Is Reid trying to blackmail McConnell into a weak filibuster reform deal?

Day 2 (or 3) in the virtual “first day of business” of the new Senate has come and gone with no filibuster reform.

If you look at the Senate pending calendar for January 22, you see four resolutions — numbered Resolutions 4, 5, 6 and 7. Merkley-Udall is Resolutions 4 plus Resolution 6. This combo is the strongest filibuster reform proposal on offer.

(I’m still struggling with the meaning of Resolution 5 — not sure how it tweaks the others — and Resolution 7 is Frank Lautenburg’s simple “require a talking filibuster” rules-change. Merkley-Udall also requires a talking filibuster — where a senator must rise up on his or her hind legs and speak in order to hold the floor — so Lautenburg’s proposal is a compromise down from the Merkley-Udall Resolutions 4 & 6, but not bad in itself.)

Of course, real reform would eliminate the filibuster altogether, but … baby steps I guess, because senators en masse are clearly babies (and the Senate was designed to be anti-democratic). The history of the filibuster is interesting, by the way. Feel free to click; for history fans it’s a good read.

But wait, there’s news. From the excellent Alexander Bolton at The Hill. Get ready for weird; this isn’t the news you think it is (my emphasis and paragraphing; analysis after the clip):

Reid to Senate Republicans: Filibuster deal in 36 hours or face nuclear option

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is giving Republican colleagues 36 hours to agree to a deal on filibuster reform or he will move forward with the nuclear option. [Note the framing; this is The Hill speaking, not Reid. Same with the headline.]

“I hope in the next 24, 36 hours we can get something we agree on. If not, we’re going to move forward on what I think needs to be done,” Reid told reporters. Reid’s trump card in negotiations with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) is the threat he will change Senate rules with a simple majority vote. … Critics call it the nuclear option but proponents, such as Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) say it is more accurate to describe it as the “Constitutional option” because the Constitution empowers each chamber to set its own rules.

Reid predicted the Democratic caucus would support him in reforming the Senate’s filibuster rule unilaterally. If he did so, he would likely implement a relatively modest change, such as eliminating the filibuster on motions to proceed to new business. Reid said talks with McConnell are not close to a resolution.

There are a bunch of ways that Republicans can use the current Senate rules to their advantage. Merkley-Udall removes many of them. The Reid offer removes … one of them, the ability to filibuster the motion to start debate on a bill.

Put more clearly, there are currently five times a bill can be filibustered — five choke points. Merkley-Udall removes four of them — under Merkley-Udall, a senator could still filibuster the bill itself, but only by actually talking. Reid[-McConnell] would remove one of them. Some reform, Senator Reid, if that’s your plan. Keep that in mind when evaluating Reid.

Your take-aways

There are two ways to see this. One is that the “motion on the floor” when the senators return to the chamber is Merkley-Udall — which removes most of the choke-points and forces a talking filibuster (as in “No, senator, you may not phone in your filibuster and go to lunch”). Therefore, absent a deal from McConnell, that’s the choice. This is Good Reid putting the “dead cat” at McConnell’s door — forcing responsibility for the passage of Resolutions 4 & 6 (Merkley-Udall) onto Mitch, and shaming him — and then passing Merkley-Udall (Resolutions 4 & 6).

The other way to see it — Reid is begging McConnell to keep them both from having to surrender to Merkley-Udall (or even to Lautenburg’s “talking filibuster only” proposal). This is Bad Reid — “Please Mitch, save us from these philistines; we’re buds, right?”

Good Reid or Bad Reid? We’ll know by the deal. If Mitch can’t do what Reid offers, Reid wins by passing Merkley-Udall. That’s Good Reid. If McConnell caves — and and the bad Reid-McConnell proposal passes — that’s Bad Reid.

Let’s see what passes. Thirty-six hours, folks. Or less.

What to do?

Here I’m going to depart from the herd. The Hill says:

A senator briefed on the talks said it appears McConnell will have trouble rounding up enough Republican votes to support any deal he forges with Reid.

So how do you sink the deal (if you’re inclined to screw thing up)? You get the R’s to dig in their heels, of course. If your senator is an R, call him or her (click for phone numbers) and boldly say to them:

  • Please sir, tell McConnell “No deal with the liberal traitor Reid. Stand your ground.” (“Stand your ground” is a magic phrase with Republicans, by the way. So is “liberal traitor.”)
  • Then call Mitch McConnell (202-224-2541). Say “Why are you betraying your values? Do you want a primary?” (Teabaggers are threatening Mr. McConnell with just that, a primary. I’m serious.)

If there’s no “middle” deal for Reid to cave to, Merkley-Udall or Lautenburg’s “talking filibuster–only,” will win. Both are better than the reported Reid-McConnell deal. Otherwise, we’ll get a whole lot worse.

Strengthen Merkley’s and Udall’s hand — force McConnell into No Deal. You have 36 hours to make yourself heard and felt. Please take advantage of the gift of time.

[Update: Phrase-tweaked for clarity.]

Mes petits sous,

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius


Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States.

Share This Post

© 2018 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS