Has Harry Reid’s filibuster gamble destroyed the Democratic party?

Harry Reid Bobblehead - Caricature by Donkey Hotey
Harry Reid Bobblehead - Caricature by Donkey Hotey

LOS ANGELES, April 22, 2014 — In 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid erased over 200 years of Senate tradition by gutting the filibuster as a delaying tactic for the minority. Republicans threatened to use this same “nuclear option” when George W. Bush was President, but they never followed through.

Republicans understood that the ability of the Senate to function would be destroyed once the filibuster was eliminated. Reid understood this as well while in the minority, but seemed to stop caring when Democrats won the Senate. He chose temporary power over the long-term well-being of the institution.

READ ALSO: Above the rules: Despite corruption, Harry Reid is not going anywhere

The Founding Fathers set up the Senate to cool down the hot ambitions and overreaches of the House of Representative. Fewer laws and actions were the norm, not more.

Reid and liberal Democrats argued that Republican obstructionism in the Barack Obama years was “unprecedented.” This charge was false. The world’s greatest deliberative body dithered through 44 presidents, black and white, protestant and Catholic, short, tall, clean-shaven and bearded. Reid and his other Senate Democrats further poisoned the well by claiming that GOP obstructionism was motivated by racism.

This outrageous charge had some Democrats quietly admitting that Obama is being treated no differently than Al Gore, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale would be treated. Obama’s nominees were being blocked because they were ideologically extreme and professionally unqualified.

Harry Reid knows that Democrats were in jeopardy of losing their Senate majority in 2014. Reid engaged in a raw, naked power grab, reasoning that ramming as many judges through before November would be worth the political price. Reid’s gamble is on the verge of backfiring for the same reason that Obamacare, also rammed through using barely legal parliamentary tactics, remains an albatross around the necks of Democrats.

READ ALSO: Harry Reid’s Nevada family values

The checks and balances the Founding Fathers set up were designed to scare the daylights out of elected officials. Fear of being fired would force politicians into caution. This would lead to major policy changes only when there was consensus among the American people.

Obamacare never had majority popular support. People like certain aspects of the law, but the overall law is hated. By abolishing the filibuster, Reid has emboldened Obama to nominate judges who are even further ideologically extreme and even more unqualified.

What Reid failed to calculate is that Democrats running for reelection in Republican-leaning red states  were not willing to sacrifice their own jobs for an agenda further to the left then they were. The 1994 elections were a prime example of what happens to Democrats who force leftist views on conservative voters.

READ ALSO: The Desert Tortoise, Harry Reid: Why the BLM wants Cliven Bundy’s Ranch

Obama has had judicial nominees blocked by his own party. Republicans have resorted to other delaying tactics. Reid could threaten even more unilateral action, but the people who will pay for his greed are Democrats forced to live under a Senate minor it with rights as few as in the House.

Reid was willing to burn down the entire institution for a few judicial nominees. Republicans no longer trust him, and cannot work with him. They gleefully look forward to retribution the day after the 2014 elections.

While the purpose of governing should be justice and not vengeance, retribution has been the order of the day ever since liberal Ted Kennedy publicly slandered Republican Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. Reid has just taken the toxic environment and exacerbated the mistrust.

READ ALSO: Harry Reid calls Bundy Nevadans ‘terrorists’: Reported by Megyn Kelly, Fox News

If Obama and Reid had treated Republicans like human beings, things would have gotten done. By insisting on ruling by force, Reid will have only himself to blame when his gavel is taken away.

He destroyed the comity of the Senate, and may have wrecked his own party in the process. 

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • elizabeth burgess

    I can’t wait for Reid to go. He thinks anyone who doesn’t agree with him is racist and a domestic terrorist. I’m starting to already see democrats running from him and Obama. They know their days are numbered.

    • William Carr

      People that show up with guns, threaten to put their families out front as Human Shields, and want to shoot it out with the duly constituted Bureau of Land Management (established 1946) are, in fact, domestic terrorists.

      Cliven Bundy paid Reagan’s Grazing Fees, continued to pay during the Presidency of H.W. Bush, but stopped when Clinton was Elected.

      He was taken to Court twice, lost twice, and ignored the Court Order to vacate Federal Land.

      He threatened “I fought them in the Courts, I’ll fight them on the ground”.

      His parents bought that Ranch in 1948. He has NO justification for using Public lands without a Grazing Permit, and his permit was revoked for years of non-payment.

      He was given warning after warning, and ignored them.

      Meanwhile, he raised ten generations of 1,000 head of cattle, with a value of $2,500 per head.

      Sales of excess calves would add $600 a head.

      Get out your calculator. He can retire in the Bahamas on a yacht.

  • Norman Carlos Hoffmann

    Harry Reid Is Guilty Of Racketeering.

    A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, will not be affected, or would not otherwise exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering.[1] Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this party. A prototype is the protection racket, wherein a person or group indicates that they could protect a store from potential damage, damage that the same person or group would otherwise inflict, while the correlation of threat and protection may be more or less deniably veiled, distinguishing it from the more direct act of extortion.

    Racketeering is often associated with organized crime, and the term was coined by the Employers’ Association of Chicago in June 1927 in a statement about the influence of organized crime in the Teamsters union.[2]

    On October 15, 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968), commonly referred to as the “RICO Act”, became United States law. The RICO Act allowed law enforcement to charge a person or group of people with racketeering, defined as committing multiple violations of certain varieties within a ten-year period. The purpose of the RICO Act was stated as “the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce”. S.Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 76 (1968). However, the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass illegal activities relating to any enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce.

    Section 1961(10) of Title 18 provides that the Attorney General of the United States may designate any department or agency to conduct investigations authorized by the RICO statute and such department or agency may use the investigative provisions of the statute or the investigative power of such department or agency otherwise conferred by law. Absent a specific designation by the Attorney General, jurisdiction to conduct investigations for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 lies with the agency having jurisdiction over the violations constituting the pattern of racketeering activity listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961.[3]

    In the U.S., civil racketeering laws are also used in federal and state courts. The National Federation of Independent Business challenged these civil laws in 2006 for being excessively abusive.[4]

    • William Carr


      A politician you don’t like doing something you don’t approve of does not amount to racketeering.