kind of help, by the way, is to suggest that we don't give the Republicans everything they want, since we are in the majority. Just so we're clear on that. I'm saying we need someone stronger and more progressive as our voice in the Senate, in case we're not clear on that.

And I tell you that I think we're really on the same side, and I bet we are on all the issues, and you blow me off.

Thanks for that.

[Two Americas]

48. it is not "your side"

You don't own anything. JeffreyWilliamson has every bit as much right to express his opinion as you do.

If you disagree, then make your case. Smears and insinuations are not an argument. Dong that violates every principle that our side honors, and every ideal we are fighting for.

[Baikonour]

55. When "our side" has spineless scum in it like Reid

Then it's okay to "attack" them.

He's got to go.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

100. Along with Pelosi. ...I want to know why she took "Impeachment off the table".

I want to know if she's getting anything under the table.

[inna]

102. -1 to xipe totec

pathetic, really.

[rurallib]

86. FWIW - he can call for my ouster also

here is my thread from last night:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5000266&mesg_id=5000266

We can not sit by and lose this opportunity on the altar of bipartisanship (which really doesn't exist)

[inna]

90. Xipe Totec's attacks are just f*cking ridiculous nt

[Baby Snooks]

107. Maybe it should...

This "any Democrat will do" approach doesn't cut it - there are just as many Republicrats in the Democratic Party as there are in the Republican Party. Two in particular. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Even the house version of the "stimulus package" still "stimulates" the part of our economy that doesn't need "stimulation" unless of course you believe it all trickles down. It will keep the economy going but will not "stimulate" the economy of the majority of Americans who can barely keep their bills paid. Not to mention the growing number of Americans who are headed towards real unemployment when the unemployment checks stop.

As for the Bush "stimulus" where were Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi when the matter of "oversight" came up? If it came up at all.

[Two Americas]

45. we have a responsibility

You don't correct the neighbor's kids, do you? When you try to correct your children, do they say "hey! Whose side are you on? Why don't you complain about the kids down the block?"

Of course many here think we should be like little children, and see the politicians as though they were our parents. They think we should all represent and work for the politicians, rather than demanding that the politicians work for us. That sabotages representative democracy.

The whole point of electing Democrats is in the hope that they will listen and respond to the desperate needs of the people. The Republicans don't represent us and are doing what they always do. Nothing new or surprising there. The only variable is whether or not the Democrats fight back, and the only way they will ever do that is if the public pressures them to. The public will never pressure them to if we do not speak out. You demand that we remain passive and silent, and call that "support" and insinuate that anyone who does not do that might be a traitor - hint, hint, wink, nudge. That is underhanded and malicious.

The Republicans are dong a spectacular job of advancing the interests of their clients - the wealthy and powerful few. We have a right - and a duty - to expect the Democrats to aggressively fight for the interests of us, the other 99% of the people.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

46. Thank you. n/t

[webDude]

87. double thank you.

[Baby Snooks]

97. Any Democrat will do?

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do not represent the people. Democrats or Republicans. They're Republicrats.

"Of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation."

[Patchuli]

99. I've been a registered Dem since 1973

but I have NO problem picking on bad Dem politicians. Harry Reid has no backbone. It's time for him to go home to Sparkplug or where ever he's from in Nevada.

*edit to correct year of reg

[DRoseDARs]

20. As a Democrat and a Nevadan who voted for Reid in 2004, Reid has to be removed and you can shove it.

While he has been a decent senator for Nevada, he has been an embarrassment to us as Senate Majority Leader. He needs to step down and let someone else have the position. Unless there's a strong Progressive Democrat challenger for his seat, I'll almost certainly vote for his reelection in 2010, but this weak-kneed capitulation to the Republicans again and again needs to stop.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

26. Thank you.

Once again, not out of the Senate, but out of the leadership role. He isn't serving us well.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salguine]

38. Sometimes you have to look on your own side of the aisle to see who's fucking you over.

[DRoseDARs]

39. Shhh! We're not allowed to critize any Democrat at any time for any reason ever!

Why don't you go slink back to Free Republic, you Freeper you. :mad:

[JeffreyWilliamson]

42. Haven't you heard?

It's down the hall, hard right. :sarcasm:

[DRoseDARs]

43. You forgot to turn your CAPSLOCK on.

For extra emphasis, you know? ;)

[JeffreyWilliamson]

41. Exactly my point, thank you...

We have spent the last 8 years complaining, fighting, organizing, and voting against a party that has totally, royally screwed us, all the while branding us as traitors.

I didn't fight all that time for what was right just to turn a blind eye in the name of my own party loyalty, and I'm pretty damn loyal to my party. I stood up because I felt we needed to be heard, and after today I don't feel we've been heard, or had our vision reflected, or our President's vision reflected, in our Congress.

The Republicans are to blame for that, as usual, but this time we are the clear majority. We hold control, and we call the shots. The only way that they control the game is if we appease them, and we have.

I didn't fight them so that I could give up my voice to my own party and then watch us roll over for them. We got fucked over today. We should do what we always do, we complain, we fight, we organize, and we vote.

A bigger majority next time, a more progressive primary candidate against Mr. Reid. We call and e-mail and fax, and we let them know we're angry. We put them there for a reason, and it's time they lived up to it.

[PassingFair]

73. Maybe because the 'pugs are doing the job they were sent there to do...

and some of OUR reps are helping them.

At least the 'pugs represent their voters.

[Suji to Seoul]

89. Pug Targets in 2010

Jim Bunning - Kentucky
Arlen Specter - Pennsylvania
David Vitter - Louisiana
Richard Burr - North Carolina
John Thune - South Dakota
Lisa Murkowski - Alaska
Open Seat - New Hampshire
Open Seat - Ohio
Open Seat - Missouri
Open Seat - Florida
Open Seat - Kansas

Democratic target for change:

REPLACE HARRY REID WITH RUSS FEINGOLD!!!

[rateyes]

94. The OP did pick a pug target.

Harry Reid.

[jsamuel]

2. just a suggestion, but how about we keep our fire on the repubs?

[JeffreyWilliamson]

16. It would be nice to keep my fire on them...

But they keep getting away with murder thanks to our Congressional leadership.

How can I hold them accountable when our own leadership gives them every little thing they want? Will a few calls to the Leader's office help?

As our President once said, "ENOUGH".

[jsamuel]

27. You think it is Reid's fault that Lieberman, Nelson, and the three Repubs wouldn't vote for the

original version?

[JeffreyWilliamson]

31. I think he should have stood up...

I admit I don't know his reasons for caving, or what I percieve as caving. I don't have all the answers, but I do know that our President asked for a bill, and told us what doesn't work, and we, (as a party), handed the pen over to the people who want to see those failed policies advanced.

The Republicans want us to fail, they've as much as said it, and in some cases have out-right said it. I watched Sam Brownback stand up today and tell the Senate that we should cut education funding from the package because they don't need it. My city is laying off 100 teachers because they can't afford to keep them. My mother is a Head Start Teacher in Colorado.

We should have stood up. They would have backed down.

[CTLawGuy]

58. It IS his fault that he appears not to realize

that if Lieberman and Nelson are the only dems/allies don't support a bill he still has 5 more senators than is needed to pass the legislation. If those clowns want to join a filibuster, they should pay the price in time, effort, and political risk.

[defendandprotect]

34. We're Democrats . . . we can do both --- !!!

[Two Americas]

49. that makes no sense

Do you correct your neighbor's kids?

The Republicans don't listen to us and do not represent us. Why would we expect anything of them?

When your roof leaks, you don't blame the rain. You blame the person you hired to fix your roof. If the roofer failed to do the job, and your roof leaked, would you expect him to tell you "hey blame the rain, don't blame me?"

The Republicans are doing what they always do - printing the needs and desires of the wealthy and powerful few - and they are aggressive and relentless in that. Those we elected to fight back are the variable here, not the Republicans.

Why do we elect Democrats? It makes no sense whatsoever to stand by passively and silently. That is not "support" nor is it "loyalty."

[jgraz]

101. Yes, because we change so many minds that way.

People who are sane but spineless are much easier to influence than those who are stubborn and crazy.

[Thrill]

3. They didn't have to filibuster. Without the changes. We wouldn't even of had all the Democrats

on board. This wasn't just about Collins. The Blue Dogs were going to vote no. The Senate isn't like the House.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

5. Strong leadership.

We just needed someone to stand up and say, okay, go ahead and do it.

Then do what they do--hit the shows and explain how they're reading the phone book to keep people like me unemployed. I suspect that wouldn't go over too well.

Our President deserved the stimulus bill he asked for. Not half-tax cuts he's spent the last week explaining were part of a debate that his election ended.

They wouldn't have filibustered. Not even the Blue Dogs.

[Thrill]

12. It wasn't worth the embarassment to have 6-10 Democrats vote against it

How would that of made Obama's plan look?

[babylonsister]

4. Dumb. Find a rethug you love to hate. I'll start. McConnell, in so many

ways including his useless wife.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

7. I hate all the repugs a lot, trust me...

But we have always held ourselves, (Democrats), to a higher standard. Harry caved, plain and simple. He's done it every time, and we've all been upset by it every time. It has to stop.

[Two Americas]

50. it is not about hating anyone

We criticize and correct our own children, not the ones down the block. We don't hate the neighbor's children in lieu of having expectations from our own. What sort of sense would that make?

Hating one group of politicians, and loving another, may satisfy some emotional needs for people, but it has nothing to do with politics in the real world.

People who are truly supporting Democrats, who are truly loyal, don't love or hate any politicians, but take a more adult and less self-centered approach to it.

This is not about how any of us feel, what we need emotionally, nor whom we hate or love.

[defendandprotect]

6. Agree on Reid . . .

The Reid/Pelosi situation is only helping the Repugs get stronger ---

and to stay in control.

And, it's working!!!

[JeffreyWilliamson]

11. Thank you...

The repugs have owned this issue since it was introduced. They've been on every talk show pushing their sick little version of it.

I need a job. This one hits close to home. A near 50/50 compromise over a threat that they would be foolish to actually use? We owed ourselves more than this and we owed Obama more.

[whistle]

8. Double the stimulus bill to $1.8 trillion, then add long term spending programs

[ProSense]

9. 58% stimulus and 42% tax cuts? Yes, tax cuts proposed by Democrats.

Still unclear is what the Senate will do with popular tax breaks -- for home and auto purchases -- that received wide support on the Senate floor. Some senators suggested those provisions would still remain in play, as efforts to meld the House and Senate bills begin.

Even a scaled-down Senate package, if passed, would likely be broadly consistent with the House-passed bill, and well within the range of what Mr. Obama originally called upon Congress to approve.

The new plan would still provide an array of tax cuts for individuals and business, aid to cash-strapped states, and billions of dollars in new spending, boosting support for jobless benefits, food aid for the poor, and road and bridge construction, among other things.

If the Senate passes a plan, it would set up private House-Senate negotiations, which are expected to begin next week. That will be where Mr. Obama and senior Democrats could exert far more influence on the details of the final package, amid efforts to conclude action by the end of the week.

link

The Republican bills were rejected, except the housing measure. The tax cuts in the bill are those proposed by Dems.

So what are the Dems going to complain about?

[LakeSamish706]

10. Sorry, but I agree with the OP... Reid and Pelosi both need to go... and others...

in both parties House and Senate..... This is getting rediculous.... Congress has something like a 31% approval rate, and there is a reason for that.

Many Democrats as well as Repugs have been standing in the way for too damn long now.

[ProSense]

17. I guess you missed Obama's speech yesterday

lavishing praise on Pelosi

Pelosi isn't going anywhere.

[LakeSamish706]

22. Yeah, and thats really to bad... She sucks big time IMHO... n/t

[Xipe Totec]

24. rediculous...

You forgot the all caps...

[firedupdem]

13. Let's get rid of Vitter! I hate that scumbag! n/t

[JeffreyWilliamson]

21. Hey, line them up...

Diaper boy is the first to go in my book. Then Brownback, Inhofe. Reid somewhere after that.

Why did he have to roll over? I just don't get it? This was the first big bill. We all needed it.

I used to shake my fist at C-Span all day when the Republicans were in charge. Today I did it at my own party. Where does it end?

[Metta]

36. Harry Reid is spineless snot.

... a complete eunech, imho.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

37. I keep asking myself when he'll stand up to them just once...

Just once! This has been the same story for the last few years. Every time we have all chimed in with our anger over it. We've all gotten upset over this time and time again. I've watched it, I've read my fellow posters rants and complaints about it, I've watched and participated as we've all called in, but every time--EVERY TIME--it's the same thing. He gives in.

It's as if he hears the magic word--the flilibomb--and goes all squirrelly inside. It has to stop, and at this point I'm not convinced that he has the courage to stop it. We need to face the fact that with Reid in charge we are going to have 40-seat Republican minority controlling the slate and the messaging coming out of the Senate.

I've been an Obama fan for a long time, and I've convinced myself that he's capable of being one of our greatest Presidents--one for the history books--all the hallmarks are there. But I worry that won't happen if he's cut off at nearly every turn by the Republican minority in our wonderfully appeasing Senate.

[Metta]

67. The Republican minority, appeasing Dems and entrenched Bush appointments.

Like, in the Pentagon, Justice, etc. You're on the money.

[Robeson]

40. I agree. He no longer fits in the post-Bush era.

[amborin]

44. i disagree; why make Reid a scapegoat? he's not to blame

[JeffreyWilliamson]

47. Give me more than that...

I'm of the opinion that he's not a scapegoat, just that he's helping advance their agenda. I'm not even suggesting he's doing that on purpose, but that he's just scared of confrontation.

We've all complained about this so many times. He gives in to their threats. Nearly every time. We've hated this for so long, why should we just look the other way this time?

[Optical.Catalyst]

57. Reid is not a scapegoat. Democrats have issues with the way he is leading the fight with the 'Pugs

We need to select a more aggressive Senate Majority leader. No one is suggesting Reid step down as a Senator. It is just time to get a hard nose leader who will press our advantage over the Republicans to its fullest.

This is our opportunity to crush the Republicans. We can't squander this opportunity by having a 'Let's all play nice' Harry Reid captaining the ship.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

51. Wow, reading upthread this was not what I had imagined when I started this...

Oh, I figured the thread itself would be an "active" one to say the least, but I thought it was a debate worth having.

I really don't think our interests are served well by the likes of our current party leadership in Congress. I thought I was ready for that debate--I didn't expect it to turn into a debate on our ability to criticize our own party.

Then again, perhaps that was always what this was about...

I stand by the idea that we have the right to criticize our leaders--especially those in our own party. We have earned that right over the last eight years and our shared experience of those times. We have watched as our flag and our symbols have been thrown in our face and used as a tool against us, we have seen our leaders seek to divide us by labeling us as supporters of those who have attacked us, and we have fought tooth-and-nail to restore our dignity and our Constitution to its rightful place in our society. And with that Constitution comes our right to speak out--even when it's unpopular.

For me, that's what DU has offered during those dark hours. A place where I could post, (not much, when I had time, but more often after I became unemployed). I have been a member since 2004, but lurked for a while before then. This place has been an outlet for me, whether I was actively posting or not, for the expression I felt we were not able to have outside, all things being considered.

I know that DU has been a place of refuge for Democratic Party members and supporters, but surely it is also a place that values--and thrives--on debate and differences of opinion. And surely that debate is open to criticism of our own party. That's the kind of openness that drew me here, and that's what keeps me here.

In the past week alone, I've been challenged regarding my views of war, human rights, and even started a thread about body shaving. I don't know what I'd do if I didn't have this place.

Let's keep available the option to debate an issue, or our politicians, even if they're in our own party, without resorting to ad hominem. Let's be the opposite of Free Republic and those weirdos over at Rapture Ready. Let's keep practicing what we preach. We're all family here, even when we disagree. I've come to think of a great many of you as my family, especially when we disagree.

Okay, Friday night, couple of glasses of wine, dinner waiting, Battlestar Galactica on the DVR. I have to run but this thread was getting more heated than I wanted, and I set out to start a heated debate when I posted it.

I'll see you folks tomorrow. Love ya.

[Two Americas]

52. they know you are right

People resort to attacks like this when they know you are right. They wish you weren't right, they deny that you are right, but they know that you are. Otherwise they wouldn't get so aggressive about it. There is a battle going on in their minds.


...

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

53. agreed-I put my thoughts into the form of a cartoon

I drew it a few weeks back and you can find it here:
http://www.wvablue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3899

[CrispyQ]

84. The Cave-man!

:rofl:

:thumbsup:

[AlinPA]

54. Agree. He is a weak, ineffective leader. We need someone like Boxer in that job.

[Honeycombe8]

56. I agree. He's a weak, often wrong, namby pampby guy. But the tax cuts are to the poor & middleclass

so I'm okay with that.

[Frumious B]

59. Reid is a Democratic senator from one of the reddist states there is.

That, all by itself, makes him a poor choice for majority leader because he has to be timid and appeasing or risk losing his seat. We need someone in a safe seat from a solidly blue state.

[AlinPA]

65. Good point.

[Frumious B]

66. Actually, I have to revise that. I was thinking Reid was from Utah because of the Mormon thing.

That was a big mistake on my part. He's actually from Nevada, which you have to consider a "purple" state.

[RBInMaine]

60. THIS IS AWESOME ! THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS IS CRACKING !!

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DCBob]

62. If Harry pulls off this vote on the stimulus bill then he is golden.

A win is a win.

[Baikonour]

63. You mean the same stimulus bill he allowed repukes to man-handle and add more tax cuts?

It's not a win.

[DCBob]

64. If Obama is happy with the compromise version and it appears he is then its a win.

This is big victory for the Democrats since there will still be a vast majority of Republicans completely against it.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

71. Since reports would seem to indicate that 2 or 3 may vote for it...

Well, if the vote were held today anyway, and the vast majority of Republicans are completely against it, then how is it a victory if we let them stomp all over it, gut it, and add and subtract to and from the bill as they pleased?

This whole thing was a joke, and what's with this having the vote on Monday or Tuesday now? Did we need time to make sure their caucus could go after the 2 or 3 we carved off at $50 billion each and get them back into the fold before they voted with us?

This was stupid last night, and seems even more stupid this morning. Granted last night I didn't have a hangover...

[DCBob]

77. The "gutting" was done to get those 3 R's on board.

They could still add back some of the "good" stuff in conference but the bottom line is to get a bill passed so money can begin to be injected into the enonomy and help save and create some jobs.

[depakid]

78. With the Dems unprecedented political capital at the moment

screwing up the stimulus was completely unneccessary and will come back to haunt them.

It's most assuredly NOT going to be the Republicans who get the blame if and when the watered down policies fail to deliver.

Indeed- the way things have been going- 2010 could look a lot like 1994- and after that, Obama could easily become a 1 term president.

Pandering to Republicans is a no win- and more often a lose/lose proposition. Democrats and the nation end up the worse for it every time they try.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

104. Too many don't know or forget that politics is...

...compromise. If you get 50% of what you first ask for, consider yourself lucky. Obama and the Democratic Party inserted several items to the jobs bill in anticipation that "tossing the dog a bone(s)" will encourage it to sit in the corner and be happy with itself. Never really intending for certain items they inserted to be accepted by the Republicans. It leaves the Republicans feeling like they have some power left, but they really don't. This is not a budget bill. Final amounts for the year to certain programs can and no doubt will be adjusted, upward or downward.

[democracy1st]

68. K & R

[Iwillnevergiveup]

69. First off, JeffreyWilliamson

I hope you find fulfilling, well-paid work and soon!

Second, you are absolutely correct that Reid (and let's put Pelosi in here, too) needs to step down from a leadership position. Obama needs Congressional support in greasing the skids to implement his agenda, and Reid and Pelosi are not the ones to do that. I'm sure I'm not alone at this forum, every time they appear on teevee, no matter the forum, I am tempted to look away as I did with Bush. Their words make me cringe. Moreso, too often, they make me ashamed of Democrats. I'd like to see Russ Feingold take on the leadership - much as I love Boxer, too.

[lonestarnot]

70. I feel change in the wind! And a windmill tower or whatever they're called planted in your back

yard or parking lot. :P

[AlinPA]

72. In addition to being an ineffective leader, Reid appears as a weak

representive for Democrats- even his manner of speaking which is uninspiring and yielding.

[bridgit]

74. He's a gentle, kindly sort of G-Pa soul that needs to be out there running the very last Mom & Pop

hardware store from his rocking chair on the wooden porch of a turn of the century commercial structure...but not doddering round the well of the senate ankle deep with chum

[Dawgs]

75. Is everyone a fucking cry baby today?

The Republicans have the Democrats by the balls. IT'S NOT REID'S FAULT.

The bill is still a Dem bill, with Dem tax cuts that they put in. Yes, it could be better, but 4-6 Senators wouldn't have voted for it, period.

WTF!!!!

[JeffreyWilliamson]

79. The Republicans do not have the Democrats by the balls...

There are 58 of us out of 100, not 28 out of 100, and their endless filibuster threats are just that--threats.

By my count, it takes 51 votes, or 50 + Biden to pass a bill in the Senate. Even if 4-6 Senators wouldn't have voted for it, that would leave us with 52 - 54 vote margin and it would still pass.

This 60 vote requirement is a joke. It's a tool being used against us by Republicans who think they have gamed the system. In reality, it would not be possible for them to filibuster every single bill in the Senate, and yet every single time they threaten to, and our leadership cuts a deal with them to keep a filibuster from happening.

The Repulicans have gotten a little too used to being able to use the threat of a filibuster without ever having to actually go through with the act of a filibuster, especially a filibuster of very popular legislation with a serious public mandate behind it. Were they to actually filibuster this jobs bill, they would have poisoned any hope of retaining the seats that will come up for re-election in 2010.

The risks would have been too great for them to actually go through with the threat, and if they were stupid enough to try it, they would have paid at the ballot box. The threat was toothless.

Our side caved for no reason, and we have a right to expect better of them.

We won the election--we don't have to be total jerks like the Republicans were when they were in charge, (I notice they didn't have any problems with us "having them by the balls" when they had a smaller majority than we do now), but we do have the right to enact our agenda. We have a pretty big mandate here--bigger than they ever had.

[LWolf]

76. That's been obvious for years.

Years of refusing to hold the bush administration accountable for their crimes.

[paulk]

80. of course they wouldn't have filibustered

because, by law, it takes 60 votes to raise the federal deficit.

which this legislation does.

ignorance is bliss!

But it's so much more fun to start thread after thread trashing Harry Reid than to actually learn how the Senate works.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

82. They wouldn't have killed the economy over a point of order issue...

That's why they've been out sounding the filibuster alarms to get the changes they've wanted. If they would have been willing to send the whole economy down in flames over a deficit issue their tv/radio tour wouldn't have been necessary this week.

A strong hand by Harry Reid could have stopped this. Every time anything comes up, the republics grab control of the messaging and run with it, seemingly unopposed. We have got to get control of the debate--it isn't doing us any good having a majority if we allow the minority to run over us with truck, and in the case of Harry Reid, he seems more than willing to not only let them run over us, but more than willing to offer to lie down in the road as well.

[paulk]

96. the fact is that your OP - blaming Reid for caving for not forcing

a filibuster - is wrong.

The legislation requires 60 votes, there is no filibuster needed.

The main tenet of your argument is false.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

103. Whoa, I don't know what's wrong with me today, been ill...

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to this. Here's my sticking point, and I am aware of the budget rules. There is an excellent article, (arguing your point, btw), that went up on Congress Matters earlier this afternoon:

The bill will be subject to a point of order due to its deficit spending, but the point of order can be waived by a 3/5 vote of the Senate. So that means passage would ultimately have required 60 votes whether Republicans filibustered or not.

That author is suggesting that the bill will require 60 votes to pass, when what he is explaining is that waiving a point of order brought against the bill will require 60 votes. It's not really the same thing, as I understand it, but it DOES have the same effect. This bill will not move forward to a final vote if the point of order, if raised, does not meet the 60 vote threshold to be waived.

Key words I'm stuck on here: "if raised".

Also from that article:

Between the various Budget Acts and subsequent budget resolutions, the Congress has established various rules that restrict their spending ability, most of which can be triggered by points of order against bills that violate these rules. This set of rules is distinct from the standing rules that govern floor and committee procedures. Instead, they're statutory provisions that bind future Congresses to certain budgetary procedures. The various acts and resolutions establish points of order that, if raised against bills or amendments that break the rules , can have the effect of preventing them from consideration (and therefore passage). The points of order possible are numerous and cover several distinct aspects of the budget and spending process, but are not self-enforcing. They have to be affirmatively raised by a Member during consideration of the bills or amendments in question in order to be effective.

I added the bold for emphasis. "if raised", and "have to be affirmatively raised by a Member...in order to be effective".

And this is my point. These points of order are Senate procedural rules as opposed to Federal Law. There is no requirement to my knowledge that a bill increasing the deficit, (without offsets, btw, that our party chose not to include to overcome a possible point of order), is subject to a mandatory 60 vote threshold, and just for good measure, I tried to find one but only kept coming back to the point of order issue.

When the motion invoking cloture passes in the affirmative, it is likely that when the final vote is brought up that the Republican caucus will do one of two things:

1. Many will break ranks and vote for passage of the final bill, say bringing the final tally to 70 or so, or
2. None of the Republicans will vote in favor of passage.

Once we reach cloture, I do not forsee a point of order failing to be waived if the Republicans are going to break ranks in our favor anyway. Voting against the stimulus, after a failed filibuster attempt, would be self-destructive. If the Republicans were working under the assumption that after cloture had been achieved, filibuster or not, that they would simply kill the bill by introducing a point of order and holding steady, then they would not have needed to make such a huge show out of threatening a filibuster if they didn't get their way. Either way, point of order being introduced or not, after that 60 vote requirement, or not if it isn't raised, it's off to 51 votes for passage.

And the main point of my OP was that Harry Reid rolls over and needs a spine. And if I'm wrong on this, I'll man up to it. I haven't spent all day on this, being sick, and concede that I may have missed something.

[Hippo_Tron]

105. Where does it say that it requires 60 votes to raise the federal deficit?

I've never heard of that rule. I have heard of the rule where budget bills can be passed through reconciliation and then a point of order can be raised about them if they raise deficit spending and that point of order can only be overturned with 60 votes.

But this bill isn't a budget bill and it's not going through the reconciliation process. As far as I understand we need 60 to break the filibuster, nothing more.

[paulk]

106. this blog has a good explanation of what's going on

http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/7/161443/9275

perhaps I worded it badly, but the point is that this current holdup isn't over a filibuster threat, as the OP states

[JeffreyWilliamson]

109. Actually the current holdup WAS over a filibuster threat...

Otherwise the Repugs wouldn't have been out there making filibuster threats. To believe otherwise is to have been living under a rock for the last week--The Rethugs have been out on every show on tv and radio stating that they would keep the bill from cloture until they got their concessions.

Also, you worded your initial point badly in as far as you stated:

"of course they wouldn't have filibustered because, by law, it takes 60 votes to raise the federal deficit."

Not by law, by point of order in the Senate, which is overcome by default if you can gain enough votes to invoke cloture after the threat of a filibuster. Further, you are distorting my OP. I was attempting to use this incident as an example that Harry Reid is an ineffectual leader, and that we can do better.

It certainly is interesting that all of the sudden it requires 60 votes to pass the stimulus bill, and that there never was a filibuster threat, (even though we've all been talking about it for the last week), only after our side caves and gives the Republicans everything they want and are met with one Hell of a protest about it.

Let me spell it out in simple terms for anyone interested:

If we could have broken a filibuster and found cloture, that means we would have 60 votes. If we were, after that, to find ourselves challenged by a point of order, those same 60 votes would have waived it.

After all that was said and done, the stimulus would have passed. With as little as 51 votes.

This is all about strategy, and Harry Reid has little, if any of it...

[Life Long Dem]

81. I think he needs to go.

He is not doing a good job for the Democratic party.

[CrispyQ]

83. He's gotta go.

He gives validity to our opponents belief that dems don't stand for their convictions.

I want Barbara Boxer. Now there's someone who knows how to stand for her convictions!

[debbierlus]

85. Amen. A zillion times amen. And, Obama ends the bipartisan bs game NOW.

[inna]

88. the whole thing is a charade

when was the last time ANYONE actually filibustered??

Reid HAS to go.

[nolabels]

93. Most of the Senate is a charade

I can think of only twelve or fourteen that are really worth a crap, the rest i would be comfortable just flushing :hurts:

[Beavker]

91. I think it's better we hold our party to high standards

than just sit by and let someone that is doing a poor job keep doing so. The Pugs are doing it now. Shut McCain up, he lost. Palin is a joke and NOT the voice of a new generation...if you like winning. And don't get me started on Cheney. Oh, Limbuagh too...

If someone in the Republican Party actually cared enough about their party enough to chastise those in their party that have helped drive them into exile (see names above) then they might be less of a joke.

If the Dems cant remove ineffective leaders, then we're not looking to better ourselves. I am a Cornhusker fan...I don't think I was betraying the Big Red (the football red) by saying it was time for Bill Callahan to go. It was out of the love for the program that Bill had to go.

[BlueJazz]

92. I agree Reid needs to step down. He's Gutless.

[Kermitt Gribble]

95. I agree. And Pelosi as well.

[nankerphelge]

98. Yes - he is useless

nt

[amborin]

108. if you read Paul Krugman, the problem started before the bill got to the senate....

"Is Obama relying too much on tax cuts?

Let’s lay out the basics here. Other things equal, public investment is a much better way to provide economic stimulus than tax cuts, for two reasons. First, if the government spends money, that money is spent, helping support demand, whereas tax cuts may be largely saved. So public investment offers more bang for the buck. Second, public investment leaves something of value behind when the stimulus is over.

That said, there’s a problem with a public-investment-only stimulus plan, namely timing. We need stimulus fast, and there’s a limited supply of “shovel-ready” projects that can be started soon enough to deliver an economic boost any time soon. You can bulk up stimulus through other forms of spending, mainly aid to Americans in distress — unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.. And you can also provide aid to state and local governments so that they don’t have to cut spending — avoiding anti-stimulus is a fast way to achieve net stimulus. But everything I’ve heard says that even with all these things it’s hard to come up with enough spending to provide all the aid the economy needs in 2009.

What this says is that there’s a reasonable economic case for including a significant amount of tax cuts in the package, mainly in year one.

But the numbers being reported — 40 percent of the whole, two-year plan — sound high. And all the news reports say that the high tax-cut share is intended to assuage Republicans; what this presumably means is that this was the message the off-the-record Obamanauts were told to convey.

And that’s bad news.

Look, Republicans are not going to come on board. Make 40% of the package tax cuts, they’ll demand 100%. Then they’ll start the thing about how you can’t cut taxes on people who don’t pay taxes (with only income taxes counting, of course) and demand that the plan focus on the affluent. Then they’ll demand cuts in corporate taxes. And Mitch McConnell is already saying that state and local governments should get loans, not aid — which would undermine that part of the plan, too.

OK, maybe this is just a head fake from the Obama people — they think they can win the PR battle by making bipartisan noises, then accusing the GOP of being obstructionist. But I’m really worried that they’re sending off signals of weakness right from the beginning, and that they’re just going to embolden the opposition.

Like Barney Frank, I’m feeling a bit of post-partisan depression.

Updates: A few more details are emerging: $140 billion for Obama’s tax break for workers, which gives most workers $500. But it sounds as if the rest is mainly, perhaps almost entirely, tax cuts for business. Not very New Dealish.

Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell, perhaps sensing weakness, is already moving the goalposts."

<http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/page/5/>