Here is video of MSNBC’s Ed Schultz going apoplectic tonight about the reality that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is not going to push for changing the Filibuster rule that requires 60-votes to bring a bill to the Senate Floor for a vote. Schultz slams Harry Reid for his failure to use the “Constitutional option” – they called it the “Nuclear option” when they feared Republicans would change it. Reid and GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have agreed on some minor changes to the rule, but not making a change in the need for 60-votes to bring any controversial legislation to the Floor.
But he never really stated the reason why Harry Reid went from wanting to change the Filibuster rule to now abandoning that effort? I really don’t know for sure, but I suspect it has something to do with the decision by Obama and many on the Left to push Gun Control. Harry Reid has had a strong NRA rating. I don’t think he wants Obama’s Gun Control push to come up for a vote in the U.S. Senate. Changing the Filibuster rule would make it much easier for Democrats to get it to the floor for a vote. By pushing for Gun Control, Obama may have unwittingly made it much more difficult to bring significant change to the Filibuster rule.
Via Sen. John Thune and the Senate Republican Conference, here is a great video showing just how pathetic Sen. Harry Reid and the other Democrats are in wanting to change the Senate rules to do away with the 60-vote rule required to break a filibuster. The video shows an impassioned (as much as he gets) Harry Reid in 2005 arguing against changing the Senate rules, actually saying he “would never” propose such a thing. Now, of course, he is all for it because it would give Obama and the Democrats unfettered control of the Senate.
So far, Democrats in the U.S. Senate appear to be short of the votes they need to use the “Nuclear” option, and change the Senate rules to do away with the 60-vote rule required to break a filibuster. They will have reinforcements coming in the new Congress – newly elected Democratic Senators who have pledged to vote for the rules change. But some more long-tenured Democrats are apparently hesitant, because they remember using the filibuster frequently when they were in the minority:
THE HILL:Democrats don’t have the 51 votes they need in the Senate to change filibuster rules that could make it harder for the GOP minority to wield power in the upper chamber.
Lawmakers leading the charge acknowledge they remain short, but express optimism they’ll hit their goal.
“I haven’t counted 51 just yet, but we’re working,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a leading proponent of the so-called constitutional or “nuclear” option, in which Senate rules could be changed by a majority vote. . . . The problem for Udall and other supporters of filibuster reform is that many veteran Democratic senators remember when the filibuster was a useful tool in their years in the minority.
In the tradition-bound Senate, these veterans aren’t thrilled with changing the upper chamber’s rules, particularly with the use of the controversial constitutional option — which has never been used to change the chamber’s rules. . . . Read More