Reid Says Trump Election Has Emboldened Forces Of Hate

(Photo of Senator Harry Reid is from Politico.com.)

The following statement is from the website of retiring Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada):

“I have personally been on the ballot in Nevada for 26 elections and I have never seen anything like the reaction to the election completed last Tuesday. The election of Donald Trump has emboldened the forces of hate and bigotry in America.

“White nationalists, Vladimir Putin and ISIS are celebrating Donald Trump’s victory, while innocent, law-abiding Americans are wracked with fear – especially African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Muslim Americans, LGBT Americans and Asian Americans. Watching white nationalists celebrate while innocent Americans cry tears of fear does not feel like America.

“I have heard more stories in the past 48 hours of Americans living in fear of their own government and their fellow Americans than I can remember hearing in five decades in politics. Hispanic Americans who fear their families will be torn apart, African Americans being heckled on the street, Muslim Americans afraid to wear a headscarf, gay and lesbian couples having slurs hurled at them and feeling afraid to walk down the street holding hands. American children waking up in the middle of the night crying, terrified that Trump will take their parents away. Young girls unable to understand why a man who brags about sexually assaulting women has been elected president.

“I have a large family. I have one daughter and twelve granddaughters. The texts, emails and phone calls I have received from them have been filled with fear – fear for themselves, fear for their Hispanic and African American friends, for their Muslim and Jewish friends, for their LBGT friends, for their Asian friends. I’ve felt their tears and I’ve felt their fear.

“We as a nation must find a way to move forward without consigning those who Trump has threatened to the shadows. Their fear is entirely rational, because Donald Trump has talked openly about doing terrible things to them. Every news piece that breathlessly obsesses over inauguration preparations compounds their fear by normalizing a man who has threatened to tear families apart, who has bragged about sexually assaulting women and who has directed crowds of thousands to intimidate reporters and assault African Americans. Their fear is legitimate and we must refuse to let it fall through the cracks between the fluff pieces.

“If this is going to be a time of healing, we must first put the responsibility for healing where it belongs: at the feet of Donald Trump, a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate. Winning the electoral college does not absolve Trump of the grave sins he committed against millions of Americans. Donald Trump may not possess the capacity to assuage those fears, but he owes it to this nation to try.

“If Trump wants to roll back the tide of hate he unleashed, he has a tremendous amount of work to do and he must begin immediately.”

Senator Reid's Explosive Letter To FBI Director Comey

(This photo of FBI Director Comes from The Huffington Post is by Jonathan Ernst / Reuters.)

Why has FBI Director Comey tried to smear Hillary Clinton just days before the election by inferring that there may be new e-mails that would warrant the re-opening of the investigation against her use of a private server, when the FBI has evidence that the Trump campaign and the Russian government have colluded to sway the U.S. election. It's a good question -- especially since Clinton wrote NONE of the new e-mails and NONE were sent on her private server, and collusion between Trump and the Russian government would be a violation of U.S. law. Is Comey using his office to try and help Donald Trump?

Here is Senator Harry Reid's explosive letter to the FBI Director:

Dear Director Comey:

Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another. I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election. Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law.

The double standard established by your actions is clear.

In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government – a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity. The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information.

By contrast, as soon as you came into possession of the slightest innuendo related to Secretary Clinton, you rushed to publicize it in the most negative light possible.

Moreover, in tarring Secretary Clinton with thin innuendo, you overruled longstanding tradition and the explicit guidance of your own Department. You rushed to take this step eleven days before a presidential election, despite the fact that for all you know, the information you possess could be entirely duplicative of the information you already examined which exonerated Secretary Clinton.

As you know, a memo authored by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates on March 10, 2016, makes clear that all Justice Department employees, including you, are subject to the Hatch Act. The memo defines the political activity prohibited under the Hatch Act as “activity directed towards the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.”

The clear double-standard established by your actions strongly suggests that your highly selective approach to publicizing information, along with your timing, was intended for the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group.

Please keep in mind that I have been a supporter of yours in the past. When Republicans filibustered your nomination and delayed your confirmation longer than any previous nominee to your position, I led the fight to get you confirmed because I believed you to be a principled public servant.

With the deepest regret, I now see that I was wrong.

Sincerely,

Senator Harry Reid

President Won't Have To Use A Veto To Protect Iran Deal

(This caricature of President Obama is by DonkeyHotey.)

It had been thought that President Obama would have to use his veto power to protect the Iran Agreement -- and we've know for several days now that opponents to the agreement don't have enough votes to override his veto. But now it looks like a veto won't be necessary. Senate Democrats have protected the president by refusing to allow a vote to kill the agreement in the Senate.

Congress had agreed that they should have 60 days to debate and then vote to kill the agreement -- and if they did not, then it would go into effect. Those 60 days are nearly up, and it doesn't look like the Senate will be able to vote to kill the agreement. Republicans tried to override a filibuster and bring it to the floor with a cloture motion, but they didn't have the 60 votes necessary to get it done. The vote was 58 to 42, and the motion failed.

Harry Reid (Minority Leader) and Dick Durbin (Minority Whip) are to be commended for their untiring effort to round up the 42 votes to prevent the odious (and dangerous) Republican bill from coming to the floor of the Senate. Sadly, four Democrats abandoned their president, their party, and their common sense -- and voted with the Republicans. They are Charles Schumer (New York), Ben Cardin (Maryland), Joe Manchin (West Virginia), and Robert Melendez (New Jersey).

While all four of those senators should be ashamed, Schemer's vote is the most egregious. He is being touted as the person most likely to replace Harry Reid as Senate Party Leader in January 2017 (since Reid is retiring after this term). I believe this vote should disqualify him from being elected to that important post. The post should go to a senator who is loyal to the party, the president, and is willing to do what is good for the country. With his vote, Schumer has shown he fails on all three criteria.

I believe Dick Durbin (Illinois) should be elected to be the next Senate Party Leader, and we should urge Democratic senators to vote for him in January of 2017. He has earned it -- both for his effort to round up the votes for the agreement, and for his many years of loyal service to the Democratic Party in the Senate.

(This photo of Senator Dick Durbin is from his Facebook page.)

No Honeymoon Period For Republican Leaders

One would have expected after the huge victory they had in this latest election, that Republican leaders would be able to bask in the approval of their own party's base -- at least until the 114th Congress gets down to business next January. But that doesn't seem to be happening.

During only the second week after the election (from November 10th to November 17th), the approval of the Republican congressional leadership has dropped significantly. The approval rating during those seven days for John Boehner has dropped 12 points (while disapproval rose by 10 points). And the numbers for Mitch McConnell were even worse, with approval dropping by 14 points (and disapproval climbing by 12 points).

These numbers are from YouGov Polls taken between November 8th and 10th and between November 15th and 17th (of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of about 4 points). Note that the shifts in approval and disapproval far exceed the polls' margin of error.

The same is not true for Democrats (see chart below). The approval and disapproval numbers for Democratic leaders by their own base has remained pretty steady.

Can Warren Instill Courage In Senate Democratic Leaders ?

Some of us remember the fist few years of the Obama administration -- when Sen. Harry Reid (the Majority Leader in the Senate) gave in to the Republicans far too many times. While the Republicans were playing political hardball, Reid (and the president) kept trying to get them to compromise -- and it just usually resulted in a Democratic surrender. In the last couple of years, it seems that Reid realized his mistake and almost developed a backbone.

Unfortunately, he now is talking like he's uncomfortable with that backbone, and wants to go back to being submissive to the Republicans. Although the Republicans used (misused?) the filibuster to block almost everything the president and Democrats tried to do, Reid is now talking like he doesn't want to play the same kind of power politics the Republicans engaged in when they were a minority -- saying in his first press conference since the election, "Senate Democrats are ready to work in good faith with their Republican counterparts."

The Republicans have never exhibited any "good faith" negotiating since Obama took office, and they have already made it clear they are not going to do so now that they are in the majority. Reid's statement is a sign of weakness. Is he going to let every ridiculous Republican bill get to the president -- and force President Obama to stand alone in opposition to them? I certainly hope not. The Senate Democrats should use (misuse?) the filibuster to help protect the president. Failure to do so would be craven and cowardly.

There is a faint hope that maybe the Democrats won't totally crumble in the face of the new Republican majority. They have created a new leadership position in the Senate Democratic caucus, and given it to one of the strongest progressives in the Senate -- Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Senator Warren is a fighter for the common man in this country, and progressive values in general -- and she won't meekly give in to Republican idiocy. Maybe she can use her leadership position to help other Democratic leaders to exhibit some backbone, and encourage all Senate Democrats to fight for Americans with all the tools they have left (including the filibuster).

Here is what Senator Warren told her supporters regarding her new leadership position:

I just left a Senate Democrats caucus meeting, and I wanted you to know: Harry Reid has asked me to serve as Strategic Policy Advisor to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee. That’s a fancy way of saying that I’ve been asked to join the Democratic leadership in helping decide how we can fight most effectively for the people who are counting on us. I don’t kid myself. Life is about to get harder in the Senate when Republicans take over control, but this is a seat at the table for all of us – and that matters. It’s a seat at the table to fight for kids who are being crushed by student loan debt. Working moms and dads struggling to make it on minimum wage. Seniors who depend solely on their Social Security checks to keep a roof over their heads. And all of us who just want a level playing field and a fighting chance to succeed. Washington is a tough place, and it’s not easy to make real, lasting changes. We all know that. But we also know it’s possible, and we know how much it matters. That’s why we’re going to keep fighting for what we believe in.

Senate Democrats Ready To Play Hardball Politics

(This caricature of the major political party symbols is by DonkeyHotey.)

It looks like I may have underestimated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada). While he (and the Senate Democrats) gave in to the Republicans far too many times during the early years of the Obama administration, it seems like he may have learned his lesson. He stood firm at the end of the last Congress, and was able to end the Bush tax cuts for the rich (and raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 20%). Then he refused to back down when the Republicans tried to shut down the government to repeal or defund Obamacare, and we watched as the GOP gave in and retreated in ignominious defeat.

Now Reid (and his Democratic cohorts in the Senate) are ready to play that same kind of political hardball with the 2014 election drawing closer. They want to make the Republicans go on record with their votes to support the untenable positions they have (positions opposed by a majority of American voters). The Democrats are going to force a vote on a series of issues like raising the minimum wage, closing the pay gap between the genders, lowering the interest rates on college loans, and closing the tax loopholes for corporations.

The beauty of this new strategy is that there's no way the Republicans can stop it. It really doesn't even matter if the Democrats can get those matters to the Senate floor for a real vote on them -- because a Republican vote to continue a filibuster and prevent the measure from getting to the Senate floor will be perceived by the public as a vote against the measure. All the Democrats have to do is hold a series of cloture votes (votes to end a filibuster and bring a measure up for a vote), and any vote by Republicans to continue to block the measure with a filibuster will be seen as a vote against the measure.

And hopefully, the Democrats won't stop with just one effort to invoke cloture on all these measures -- but will continue to do it over and over throughout the Spring and Summer. And the make sure the voters know just how the Republicans voted each and every time. If they do, they will effectively expose the Republicans for what they really are -- the party of the rich who have no interest in helping ordinary Americans.

This is exactly what the Democrats should have been doing all along. They have let the Republicans get away with blocking measures that would help hurting Americans while giving breaks to the rich and the corporations. It is time to make sure the American public knows how little the Republicans care about them -- and the best way to do that is to make the Republicans vote repeatedly against the measures most Americans support.

It's Time For The Senate "Nuclear Option"

It was just a few weeks ago that the Republicans were filibustering every nominee of President Obama -- not because there was any real objection to most nominees, but just because they wanted to damage the president (or force him to go along with at least some of their failed and mean-spirited agenda). Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) then threatened to use the so-called "nuclear option" (change Senate rules to allow the president's judicial and executive nominees to bypass a filibuster, and be approved by a 51 vote majority).

The Senate had an emergency meeting of all senators, and the Republicans backed down. They promised to allow a vote on presidential judicial and executive nominees, if Reid abandoned his plan to invoke the "nuclear option". And for a short time, they honored that promise -- allowing votes on several presidential nominees.

But, as Republicans have demonstrated numerous times in the past, keeping their word is not really a Republican value. And now, only weeks later, they have broken the promise they made. There are several vaccines on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and so far, the president has nominated four candidates to fill those vacancies (Pattie Millett, Nina Pillard, Caitlin Halligan, and Robert Wilkins). All four of these nominees have been filibustered by the Republicans -- and the Republicans say they will filibuster anyone the president nominates for that court, regardless of who it is.

The court is currently dominated by right-wing justices, and the GOP is afraid the Obama nominees would have a moderating influence on that court. They ignore the fact that when Republican presidents were loading the court with those right-wingers, the Democrats allowed a vote on every one of them. They think that only white Republican presidents have the right to nominate justices for that important court, and would deny President Obama his constitutional right to fill vacancies on that court (or at least allow his nominees to get a confirmation vote).

This is outrageous. The Republicans are trying to impose their failed right-wing agenda through misuse of the filibuster -- an agenda that the people soundly rejected in the last election. It is time for Majority Leader Reid and the Senate Democrats to finally use the "nuclear option", since the Republicans have shown their word is no good.

Reid is currently talking to his Democratic cohorts to make sure he has the votes to pull this off. So far, a few Democrats are balking (like Carl Levin of Michigan). They say if the Democrats use this option, then the Republicans will do the same when they get in the majority. That's a ludicrous argument -- and shows they haven't been paying attention to what has been going on in Congress since the election of President Obama. The Republicans have pulled every dirty trick in the book to obstruct everything the president (and the Democrats) have tried to do -- and anyone who thinks the GOP won't use this option if they get in the majority is just not living in the real world.

The Democrats showed they had some backbone during the government shutdown, and stood firm until the GOP caved. Have they now put those backbones back in the closet? Are they too gutless to play the same kind of political hardball the Republicans have engaged in for the last five years? We'll know in a few days.

Personally, I think they need to put those backbones to good use again -- and support the president's nominees, even if it means using the "nuclear option".

UPDATE --  This morning (Thursday) Senate Democrats invoked the "nuclear option". Now it will only take 51 votes to end a filibuster of most executive and judicial nominees (while stopping a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee or legislation will continue to require 60 votes). Congratulations are due to Harry Reid for showing some real leadership on this issue, and to Senate Democrats for refusing to knuckle under to the GOP obstruction of presidential nominees.

All 4 Congressional Leaders Very Unpopular

Several polls have shown that Congress as a whole is very unpopular these days. In the last few months, their approval ratings have been below 15% (and the disapproval ratings very high). The folks at Gallup decided to find out if that congressional unpopularity also applied to the leaders of both parties there, and not surprisingly, it does.

The recent Gallup Poll was taken between September 5th and 8th of a nationwide sample of about 794 adults, with a 4 point margin of error. The poll showed that all four congressional leaders, Mitch McConnell & Harry Reid in the Senate and John Boehner & Nancy Pelosi in the House, are not well liked by the general public and all four have upside-down approval ratings -- McConnell (35%-47%), Reid (33%-53%), Boehner (37%-54%), and Pelosi (39%-51%).

The poll also showed that all four were pretty equally disliked by Independent voters. But three of those leaders can at least claim some support from their own political party -- with the numbers for Boehner at 48%-44% among Republicans, while Reid has a rating of 47%-40% & and Pelosi has a rating of 65%-24% among Democrats. It is Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority Leader who has the worst numbers, being upside-down even with the members of his own party at 33%-47%.

This could well show why his poll numbers for his re-election campaign in Kentucky have been so low (showing him trailing his Democratic opponent by a few points). Politics is a lot harder when the voters in your own political party don't like you (by a huge 14 point margin).

Reid Stands Firm And GOP Backs Down

(The image above is from the website of The Huffington Post.)

The Senate Republicans have been holding up several of President Obama's nominations for critical government jobs by filibustering the nominations -- some for as much as two years. A couple of days ago, I posted that Majority Leader Harry Reid had gotten his fill of this and decided to do something about it.He publicly told those GOP senators that if they continued to filibuster those nominations, he would initiate the "nuclear option" (change the rules to allow killing a filibuster on nominations with only 51 votes).

The Republicans fumed and howled at Reid's threat, but then they realized he meant it (and had the votes lined up to actually do it) -- and they backed down. After a closed-door meeting of the entire Senate on Monday night, the GOP gave in and said they would allow floor votes on the nominations. And on Tuesday, they allowed a vote on the first nomination -- the nomination of Richard Cordray to be the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial protection (the nomination they had held up the longest).

And Cordray's nomination was approved by the Senate on a 66 to 34 vote. That means 12 Republicans joined 52 Democrats and 2 Independents to approve Mr. Cordray. That vote shows that not all Republicans were opposed to Cordray's nomination. They were just holding it up to hurt the president as much as they could. Those 12 Republicans (or even just half of them) could have ended the filibuster long ago.

Now the rest of those nominations will come up for a vote in the next few Senate business days. And Reid has not backed off his threat. He wants votes on all of them, and is still willing to pull the trigger on the "nuclear option" if necessary.

Republicans are trying to frame this as a win for them -- since the president pulled two of his nominees (Richard Griffin, Jr. and Sharon Block) and replaced them with two more nominees (Nancy Schiffer and Kent Hirozawa). Reid has been assured by the GOP that the new nominees will also get a vote. The truth is that Reid went eyeball-to-eyeball with the GOP, and they blinked.

For once, I am proud of Harry Reid. I hope he can continue to find a use for his new backbone.

Reid Dares GOP To Continue Filibustering Presidential Nominations

(The caricature of Harry Reid on the left is by DonkeyHotey.)

There is no doubt that the Republicans in the Senate have abused the filibuster privilege -- and they have done it just to spite President Obama. Even after promising to rein in their filibustering (to prevent Democrats from changing the filibuster rules last January), the Republicans have gone right on filibustering everything the president tries to do -- including his appointments to high level government jobs and cabinet positions.

In the past, both parties believed the president had the right to put whoever he wanted in cabinet and top-level government positions -- and these appointments were not filibustered, but voted on by the Senate. But today's right-wing Republicans have a different attitude. They don't just use the filibuster to slow or stop legislation (the traditional use of the privilege), but to block anything the president wants to do -- including blocking his nominations.

Their purpose is to try and damage the administration -- to keep it from doing the business of government. They then want to turn around and claim the administration is not competent -- even though it was their own obstructionism that prevented the government from doing its business.

Well, Majority Leader Harry Reid has had enough of it -- at least as far as the blocking of presidential nominations is concerned. He is throwing down the gauntlet, and daring the GOP senators to continue filibustering presidential nominees. Reid has filed seven cloture motions to stop filibusters -- all of them on presidential nominations. And if the Republicans don't stop those filibusters and allow a senate vote on those nominees, he is threatening to use the "nuclear option" (changing the rules to allow filibusters to be stopped with 51 votes). And after meeting with his Democratic caucus, he says he has the votes to do it.

Those cloture motions will be voted on early this week, and if the filibusters are upheld once again, Reid could act to change the rules as early as Tuesday or Wednesday. Understand, Reid is not asking Republicans to vote for the president's nominees -- but just to allow a vote to take place on their nominations. I think that's a pretty reasonable request. Most of the nominations have already been delayed for far too long.

Does Reid have the backbone to follow through on his threat? I don't know. He has given in to Republicans too many times in the past -- including last January when they snookered him into believing they would stop abusing the filibuster privilege. But I hope he does follow through if votes aren't allowed on all seven nominations.

Even if he does follow through, it wouldn't mean an end to the filibuster. The 51 vote requirement would only apply to presidential nominations. Legislation and appointment of federal judges could still be filibustered under the old rules (requiring 60 votes to bring something to the floor for a vote).

Will the Republicans back down and allow the votes? Will Reid and the Democrats follow through on their threat if the Republicans don't allow the votes? Whatever happens will make for an interesting few days in the Senate.

Is Harry Showing Signs Of A Backbone ?

The immigration reform bill has reached the debate stage in the Senate, and the senators are currently debating how many and what kind of amendments will be attached to the bill. This does not mean the bill will ever actually get an up or down vote, since some Republican senator (Cruz? Lee?) will probably filibuster that -- unless the Republicans are able to make the bill so onerous that few immigrants could ever jump through enough hoops to gain citizenship, or delay forever the path to citizenship by making border security requirements unachievable.

And the Republicans have already started their avalanche of "poison pill" amendments. The first was by Texas' sorry excuse for a senator, John Cornyn. Cornyn's bill would put three times as many agents on our southern border, and raise security requirements to a ridiculous level before a path to citizenship could be offered to anyone.

But Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is once again showing signs of finally growing a backbone. He has decided that since the Republicans have used the filibuster to make sure no law could even be voted on in the Senate unless a 60 vote majority is in place, that same benchmark should apply to Republican amendments to the immigration bill. Of course, this has outraged Republican senators (who know none of there divisive amendments could reach the 60 vote level). Reid has answered their outrage by saying:

“How many times have we heard the Republican leader say on this floor and publicly that the new reality in the United States Senate is 60? I mean, this is what he said. That’s why we’re having 60 votes on virtually everything.”


Reid is right. If the filibuster can be used by Republicans to block all legislation they don't like (which is pretty much everything), then it can be used by Democrats to kill the GOP amendments that would destroy immigration reform.

This bill already poses a difficult path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and it certainly doesn't need to be made even more difficult (or impossible) by the Republicans. If they don't like the bill, let them vote it down or kill it with a filibuster (if they can) -- and then pay the price for that in the next presidential election (because it is not just Hispanics, but a majority of American voters, who want immigration reform with a path to citizenship).

Does Harry Reid have enough political courage to make his threat a reality? I hope so. But he has shown signs of developing a backbone before, only to back down and turn into a jellyfish. All we can do is cross our fingers and hope he will follow through on his promise this time. Senate Democrats could really use a leader with some backbone.

The Latest Empty Threat From Harry Reid

Well, Majority Leader Harry Reid is mad again, and threatening to take action against Republican obstructionism. This time he's upset because the Republicans are dragging their feet on approving judicial nominations made by the president ( and the presidential nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau). Of course this is nothing new. The GOP has been obstructing the timely approval of judicial nominees for over four years now -- and the nominee to head the CFPB for a couple of years.

But Harry is mad, and he is threatening to use the "nuclear option" (changing Senate rules with only 51 votes) if the Republicans continue to block the Senate approval of presidential nominees (usually by filibustering them). Of course, Reid could have taken care of this matter back in January. Back then he was also talking tough and threatening to change the rules. But when push came to shove, he backed off and agreed to a few watered down changes offered by Republicans (changes so weak it did nothing to stop the GOP filibusters).

Now he once again realizes the GOP snookered him, and they are going to continue to abuse the filibuster rule (like anyone with half a brain knew they would). I don't think anyone knows if the so-called "nuclear option" is really viable or not, but it doesn't matter anyway. Reid doesn't have enough political backbone to actually try to do it.

Reid is just making another of his empty threats -- and both Republicans and progressives know it. In the end, Republicans will promise him to do better (and they might even approve one or two nominees to make it look good), and then they'll go right back to obstructing the approval of the president's nominees (and anything else the president tries to do). They've been playing this same game for over four years now, and Reid gives in nearly every time.

When are the Democrats going to learn how to play the same kind of political hardball that the Republicans do?

The Incredibly Gutless Harry Reid

The above graphic shows that gun laws do work. The NRA and their Republican flunkies in Congress have said that gun laws don't work, but note above that the states that have the most gun laws and restrictions also have the fewest gun deaths per capita. That would give credence to the idea that a decent gun law passed by the United States Congress could substantially lower the extraordinarily high number of gun deaths in this country.

And the majority of people of this country have shown they want to see a decent gun bill passed. Between 80% and 90% of Americans want to see the loopholes closed in the required background checks, and a smaller majority would like to see the sale of military-style assault weapons and cartridge magazines holding more than 10 bullets banned for future sales. The question now is whether Congress will bow to the will of the people or give in to the wishes of the NRA leadership.

We already know that it will be very hard to get any bill passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Now it looks like we may not even get a decent gun bill in the Senate. And for that, we can blame the political cowardice of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada). Reid had a long record of knuckling under to Republicans in the 112th Congress, and he has already started to continue that pattern of behavior in this 113th Congress.

At the end of the last Congress, Reid was talking very boldly about needing to do something to fix the filibuster (to rein in the use of it by Republicans to stall and obstruct everything the president tried to accomplish). But when push came to shove, Reid gave in and agreed to a watered-down version of reform that allows the GOP to continue abusing the filibuster to demand that every bill passed in the Senate must have 60 votes. Now it looks like he is ready to give in to NRA and GOP pressure on gun legislation.

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed four bills. Those bills would increase penalties for gun trafficking, provide more money for school security, close the loopholes in background checks, and ban the future sale of assault weapons and high volume ammunition clips. Reid has said he would combine the bills passed out of committee into one omnibus gun bill. The problem is that he has already said that the ban on assault weapons and large volume ammunition clips would NOT be in that bill (because he thinks it might sink the whole bill if included).

Now we learn that it is not even certain that closing the loopholes in background checks will make it into his "omnibus" gun bill. He says the Democrats and GOP are still negotiating about whether those selling weapons should be required to keep records on those sales -- and if a compromise can't be reached, then the closing of background check loopholes might also be excluded form the bill.

Personally, I think that would make the final weakened bill little more than a joke, since both of the major provisions supported by a majority of Americans would be excluded. Could the bill be passed with those two provisions in it. I don't know. But I do know they'll never be passed if they are not even allowed to be in the bill! And leaving them out just makes the legislation an exercise in futility.

Obviously, Reid still hasn't learned to play the same kind of political hardball that the Republicans routinely play. He should put both provisions in the omnibus bill, and then if the Republicans kill it they'll have to bear the wrath of the American voters in the next election. Maybe then we can get a Congress that will pass a meaningful gun bill. But watering down the bill does no good for anyone. It will make the voters mad at both parties (justifiably), and it won't save American lives.

I'm getting sick and tired of Reid knuckling under to the Republicans. Why won't the Democrats select a Majority Leader with some political courage? Reid just makes them look like a party of weaklings.

GOP Obstruction Is Alive And Well

Majority Leader Harry Reid has a right to be mad -- at himself. At the beginning of the 112th Congress, Reid let himself be hoodwinked by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. McConnell promised if Reid (and the Democrats) left the filibuster rules in place, the Republicans would no longer abuse the filibuster privilege. The Democrats left the rule as it was, and in almost no time at all the Republicans broke their promise. For the next two years they obstructed everything the Democrats tried to do by filibustering -- making it a requirement to have 60 votes before anything could be done.

As this 113th Congress was starting, Reid and the Democrats again had the opportunity to fix the filibuster problem. Proposals were made by some Democrats -- one would have required a real talking filibuster, and another would have reduced the cloture vote requirement each time a vote on ending any filibuster was taken. Either of those plans would have prevented filibuster abuse and obstruction of the Senate by abusing it.

So, what did Reid and the Democrats do? They let the Republicans play them for fools again. They accepted a "compromise" proposal that made only a few cosmetic changes to the filibuster. They surrendered their chance for change. Once again, the Republicans promised not to abuse the filibuster privilege. Now, only about three weeks later, they are breaking that promise.

Some Republicans, particularly Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), are filibustering the nomination of Chuck Hagel (a former Republican senator) to be Secretary of Defense. Mr. Hagel's nomination was approved by the Armed Services Committee, and should have been debated and voted on by the full Senate on Wednesday. But that could not be done because of the silent filibuster by Republicans. This means Hagel cannot be confirmed with only a majority, but will have to get 60 votes (the number of votes required to end a filibuster). That vote will be on Friday.

The reason (the lie) being given by Republicans is that the administration has not fully told the truth about Benghazi (where four Americans were killed). The truth is that this tragic incident has been fully explained by the White House, and again by Secretary of State Clinton in Senate hearings. The Republicans are just trying to keep the incident alive to score political points with their extremist base, and they are using the filibuster to do it.

Senator McCain and four other Republicans had promised they would not filibuster Hagel's nomination. According to CNN, they are now considering changing their minds and voting to sustain the filibuster -- and all it will take is for one of them to break their promise (since that will give the GOP 41 votes -- enough to keep the filibuster going). The leaders of both parties in the Senate say they don't know whether the filibuster can be broken or not.

The White House says they will not withdraw Hagel's nomination. That means if the Republicans vote in unison on Friday, it could be a long time before we get a new Secretary of Defense -- an inexcusable action in the midst of an ongoing war.

I blame Harry Reid and the Democrats for this. They could have changed the rules for the filibuster and prevented this from happening, but they let themselves be suckered by the Republicans again. Now we get to look forward to two more years of Republican obstruction. The Hagel nomination is only the beginning.

When are Senate Democrats going to get some decent leadership -- leadership that knows how to play the same kind of political hardball that the Republicans play?

What Will Harry Do ?

There is no doubt in my mind that the filibuster procedures in the Senate must be reformed. Those who wrote the Constitution never intended for it to take more than a simple majority to pass a bill through the U.S. Senate, but that is effectively what the Republicans have created with their abuse of the filibuster rule (requiring at least 60 votes to even vote on a bill). This rule was not in the Constitution. It was created by the Senate, and it can be changed by the Senate (and has been altered in the past). At the very least, the rule should be changed to require  a real talking filibuster -- making one or more senators keep the floor and keep talking to keep the filibuster going.

And the Democrats in the Senate have the chance to change the filibuster, making it harder to sustain, at the beginning of the next Congress in January. All it will require is for 51 of them to vote for the change when the Senate adopts its rules for the next session of Congress. And it looks like they are getting close to that magic number. The Huffington Post has been attempting to track the number of votes filibuster reform has in the new Senate, and here is how they have it figured so far:

The talking filibuster is the most ambitious reform on the table. A version of it, also backed by Merkley, came to a vote in early 2011, when it was defeated 49-46. Five of those yea-voting Democrats are no longer in the Senate, leaving reformers with a base of 41 votes. One Democrat who didn't vote, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), supports the talking filibuster, putting the tally at 42.

Eight incoming senators who caucus with Democrats have expressed support for it -- Tammy Baldwin (Wisc.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Kaine (Va.), Chris Murphy (Conn.) and Angus King (Maine) -- putting the number at 50. Simply having voted for a similar measure in the past, and expressing support for the concept subsequently, however, doesn't guarantee that a senator will support it again. Once Democrats release their full package of proposed reform, the process of firmly nailing down 51 votes begins in earnest.

But if those who have backed reform in the past combine with senators who have more recently voiced support for it, Vice President Joe Biden or Reid would both be in a position to put the measure over the top. The Constitution allows the vice president to break ties in the Senate.

The three Democrats who are likely to oppose filibuster reform are Carl Levin (Michigan), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), and Max Baucus (Montana). They are unlikely to change their vote this time. That leaves Dianne Feinstein (California), who did not vote last time. She could go either way, but has talked with Senator Merkley (Oregon) who is pushing the reform, and promises to consider voting for change. That means that without Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nevada), there will probably be either 50 or 51 votes to change the filibuster rules.

But that may not matter, because it may be up to Reid whether that reform even comes to the floor for a vote. Some think that with the number of votes for real reform getting close to a majority now, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) might negotiate a much weaker reform with Reid and thus derail the needed reform -- something like speeding up votes on judicial nominations and not allowing a filibuster on conference committees, but keeping the right of the minority to block major legislation and presidential appointments.

I would like to think that Reid wouldn't fall for that, but he does have a history of wimping out at times. Two years ago, he derailed filibuster reform just because McConnell promised the GOP would stop abusing it -- a promise the Republicans quickly broke after the rules were set. Will Reid get suckered by McConnell again?

Personally, I think the Senate Democratic Caucus should make Reid promise to support a real filibuster reform before re-electing him as Majority Leader, but that probably won't happen. That leaves it up to us voters. I urge you to call or write Harry Reid. Tell him to support real filibuster reform, and nothing short of that. Tell him he must not give in to the Republicans, and allow the minority to continue to obstruct everything the president tries to do.

It's Time To Fix The Filibuster

Historically the use of the filibuster in the United States Senate has been restricted to only those times the minority party felt were especially important, and it was rarely used. For instance, in the 91st Congress (1/69 thru 1/71) there were only 7 cloture votes (votes to cut off a filibuster). As you can see from the chart above, the number of filibusters has ballooned, especially since President Obama took office. And that chart doesn't even count all of the filibusters by the Republicans since then, but only the ones that the majority party tried to end with a cloture vote.

There is no doubt at all that the Republicans have misused the filibuster. They have used it to try and block everything the president and the Democrats have tried to do (passing laws, setting a budget, approving appointees, etc.). The filibuster, as used by the Republicans, is nothing more than a tool to obstruct the efficient operation of government.

Back in January of 2011, there were calls by many Senate Democrats to reform the filibuster rules. But Majority Leader Harry Reid still believed at that time that the Republican Senate leaders had some honesty and honor left in them. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell promised Reid, in a handshake agreement, that the Republicans would stop abusing the filibuster if Democrats would not change the filibuster rules. Democrats did not change the rules, and Republicans immediately broke their word and returned to their use of the filibuster to obstruct everything the Democrats tried to do.

It looks like Reid has learned his lesson. He let the Republicans play him for a fool back in January of 2011, but he's not going to let that happen again. He has said he was wrong back then. Today he is willing to back efforts to reform the filibuster (which can be done with a simple majority vote, but only in January when the Senate sets its rules for the next two years). Counting the two Independents (Sanders of Vermont and King of Maine), the Democrats now have 55 votes in the Senate. They only need 51 to change the filibuster rules (which means it could be done even if 3 or 4 blue dogs balk at going along with the change). And support for the change is gelling among Democrats.

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) is one of the prime proponents of filibuster reform. In an interview with The Huffington Post, he outlined some of the changes being proposed:

The critical component, though, is a mechanism that would force senators to physically take the floor and speak in order to maintain opposition to legislation. The effort to end a filibuster is called a cloture motion. Under the proposed rules, if a cloture vote failed to win a simple majority, the bill would be killed and the Senate would move to new business. But if it won a majority -- though less than a supermajority of 60 -- the bill would remain on the floor for any senator who wished to opine on it. If at some point no senator rose to speak, after given several chances to do so, a new vote would be called -- and only a simple majority would be needed to pass it.

"You have to present your case," said Merkley. "If you think there should be more debate, then you've got to debate. You've got to present your case before your colleagues, before the American public. If you haven't got the guts to do that, then you shouldn't stand in the way of the majority vote."

The thinking behind the proposed rule is that it will highlight opposition that is unpopular, but will still allow a determined minority to block legislation. . .

Whether the senators can maintain their filibuster, then, will come down to determination and public pressure. Merkley argued that Republicans would've been unable to block legislation related to jobs for veterans or campaign finance disclosure, for instance, if they'd had to do so in public. . .

Merkely said that the package he and his allies put together will also include more direct reforms. Reid has suggested simply eliminating the filibuster on the motion to proceed to debate, which would save the Senate many hundreds of hours of wasted time the course of a term. Merkley said such a provision was likely to make it into the final package, as well as restrictions on filibustering efforts to send a bill to conference. Under current rules, even after a bill has passed the Senate, the minority can still use the filibuster to attempt to block it from going to a conference committee with House legislation, chewing up days of the Senate calendar.

I hope the Democrats are serious about this. It is time to rein in the abuse of the filibuster system. The plan above would not completely eliminate the filibuster, but it would make senators who wished to filibuster do so in public and on the Senate floor. Silent filibusters by "secret" senators would not be allowed. That's a good start, since only those things where several senators would be publicly willing to keep a talking filibuster going would than be filibustered, and even then it would end when the talking ended.

Personally, I liked the plan being floated back in 2011, which required a series of votes to invoke cloture -- with each vote requiring less support, until finally cloture could be invoked with a simple majority. But the proposal above is a vast improvement over the current system. Now let's hope the Democrats have the backbone to actually put it in place.

What Is Romney Hiding ?

I think Romney thought he could divert attention away from his refusal to release his tax returns by naming his pick for veep. It won't work. The longer he refuses to release the returns, the more Americans will believe he is trying to hide something. Is Harry Reid right about Romney paying no taxes for 10 years? What is Romney trying to hide?

If There Was Only Some Way. . .

Romney is not the only person saying what Reid is saying is not true. Lots of Republicans are scrambling to blame Reid and take the heat off of Romney -- except one, John McCain, the only one who has actually seen Romney's tax returns. Isn't it interesting that McCain isn't saying Reid's accusation is not true?

Did Romney Pay No Taxes For 10 Years ?

Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) is still refusing to release more than one or two years of his tax returns. So far, he has only released his returns for 2010 (and even that was missing the attachment for foreign investments and bank accounts). It has a lot of people (including many of his fellow Republicans) wondering what he is trying to hide by not releasing more tax returns. Heck, even his own father released 12 years of his tax returns when he ran for president (the same number that President Obama has released).

Now Harry Reid, the Majority Leader in the Senate, thinks he knows what Romney is trying to hide. He says he was told by a Bain Capital investor that Mitt Romney did not pay any taxes at all on his multi-million dollar income for 10 years. Yes, you read that right -- 10 YEARS of paying nothing in taxes. Reid's statement has made a lot of right-wingers angry, but Reid is refusing to back off -- and yesterday he repeated the claim.

Frankly, this doesn't surprise me much. I suspected that he had paid little or no taxes for at least one or two years, and that was why he was afraid to release his tax returns. He knows that would upset a lot of voters. I never expected it to be for a 10 year period though, if it was true.

Now the ball is in Romney's court. He can either release his tax returns and prove Reid's charge is false, or he can continue to refuse -- and convince everyone that what Reid is saying is true. I think he'll do the latter, because if this is not true then he's hiding something equally damaging.

The Majority Leader Puts His Foot Down

The gentleman pictured above is the majority leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid (D-Nevada). In 2009 and 2010, Reid went along with the president's repeated attempts to involve the Republicans in a bipartisan effort to govern and shape legislation. It even got to the point where many progressives, including me, thought that both Reid and the president were not just being bipartisan but actually knuckling under to the GOP. I called for Reid to be replaced as majority leader.

But things have changed. Although the president is still open to bipartisanship, he has realized that the Republicans want no part of that. For the GOP, it's their way or the highway. The president has started playing some political hardball, and Reid is right their beside him (refusing to give in on any more ridiculous Republican demands). Reid has put his foot down in the Senate, and is demanding the Republicans keep their word.

Last summer, the Democrats and Republicans agreed to form a "super committee" to find a reasonable way to cut the deficit. They also agreed that if that committee could not agree on a solution, then there would be a 10% across-the-board cut in all discretionary budget items, including the military budget (which makes up nearly half of the entire world's military spending). The committee failed, and now the cuts are due to be enacted -- and the Pentagon is on board with this, saying the cuts will NOT endanger national defense.

The cuts will be hard, but at least they are fair -- and they will reduce the deficit. But the Republicans have now decided to break their word. House Republicans have produced a budget that not only restores the 10% that was supposed to be cut from the military budget, but tacks an addition $8 billion dollars on to the budget for additional military spending (in spite of the fact the Pentagon says they don't need it).

The House would pay for at least part of this additional military spending by making deeper cuts (deeper than the agreed upon 10%) in domestic social programs -- the programs that help the poor and other Americans that have been hurt by the GOP recession. None of the additional spending is offset by any new taxes on the rich (as the Democrats have asked for). Now the bill goes to the Senate.

But Majority Leader Reid is having none of it. He says the bill will not pass without substantial changes. Their will be no additional military spending and no additional cuts to social programs beyond the agreed-to cuts -- unless the Republicans are willing to discuss additional revenues (more taxes on the rich). And Reid is speaking from a position of strength, since all he has to do is keep the House bill from passing (either by voting it down or filibustering it to death).

Reid's position of strength comes from the fact that if Congress does nothing at all, two things will happen automatically -- the across-the-board 10% cuts will kick in (including the cuts to the military), and the Bush tax cuts will expire. And that would be a lot better than the Republican budget proposal going into effect. Personally, I would like to see only the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000 a year, but allowing all of the cuts to expire is better than keeping all of the cuts.

And Reid doesn't need 60 votes this time, or even a simple majority. All he needs is 41 votes -- enough to keep a filibuster alive (and the repeated abuse of the filibuster system by the Republicans leaves them without a leg to stand on).

I'm liking this new iron-willed majority leader (and president also). I hope they keep this up. The Republicans have been allowed to play their silly games with the budget and the economy for far too long.