Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reid's Nuclear Option In The Senate (What A Sneaky SOB!!!)
IBD Editorials ^ | December 29, 2010 | Staff

Posted on 12/29/2010 8:21:09 PM PST by Kaslin

Politics: The Senate Majority Leader has a plan to deal with Republican electoral success. When you lose the game, you simply change the rules. When you only have 53 votes, you lower the bar to 51.

When Harry Reid was hawking his book "The Good Fight" on C-Span's "Book Notes" in 2008, he described how he had vehemently opposed GOP plans for the "nuclear option," changing the rules to break a Democratic filibuster on President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Only 51 votes would be needed to move them along.

"What the Republicans came up with was a way to change our country forever," Reid stated. "We would in fact have a unicameral legislature where a simple majority would determine everything that happens ... the Senate was set up to be different. That was the genius, the vision, of our Founding Fathers."

Reid forgot the Founding Fathers when he considered something similar to get ObamaCare through the Senate and on President Obama's desk.

Now he is planning to use the same mechanism he once considered a threat to democracy to thwart GOP gains in the Senate and outright control of the House of Representatives.

Currently, under Senate Rule 22 it takes a three-fifths vote, or 60 senators, for cloture to shut off the potentially endless debate known as a filibuster.

But it takes a two-thirds vote, or 67 Senators, to change a Senate rule. The reason is the differing nature of the House and Senate.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: dingyharry; harryreid; reid; snake

1 posted on 12/29/2010 8:21:11 PM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Poor Hairy, he sometimes has a brain f—t where he forgets that the Republicans now own the House, and it’s so what.


2 posted on 12/29/2010 8:23:53 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
He has an advantage. He is fighting turncoat gutless wonder repugnicans.
3 posted on 12/29/2010 8:23:59 PM PST by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know .F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Doesn’t matter for judicial appointments and international treaties - those items are voted upon by the Senate only.


4 posted on 12/29/2010 8:28:29 PM PST by happyathome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Harry Reid is not Hugo Chavez.

Or is he?

With Zer0 as president Dingy Harry is as close as anyone can be to Hugo.

5 posted on 12/29/2010 8:29:32 PM PST by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

what goes around, comes around.......


6 posted on 12/29/2010 8:32:25 PM PST by Red Badger (Whenever these vermin call you an 'idiot', you can be sure that you are doing to something right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Idiots in NV who voted for him and drooling idiots brainwashed by TV which is everyone who watches TV.


7 posted on 12/29/2010 8:36:27 PM PST by Frantzie (American TV = owned by the Saudis and elites - keep watching & losing your freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Democrats live in a world of hypocrisy the MSM will NEVER point out.


8 posted on 12/29/2010 8:42:12 PM PST by tcrlaf (Obama White House=Tammany Hall on the National Mall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Well, his fellow Dems up for election in 2012 may want him to reconsider because this guarantees tea party II and more GOP pickups.


9 posted on 12/29/2010 8:42:37 PM PST by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: happyathome
those items are voted upon by the Senate only.

True, but international treaties require 2/3rds so that has no bearing. And if they use the nuke just to get appointees in, you can guess how many Democrats will survive in any national office. BTW, I feel that filibustering Presidential appointments is wrong. Bad appointments are the consequences of electing "bad" presidents. But what does it matter? Presently the executive branch is governing by fiat.

10 posted on 12/29/2010 8:42:40 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This angers me — but doesn’t surprise me in the least. Harry Reid is a Liar. He is a power mad b*st*rd. He will [further] destroy what the Founders intended the Senate to be. He DOESN’T CARE.

People like Harry Reid should NEVER be allowed to hold office in this nation again. Ever. Sooner or later, Americans are going to HAVE to make it STOP.


11 posted on 12/29/2010 8:42:55 PM PST by patriot preacher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Reid is gone as the majority leader in 2012 with 23 Dem Senators up for election. I see a dozen of them being gone in the next election. If you do it Reid, ObamaCare is easily gone as is the rest of your trashy legislation you jammed in during the lame duck.


12 posted on 12/29/2010 8:47:45 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I find it hard to believe that reid is going throw
225 years of Senate history out the window and
claim the Senate is not a continuing body


13 posted on 12/29/2010 9:00:01 PM PST by Talf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Honestly, why are there not more than 64 Republican Senators?

14 posted on 12/29/2010 9:04:35 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (Hey, Barack "Hubris" Obama, what are you hiding? Release your Birth Certificate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: patriot preacher
We haven't forgotten. The Tea Party is alive and well, just taking a break so we will gain strength for the coming year. Sending out the invitations already. Come all of you who are close enough.


15 posted on 12/29/2010 9:05:04 PM PST by WVNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: patriot preacher

It doesn’t surprise me either. Just look how he stole the election from Sharon Angle


16 posted on 12/29/2010 9:10:48 PM PST by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

>> drooling idiots brainwashed by TV which is everyone who watches TV.

I at times watch TV and so do the people I love. Wise up about making the insulting generalities.


17 posted on 12/29/2010 9:10:52 PM PST by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Exactly. We have the house now, so they can’t do much with their new rules. We will never filibuster supreme court nominees nor treaties and the house has to approve the same bill before it becomes law, which how often are we going to agree with the rats. So in reality, they are helping us for 2012 when we take over and can repeal every one of the Obama laws without threat of filibuster. Then, after we get rid of the Obama laws, we change the filibuster rules back to a high threshold so we never have to worry about the rats passing crappy legislation (ie majority vote changes filibutser to 80 votes for closure, and any more rule changes requires 90 votes).

I am pretty sure one rat will stick up their hand and say this does not help us pass any legislation, so why do it.


18 posted on 12/29/2010 9:12:40 PM PST by Huskerscott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

I find your word for Republicans very interesting. The only ones I have seen using it are progressives.


19 posted on 12/29/2010 9:13:58 PM PST by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Huskerscott

Interesting, Harry Reid selecting the nuclear option.

Theoretically, this has never happened, such a split between the House and the Senate, so it’s interesting to see him govern from the Senate.


20 posted on 12/29/2010 9:58:02 PM PST by BenKenobi (Rush speaks! I hear, I obey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
Honestly, why are there not more than 64 Republican Senators?

Yes, there should be more. I think we will see the clearing out of those Dem Senators in the near future from red states.

21 posted on 12/29/2010 10:02:12 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; Kaslin; muawiyah
Reid is gone as the majority leader in 2012 with 23 Dem Senators up for election. I see a dozen of them being gone in the next election.

Technically 21, and 2 former rats that caucus with them, Sanders and Lieberman. Many of the rats first elected in 2006 were more "moderate" or "conservative" rats. They could bail out on Harry's plan. If they don't, they pull the plug on RINOs as useless idiots wanting to work across the aisle. The main problem is judicial nominees while rats control the Senate, if Reid pulls this off. We'll see if he has the testicles.

22 posted on 12/29/2010 10:09:17 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Reid has always been a POS.


23 posted on 12/29/2010 10:11:06 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I actually love this because if he thought it was a bloodbath in November, in 2 years you won’t see a “D” around anywhere.


24 posted on 12/29/2010 10:14:41 PM PST by truthandlife ("Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." (Ps 20:7))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

IIRC, the Republican measure was only regarding appointments (judges, agency heads, etc.), not all sorts of other votes as Reid proposes. IOW, if the GOP attempt was the “nuclear option”, the Democrats are proposing a “doomsday option”.


25 posted on 12/29/2010 10:48:07 PM PST by OrangeHoof (Washington, we Texans want a divorce!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
Honestly, why are there not more than 64 Republican Senators?

Woodrow Wilson and the 17th Amendment.

26 posted on 12/29/2010 11:29:55 PM PST by Go Gordon (Obama - He has nothing to say, but will say it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; All
Currently, under Senate Rule 22 it takes a three-fifths vote, or 60 senators, for cloture to shut off the potentially endless debate known as a filibuster.

But it takes a two-thirds vote, or 67 Senators, to change a Senate rule.

Is he on drugs ???

He barely had [for a short period of time in the last Senate] the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture. But, under current Senate rules, he would have needed 7 GOP to cross over to overturn the rule.

In the new Senate, he will only have 54 votes, meaning that 6 GOP would need to cross over in order to invoke cloture. And, he would need another 7 GOP to cross over to overturn the rule.

Thats 13 GOP crossing over in the new Senate - DUH !!! Ya think its gonna happen ???

27 posted on 12/30/2010 12:13:39 AM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...</i><p>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

What would the Founding Fathers have done to the Harry Traitor? We live in a very dangerous time where Traitors are in most of the positions of high power.


28 posted on 12/30/2010 12:17:32 AM PST by liberty or death
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Dingy Harry needs only 51 Democrats to go along with him. If he wants to be more just a titular majority leader, that’s the card he’s going to play when the new Congress convenes on Monday.


29 posted on 12/30/2010 12:31:04 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Don’t make me laugh. With the RINOs, the Democrats may still be able to get their agenda through the Senate even though it will never pass the House.


30 posted on 12/30/2010 12:33:15 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Don’t make me laugh. With the RINOs, the Democrats may still be able to get their agenda through the Senate even though it will never pass the House.


31 posted on 12/30/2010 12:33:44 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If their lips are moving, they are lying!


32 posted on 12/30/2010 3:23:41 AM PST by Laserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Because Bush 2004 - 2008 was a disaster.

Because in 2006, conservatives stayed home in disgust and disappointment of Bush.

Because in 2008 conservatives could not stomach McCain and because independents swung to Obama.


33 posted on 12/30/2010 3:26:13 AM PST by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof
-- IIRC, the Republican measure was only regarding appointments (judges, agency heads, etc.), not all sorts of other votes as Reid proposes. --

The GOP proposal was very narrow, and covered only limiting debate before confirmation votes on Circuit and Supreme Court nominees.

Nothing Reid says is credible. I tend to think of him as a nut.

Importance of Senate Rules - December 8, 2006

The nuclear option was the most important issue I have worked on in my public life. Its rejection was my proudest moment as minority leader. I emerged from the episode with a renewed appreciation for the majesty of Senate rules. As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect.

The Senate was not established to be efficient. Sometimes the rules get in the way of efficiency. The Senate was established to make sure that minorities are protected. Majorities can always protect themselves, but minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all about. For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have protected the American people, and rightfully so.

The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks. But I recognize this requirement is a tool that serves the long-term interest of the Senate and the American people and our country.

It is often said that the laws are "the system of wise restraints that set men free." The same might be said of the Senate rules.

I will do my part as majority leader to foster respect for the rules and traditions of our great institution. I say on this floor that I love so much that I believe in the Golden Rule. I am going to treat my Republican colleagues the way that I expect to be treated. There is no "I've got you," no get even. I am going to do everything I can to preserve the traditions and rules of this institution that I love.


34 posted on 12/30/2010 4:11:03 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: happyathome

The personnel complement of the judiciary is dependent on appropriations by the House. If there’s a vacancy and the House choses to not finance that seat anymore, that’s the end of that. Same with every significant treaty ~ they all need implementing legislation.


35 posted on 12/30/2010 5:07:39 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

the left deparately wants the ability to replace one of the 5 conservative justices so they can write whatever they want as constitutional law.

this, with a calculated connivance against one of the five to step down/retire/pass away, will accomplish their wishes.


36 posted on 12/30/2010 7:22:44 AM PST by bestintxas (Somewhere in Kenya, a Village is missing its Idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

Fact: Angle went from 4 points up on Monday to 6 points down on Tued night.

That can only happen with voter fraud.

Dirty Harry controls Clark County—where 71% of the population lives, including thousands of illegals who were considered to have voted.

ACORN is still very active in Clark County.

SEIU local 1107 has the contract to ‘maintain & service’ the electronic voting machines.
From the first hour of the first day of ‘Early Voting”, there were complaints about votes for Sharron coming up on the screen as a vote for Harry. REPEATEDLY- despite doing it over & over.

The Sec of State is a die-hard Democrat who will do anything Harry asks.

He told the press & the citizens ‘this is only a little computer glitch’!!!!!

Since everything is recorded by computer—I don’t see how anything could be ‘just a little computer glitch’.

Another voter said she was number 7 in her polling location & that they use the paper ballots. She said that when she went to place her folded ballot into the see-thru translucent sealed box, it was already over 1/2 full.....& she was only voter #7!!!!

Voter fraud—the gift that keeps on giving-—especially to Dirty Harry Reid.


37 posted on 12/30/2010 8:48:25 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hostage; Clintonfatigued; Political Junkie Too
Because in 2006, conservatives stayed home in disgust and disappointment of Bush.

That's a convenient misconception about 2006.

Smackdown! By Independents & Moderates

Why? Because exit polls show there's a large chunk of the electorate that is moderate, independent-minded and turned off by partisanship. In exit polls, 47 percent of voters described their views as moderate, 21 percent liberal and 32 percent conservative. And 61 percent of the moderates voted Democratic this year.

On party identification, 26 percent said they're Independent, which is in line with recent elections. But this year, Independents went Democratic by a 57-39 margin. That's what gave the day to Democrats. In the 2002 midterm, by contrast, Independents went Republican in a 48-45 split.

Because in 2008 conservatives could not stomach McCain and because independents swung to Obama.

You're starting to get warm. Conservative disaffection with McCain are badly overrated anecdotes, IMHO.

Enemies of the White House - Discontent is growing on the center-right.

Most voters, including independents, remain right of center. This was ratified by the exit poll on Election Day. Only 22 percent identified themselves as liberal, while 34 percent were conservatives and 44 percent moderates.

Independents favored the GOP by 18 % in 2010. Self identified conservatives are up to 42 %, and self identified are liberals are 20 %. I posted two threads about the 2010 exit poll. Independents can vary a great deal from state to state. In states like Massachusetts, they are more than half of registered voters. In the last election, independents usually varied between 20+ and 40+ percent depending on the state in question.
38 posted on 12/30/2010 9:51:38 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Yes independents are indeed the driving force of elections today.

But when I said conservatives stayed home in 2006, I wasn’t saying Republicans. There are many independents who are conservative and I remember distinctly the disgust they had with George Bush and the GOP at the time because he and the GOP had squandered the blood, sweat and tears expended in order to give Bush a GOP Congress and there was nothing nothing accomplished between 2004 and 2006.

The other factor and the more salient of the factors was Rahn Emanual recruiting conservatives into the dem party to run in conservative districts such as Hayward’s in AZ. That candidate was to the right of Hayworth. Rahm’s bluedogs gave control to the dems of the committees where they promptly set the agenda.

The five most noteworthy things that set me against Bush starting in late 2004 were:

1. Giving the backhand to the Swift Boat Vets
2. Accepting and dropping the shoddy work of the Tax Reform Commission that led to absolutely nothing but a nice boondoggle for a couple of former senators since turned tax lobbyists.
3. Proposing Harriet Miers for SCOTUS
4. Insistance on Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Amnesty)
5. Doing nothing nothing to crack down on the Wall St. malfeasance and outright theft from markets.

I remember clearly how people turned on Bush and his party and how he held his head in his hand on that 2006 election day wondering what happened. What a loser!

I saw the 2008 election as a punishment to the GOP for allowing the likes of John McCain to rise as candidate for President, and as an expression of begrudging Bush from having any legacy.

I saw the 2010 elections as a natural revolt against the political ruling class that is made up both of dems and RINOs. The 2006/2008 dicipline of conservatives and independents shooting the traitors and liars in the GOP gave rise to the Tea Party which is projected to gather more power and more supporters to finish the job in 2012.

As far as I am concerned there is only one party in America that matters and that is the Tea Party.


39 posted on 12/30/2010 12:35:23 PM PST by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson