Harry Reid Doesn’t Want Dems To Take Tough Votes
It appears that he has serious concerns over losing his cushy spot as Majority Leaders
(AP) A fear of voting has gripped Democratic leaders in the Senate, slowing the chamber’s modest productivity this election season to a near halt.
With control of the Senate at risk in November, leaders are going to remarkable lengths to protect endangered Democrats from casting tough votes and to deny Republicans legislative victories in the midst of the campaign. The phobia means even bipartisan legislation to boost energy efficiency, manufacturing, sportsmen’s rights and more could be scuttled.
The Senate’s masters of process are finding a variety of ways to shut down debate.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., now is requiring an elusive 60-vote supermajority to deal with amendments to spending bills, instead of the usual simple majority, a step that makes it much more difficult to put politically sensitive matters into contention. This was a flip from his approach to Obama administration nominees, when he decided most could be moved ahead with a straight majority instead of the 60 votes needed before.
Holding fewer votes is nothing new during an election year, but Harry Reid and the top Democrats are taking this to new and higher levels.
Democrats privately acknowledge that they’re protecting vulnerable senators and don’t want McConnell to win on the carbon emissions issue. They also see hypocrisy in McConnell’s insistence on a simple majority vote for his top – and controversial – priority while he wants Democrats to produce 60 votes to advance almost everything else.
If vulnerable Democrat senators are being protected from tough votes, that should make every voter wonder just how extreme the Democrat agenda is.
Today there may be a vote on striking a section of H.R. 2055 that will insure that federal construction projects
Do you find it galling that after all this time being called “radical, violent, right-wing extremists”, we now have multiple
I know I’ve said it before, but unionism is antithetical to good government. It is impossible to have both unions