"Mr. Reid blamed the defeat on Republican partisanship. But the impasse really came down to Mr. Reid’s blockade against amendments that might prove politically difficult for Democrats.
The Nevadan used parliamentary tricks to block energy-related amendments to an energy bill. This blockade is now standard procedure as he’s refused to allow a vote on all but nine GOP amendments since last July. Mr. Reid is worried that some of these amendments might pass with support from Democrats, thus embarrassing a White House that opposes them."
The second one is another partisan spleen venting, and the third, says that Reid’s amendments are in line with previous congresses.
“In his time as leader, he has allowed votes on almost 95 Republican amendments a year, 75 percent of the total. That is fewer than former Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee gave Democrats when he was majority leader — 117, or 76 percent — but more than Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi gave minority Democrats, 90 votes a year, 54 percent of the total.”
It seems to me that this is a defensive play to counter the narrative that the GOP is obstructionist. Accusing your opponent of having your fault.
Feel free to post it. I didn’t want to copy the whole article.
It sums up to, the GOP claiming that some of the amendments don’t count. And the Dems claim they do. The fact is, that some amendments are being had.
But what you need to look at, is this is why is the number sixty? You’re claiming that Reid is draconian and obstructionist, when he’s dealing with obstructionism that is presumptive.
Reid is allowing amendments. Saying he isn’t isn’t honest. He’s allowing more than Trent Lott, unless you don’t count the ones the GOP doesn’t want to count, because they were for non-binding amendments. Even if you don’t count those, he’s allowing 3 percent less than Trent Lott.
How can you honestly say he’s not allowing amendments? Painting him as obstructionist, when the GOP is creating a 60 vote threshold for anything of substance that they don’t agree with a hundred percent is a stretch.
Democrats say Republicans were given 74 amendment votes last year, 68 percent of the total. But half of them came over one grueling 24-hour marathon, when the Senate voted on 37 nonbinding advisory amendments to the Senate budget last spring.
Absent those votes, Republicans were given 37 votes last year, 51 percent of the total. And Senate votes are trending downward. Exempting nonbinding budget amendments, total amendment votes reached 218 in 2007, Mr. Reid’s first year in control, to 175 in 2009, to 123 in 2012, to 67 last year, by Reid staff calculations. Since mid-July, Republicans have gotten four amendment votes.
The number is sixty because the rules allow it. Reid is not allowing voting on amendments for exactly the same reason - the rules allow it. If one is “obstructionism”, so is the other. Hope that clears it up for you.
Reid is allowing amendments at a rate higher than Trent Lott (unless you ignore half of them which are non binding, then he is allowing amendments at a rate 3% less than Trent Lott). He is doing this when the GOP are obstructing via filibuster at a historic rate. They are also, more highly motivated to poison pill anything they can get away with.
Equating the two sides here is nonsense. One is allowing a typical amount of amendments, and the other is demanding a historically large amount of 60 vote thresholds.
You’re simply wrong. I’m not trying to dig at you, but there is no way to read this as Reid being the obstructive force in the Senate.
I think I might agree with parts of this and disagree with other parts, but I’m not sure of the context for the same reason I don’t understand why you’re posting this altogether. I simply don’t understand what this has to do with what we’re discussing, and don’t see where this ties in to anything. (I’m aware that “opposing things that you really agree with” is part of the obstructionist strategy that people are attributing to the Republicans, but that’s not an aspect of the issue that I’ve been addressing.)
In theory there’s a difference. But that’s not what we’re discussing in this thread. What we’re discussing here is whether there’s an objective way to measure obstructionism. And here my point is that introducing entirely new tactics is a far better measure than expanded use of the old ones.
I think it’s probably impossible.
I disagree with (1) to the extent that “started filibustering at an unprecedented rate” implies a break in what was otherwise a steady state situation. (Republicans actually mulled using the nuclear option in response to Democratic filibustering of Bush judicial appointments, but a deal was brokered. The Democrats actually used it.)
Would you characterize a 3% increase in blocking amendments (taking the Republican number as gospel just 'cause as well as relying on Lobohan’s math as I can’t be bothered to double check it) as something that supports your theory that Democrats just think all Republican amendments are “BAD”? It seems to me that Democrats and Republicans are near parity on this particular issue and I’m at a loss to explain why it was even brought up if the numbers are truly this close.
“Sen. Reid has actively assumed the role far in excess of that assumed by previous majority leaders. That is to be a traffic cop over the amendment process either to police amendments by allowing those he deems acceptable for consideration by the Senate or to bar amendments altogether,” said Martin Gold, an expert on congressional procedure who served former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) and Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).
“He has engaged in that practice** more than twice as frequently as all previous majority leaders combined,**” Gold said.
Experts say the Senate rules do not formally empower Reid to block colleagues from offering amendments to bills and steering the course of the political debate.
Instead, Reid has made extensive use of the precedent set by Vice President John Nance Garner, a Democrat, who as president of the Senate, granted the majority leader the right of first recognition on the floor. The five-term senator has used that right of recognition to repeatedly fill the available slots or amendments to various bills, a process known as filling the tree, leaving colleagues no opportunities to offer their own ideas.
It is amazing to see people denying reality about Reid. It is common knowledge that he has basically frozen out all Republican activity in the Senate. That’s not something controversial - it is widely known and accepted.
How many of those proposed Republican amendments were something other than “Repeal Obamacare”, though? At some point the grownups have to send the kids to bed and get to work.