McConnell filibusters himself
"Democrats watch in awe as McConnell filibusters himself.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced legislation to raise the debt ceiling on Thursday, apparently with the intent of showing that even Democrats would not support such a bill.
However, McConnell’s plan backfired after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called for a vote on the legislation, which would have given the president the authority to raise the federal debt ceiling on his own. The top Senate Republican was forced to filibuster his own bill.
“What we have here is a case of Republicans here in the Senate once again not taking ‘yes’ for an answer,” Reid said, after McConnell announced his filibuster. “This morning the Republican leader asked consent to have a vote on this proposal, just now I told everyone we were willing to have that vote — up or down vote. Now the Republican leader objects to his own idea. So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill, so I object.”
Apparently aware the incident would bring media attention, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) expressed astonishment at McConnell’s legislative antics.
“What just transpired deserves a word,” he remarked. “Sen. McConnell came to the floor this morning and offered a change in law that would help us avoid the kind of obstruction and the kind of show downs we’ve had in the past over the debt ceiling.”
Durbin explained “to those who don’t follow the Senate” that by calling for the legislation to be passed by a 60-vote majority, McConnell had filibustered the bill. He said this was probably the first time in history that a senator had filibuster his own proposal.
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1w8Ry)"
This will make a good trivia question, lol. "Who was the only Senator to filibuster his own proposal."
BTW, Everything I posted yesterday seems to be missing????????
By the way some have handled this factoid, there may be a few other examples of a senator doing this. Meaning, I've heard them say things like, 'among the very few who...,' etc. But that may simply be out of caution and not knowing for sure.
But I'll mention that it is common for supporters of a bill, perhaps even sponsors or co-sponsors of a bill, to switch to a 'no' vote after supporting it and even voting 'yes' on it, for the parliamentary reason of then being able to move for reconsideration of the bill. Only someone voting no (at the end of the voting) can move to reconsider the bill, so you'll see Reid doing that otherwise head-scratching performance on some occasions.
I agree this makes McConnell look foolish ... just it made Reid look foolishwhen he did the same thing in 2011.
Oddly, nary a nattering nabob of the cabal was te least bit bothered by it then.
I wonder why?
Right, except it was totally the opposite case, citing your link:
He said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn't insist on a 60-vote threshold, which has become traditional for big, controversial items to pass the Senate. But the GOP held firm on that demand, so Mr. Reid said he would insist on the full process, which he said would show the country that Republicans were being obstructionist.
Read more: http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/in...#ixzz2EfYCTKz5
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
You never cease to amaze ... and amuse.
Originally Posted by Soflasnapper
You appear to have the discernment of a gold fish. These cases are inaptly compared when they should be contrasted. I mention the contrast, and your nuance-challenged mind thinks I provided the howler here? Nope, that's you, but you're welcome for the amusement any nuance provides you, even as the point escapes you.
In both cases, Reid wanted the to-be-voted on measure to win. In both cases, McConnell wanted the measure to fail. In both cases, Reid favored passage by a simple majority. In both cases, McConnell wanted it to fail by needing a cloture vote of 60 to proceed to the vote. So it's simply not true that Reid's role in the first case was comparable to McConnell's role in the second case. Essentially, they both had the same roles in both cases.
The difference in the first case was that the GOP was willing to have the vote (requiring a 60 vote margin to pass) right away, not following the normal 2-day delay requirement for cloture votes, because they would win it. Not that they were willing to allow a simple majority to pass it (which only Reid prevented, because he didn't, and it wouldn't).