Last sentence of post = AMEN to that.

Not for the first time I wonder if the Republicans deliberately engineered Reid's re-election, because a 60-40 Senate led by the cowardly appeaser is better for them than a 59-41 led by someone with a spine and a conscience.

If this goes through, it will be proof that the words "Senate Majority Leader" as applied to Harry Reid is an oxymoron.

Are Leahy and Boxer really against filibuster reform? Here(in the last few minutes of this clip)is Leahy sounding very much in favor of reform. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmRqTsqZy5M

And I've seen Boxer on Rachel also speaking strongly for reform of the filibuster. Are they saying one thing and then acting differently? Where's the evidence these two longstanding liberals are against this obviously crucial/necessary reform?

I'm ready to revise my views, again, that we're even fucking crazier than I thought, but I'd like some evidence before I do.

The Senate Majority leader's epic fail at filibuster reform will provide 'political cover' for Democrats on legislation ranging from gun laws, to climate change legislation, to keystone xl.

So much for any chance at Climate Change, Immigration reform, further banking or healthcare reforms, etc.
The reason Ried felt he couldn't pass a tougher filibuster reform is that the conservative Dems don't want to undermine their power broker status. It's more impoortant they continue to be deal makers/breakers than the country is able to accomplish anything beneficial.

I have supported you for years.....however now all I can say is YOU HARRY REID ARE PATHETIC!! You have been bought out by the NRA and the tea party Republicans!! HARRY REID YOU HAVE SOLD OUT!! Now go spent time with your SOLD OUT BUDDY JOHN McCAIN!! I also used to support McCain but never again!! Your other new buddies Mitch & John Boehner make you a TURNCOAT!!!

He didn't sell out anything. Better to have the filibuster threat holding up legislation than to have to take responsibility for the legislation. Now he again has Republicans to blame for inaction on legislation he doesn't want in the first place.. David Swanson was absolutely correct IMO.

Steve, for once, I am in agreement with you. Maybe anything is possible(except filibuster reform this year).

David Lasagna @ 4:

Are Leahy and Boxer really against filibuster reform? ... And I've seen Boxer on Rachel also speaking strongly for reform of the filibuster. Are they saying one thing and then acting differently? Where's the evidence these two longstanding liberals are against this obviously crucial/necessary reform?

First, my understanding is that Leahy and Boxer were named by Merkley during that phone call last week, as reported by Politico.

Secondly, I believe (but would need to go back and check) that Leahy had an alternate, more "moderate" proposal to Merkley's. Leahy's wouldn't have required the "talking filibuster", but it would have reformed the filibuster to put the burden on the minority, rather than the majority, by forcing them to come up with 41 votes against cloture, rather than requiring majority to come up with 60 in favor of cloture. Pretty tepid, and Reid wouldn't even go for that option, because it would have to have been done with a 51 vote majority (the "constitutional option" or "nuclear option", depending on whose describing it), rather than via unanimous consent as the Reid/McConnell deal was done.

Filthy, filthy cowards, the Democrats. Never again--I am voting Green until the DLC and these puke cowards are purged from the Dem Party.

You damned, filthy cowards.

... and the first trial balloon sent up afterwards was Schumer on SS and Medicare cuts.

Reid is performing his job quite ably.

It's just too bad that he works for the elites instead of the lesser people who actually voted him into office.

I don't know about Boxer, David Lasagna, but here's a segment of a letter I received from Sen Feinstein in response to my email asking for meaningful reform:

All those words to essentially say nothing will change.

Yeah, Feinstein I'm not surprised by. Boxer and Leahy I would be. Swanson's interpretation sure looks like it has merit.

I never cease to be amazed(and in turn bitterly disappointed)by what looks for all the world to be a suicidally bubbleheaded view of reality by the vast majority of Washington congress people (and the fawning media who serve them) which time and again seems to preclude putting up any meaningful resistance to truly insane and truly minority worldviews.

NOW when a Republican Senator disagrees with a bill costing a large corporation over $150, he actually has to appear on the floor and hold it up with a sneer.

Before yesterday the good Senator could sit in conference with lobbyists and a big bag with a $ sign on the table, then just send a note over to Reid.

If we're not willing to remove money from elections, we deserve 100 Harry Reids in the Senate, 435 John Boehners/Boners in the House, and 1 Barrack Obama in the White House.

It really is that simple.

According to wikipedia the "silent" filibuster was introduced in 1975 by a democratic congress. Does anybody know if that's correct? Why was the silent filibuster ever introduced?

Changing my voter registration from D to Whig. Because my hair caught fire and I'm not one for the bald look. But really. Done. No more D for me.