Just now, at a Progressive Media summit (which I’m monitoring via the Twitter), Harry Reid acknowledged that changes would have to be made to the Senate filibuster rules in the next session.
That’s quite a reversal, actually. Reid recently scoffed that there was no chance to change Senate rules without 67 votes, a fact contradicted by history.
But Reid is simply riding the same wave of the entire Senate leadership, which is ingratiating themselves to newer members who want to see action on rules reform by testing competing policy measures:
Sens. Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer are each considering proposals to rein in the minority’s power to filibuster [...]
Schumer (N.Y.), vice chairman of the Senate Democratic Conference, has told colleagues that he plans to hold hearings on reforming the filibuster at the Senate Rules Committee, which he chairs, according to Democratic sources.
“He’s told me informally that he’s going to have hearings on the history of the filibuster,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who is pushing a proposal to change the Senate rules with 51 votes at the start of the next Congress in January.
Schumer has tentatively scheduled his first hearing on the filibuster for March 24.
Durbin (Ill.), the Senate majority whip and Schumer’s possible rival for the Democratic leader position, has also reached out to freshman and sophomore Democrats behind the scenes to explore reforming the Senate rules.
“Everything’s on the table for discussion,” said Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who has been involved with Durbin’s working group.
You don’t have to be a genius to figure this one out. If Reid goes down in November, either Durbin or Schumer will lead the caucus. And they are each reaching out to junior members who are clamoring for rules reform. Whoever comes up with the best option wins the support of the rank and file. Reid, even if he wins, has to get out in front of this by going along.
Schumer actually has the upper hand here because he runs the Rules Committee through which any changes would come. Durbin has been more public in his support, because of Schumer’s inside track.
We’re getting close to a critical mass on this, provided that Democrats keep their Senate majority and hold enough seats to be able to push this without relying on the problem children of the caucus.



10 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
All Senate Democrats are problem children, really.
But I catch your drift.
Reid’s whole discussion assumes two facts not in evidence: that he’ll be in the Senate come next term, and that he’ll still be majority leader if he is.
in the next session.
And if a whole mess o’ seats go down in flames in November? The Repugs are just going to sit idly by and allow this? Huh? What am I missing here?
I don’t think the Republicans are going to take control of the Senate nor do I believe that Reid will still be a Senator next year.
Good to see Reid bending with the wind, but he’s playing catch-up, as always.
And what was that?
at a Progressive Media summit…
A what now?
Doesn’t there have to be a progressive media before they can have a summit?
And wtf is Reid doing there? He’s about as progressive as a farmer in a Grant Wood painting.
Thank you very much, my friend and Senator Tom Udall!
How conveniently it’s forgotten that the GOP, when it controlled the Senate just a few years ago, threatened to change all the rules, in mid-session, with just 51 votes (including Darth Cheney).
The only thing that stopped it was Senatorial panic and the so-called Gang of 14 who, in exchange for dropping the change, promised to confirm a whole bunch of Bush’s wackier nominees.
But hey, apparently it’s just too hard to expect people to remember anything that happened longer ago than last week.
Yeah, all Reid has to do is go nuclear now rather than this being some promised event to happen in the future after elections.
Reid will be history in November. After his election loss, he’ll be another highly paid lobbyist on K Street.
responding to comments #7 and #8
You guys know that reconciliation and the nuclear option aren’t the same thing, right?