Democrats Hope Republicans Forget About Harry Reid’s Pre-Election Antics

[longknife]

by Jim Hoft

Harry Reid attacked and lied about Mitt Romney before the presidential election.
He even accused Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years during a Senate session.

Now the Democrat-media complex is hoping Republicans will forgive and forget Harry Reid’s disgusting attacks.

The Hill reported: Read the full story @ Reid faces task of mending fences with Republicans after campaign attacks - The Hill

I certainly hope they don't forget Dingy Harry's stupidity and lying.

 

[mamooth]

A rather lame attempt to stop Reid's filibuster reform. Which would be:

1. Actually having to stand up and talk for a filibuster duration
2. Limiting filibusters to the actual votes, and not to starting debate
3. Shortening the interval between when you can attempt to break a filibuster.

You know it's good law, because the Democrats are completely willing to have it apply to them, should they would become the minority. Oddly, those common sense changes infuriate the Republicans, who are moaning that their mythical "minority rights" to require a 60-vote supermajority on everything are being trampled.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - dey's workin' towards more gridlock so's dey can continue to collect dey's fat paychecks fer doin' nothin'...

Reid threatens rule change to limit GOP filibusters
Monday, November 26, 2012 - McConnell hits back, says move threatens collegiality

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed Monday he will push to change Senate rules and curtail some Republican filibusters next year, setting up a major test of collegiality and power politics in the usually chummy chamber that bills itself as “the world’s most exclusive club.” Republicans said that if Mr. Reid goes ahead, he’ll not only ruin the unique nature of the Senate, but he’ll poison chances for bipartisan cooperation just as members of the next Congress are taking their seats in January.

The back-and-forth spilled over onto the Senate floor Monday, with Mr. Reid facing off against Sen. Mitch McConnell, the chamber’s top Republican, in a rare and acrid head-to-head debate. “This is no exaggeration. What these Democrats have in mind is a fundamental change to the way the Senate operates, for the purposes of consolidating their own power,” the Kentucky Republican said. “In the name of efficiency, they would prevent the very possibility of compromise and threaten to make the disputes of the past few years look like mere pillow fights.”

The fight is not only about the filibuster, but the way the Senate writes all of its rules — of which the filibuster is just one example. Mr. Reid plans to use his newly expanded majority to make the changes on the first day of the new Congress next year, which is the only time rules can be adopted on a simple majority vote. Any other time, a rules change requires a two-third vote, and most major changes are done through the two-thirds method.

Mr. Reid, though, said Republican blockades of bill after bill have left him no choice but to use the majority route — dubbed the “nuclear option” in some quarters — and said voters in this month’s elections showed they want faster action in the chamber. “We’re going to follow the rules to make a couple of minor changes to make this place more efficient, and that’s what the Senate has always been about, is revising itself to become more efficient,” Mr. Reid said, dismissing GOP “threats” as bluster and wondering, “What more could they do to us?” All sides agreed the Senate is broken. According to The Washington Times’ legislative futility index, it posted its worst session on record in 2011, and halfway through 2012 it was on pace for the second-worst.

Read more: Reid threatens filibuster change - Washington Times Reid threatens filibuster change - Washington Times

See also:

McConnell: Limiting Filibuster Would Shut Millions of Americans Out of Leglislative Process
November 27, 2012 - There's a reason the Senate requires a two-thirds vote for anything significant to become law: It's so the majority party can't "simply roll over those who disagree with them," Sen. Mitch McConnell said Monday.

In a speech on the Senate floor, McConnell argued against a Democrat plan to change Senate rules in a way that would limit Republican filibusters. Requiring 67 votes to cut off debate and proceed to a vote on a bill "protects minority views from majority rule," he said. Changing the rule to require a majority vote instead of a 67-vote threshhold would suppress the views of millions of Americans, he said. "Let's be clear: the rules change that's being proposed is not an affront to me or to the Republican Party," McConnell said. "It's an affront to the American people. It's an affront to the people who sent me and the other 46 Republicans here to represent them in the Senate, but whose voices would be shut out if the majority leader and this cohort of short-sighted Senate sophomores have their way and permanently change this body."

McConnell noted that right now, Senate Republicans represent the voters of 31 states with a total population of more than 180 million Americans: "Shutting off our right to express the views of our constituents, as is being proposed, would effectively shut these people out of the process," he said. "If a bare majority can now proceed to any bill it chooses, and once on that bill, the majority leader, all by himself, can shut out all amendments that aren't to his liking, then those who elected us to advocate for their views will have lost their voice in the legislative process. "This is something the majority leader used to understand," McConnell continued. "He used to understand that protecting the rights of the minority party meant protecting the right of the people who sent us here to be heard in Washington. He understood the importance of defending the minority view when he was in the minority. "But now that he's been in the majority, he seems to have conveniently forgotten all this. The people of Kentucky elected two Republican senators to the Senate. Does the majority leader think the views of the people of Kentucky shouldn't be heard? Does he think the Nevadans who sent Senator Heller to the Senate shouldn't be heard?"

McConnell noted that the Congressional Record "contains mountains of reverential statements by Republicans and Democrats" extolling the Senate as the one legislative body that protects minority views from majority rule, by requiring 67 votes for anything significant to become law. "Why?" McConnell asked. "So that majorities can't simply roll over those who disagree with them," he said. "And, just as importantly, so majority parties are forced to resolve the great issues of the moment in the middle, ensuring their stability and permanence. "It's this mechanism that has so frustrated majority parties over the years, but which has ensured -- at least most of the time -- that our laws are stable and not subject to change every time the parties change power. This is what makes the Senate different. This is what makes this body great. And, up until recently, many of those who now want to change these rules agreed." McConnell said doing away with the 67-vote threshold needed to cut off debate on a bill "would have such a corrosive effect on comity that it would threaten our ability to ever get anything accomplished around here."

Source