The Hold

Needless to say, I agree with what Greenwald and Atrios and Digby are saying -- given that when Republican members of congress want to put "holds" on things, Reid keeps respecting their hold, it's preposterous for him to be refusing to do the same for Chris Dodd. The "hold" rule is a bad one -- a terrible one, in fact -- but like many elements of the congressional process, even bad rules can be used to good effect sometimes. Except not, it seems, in this instance.

The only word of caution I would add is that one shouldn't exclusively heap opprobrium on Harry Reid. It's clear that Reid wouldn't be interfering with the traditional privileges of a Senator like this unless he felt sure of overwhelmingly support within the body. The Senate as a whole clearly wants this to pass, and that seems to include even some members who are going to nominally go against it. Some Democrats simply favor this sort of measures. And others are desperate to ensure that the 2008 campaign doesn't touch on these issues and thus really, really, really want it to be taken "off the table." It's more or less the politics of 2002 all over again, a belief that public distemper with the economy will glide Democrats to victory if only those mean 'ol Republicans don't run on national security.

Comments

Why are they afraid of this issue being "on the table."

As a Democrat I WANT MY PARTY TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

Posted by drfranklives | December 17, 2007 12:43 PM

FUCK Harry Reid. Fuck him! As soon as a primary challenger arises for his seat we will send them $100 immediately.

Yucca Flats Yucca Flats Yucca Flats. I hope the next President of the United States realizes how badly we need to open Yucca Flats, and that Senate Majority Leader Dodd (or Feingold) fast tracks the Yucca Flats Authorization Act .

FUCK HARRY REID, the Constitution is more important than making nice with the Thugs.

feh!

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | December 17, 2007 12:45 PM

Well, never mind, because in speaking of the post-cloture situation and Dodd's amendment, Reid re-affirmed that (for Democrats) 60 votes are "required" any way, so, there you have it.

Posted by El Cid | December 17, 2007 12:45 PM

ok, i promise not to make it exclusive to reid, but he is still the leader, and while i've long commented that it's hard to be tougher than the weakest members of your caucus, that's not an excuse in this case.

i quite honestly didn't expect the dems with their slim majorities and blue dogs to do great things in congress this go round, but i did expect them to lose strong, not weak.

Posted by howard | December 17, 2007 12:46 PM

The irony is that by introducing the other version of the bill (the one without retroactive immunity) there would have been no real hit on the national security issue.

It would be hard to convince the public that withholding immunity from criminal actions hampers current intelligence gathering information.

Posted by John | December 17, 2007 12:49 PM

gee it's really awesome to see how Republicans are willing to change Senate rules when the opposition stands in the way of putting lunatic right wing judges in place and how on the other hand Dems are religious in letting Republicans get their ways and preserving every one of those rules that help Republicans rule.

With Republicans its man exploitning man; with Dems it's just the opposite.

Posted by della Rovere | December 17, 2007 1:36 PM

"The irony is that by introducing the other version of the bill (the one without retroactive immunity) there would have been no real hit on the national security issue.

It would be hard to convince the public that withholding immunity from criminal actions hampers current intelligence gathering information."

I guess the theory is that Bush vetoes it and says the dems are trying to tie his hands on national security. Now, why anyone would listen to Bush is beyond me.

Posted by Jose Padilla | December 17, 2007 2:01 PM

Harry Reid is a republican tool. They are wielding him like a blunt instrument. Reid is as dumb as a box of hammers if he does not understand this.

Posted by cheflovesbeer | December 17, 2007 2:01 PM

Maybe you are right with the reasons you see for the Democrats' connivance in this case. But maybe there is another and stronger reason for them: money. Corporate Money.

They all depend on the money the elites and corporations invest in them. Without this money and without a media driven and controlled by the same Corporate Money they would have more difficulties to raise the necessary money for their campaigns, and to get the positive media representation they crave for.

The amnesty issue is important for the Corporations, and so their political mercenaries in both parties have to do the ugly job for them and bend the constitution!

Politicians of both parties in the USA do not only and do not mainly depend on the voters in general, but on Big Money: which can - via media and via campaign money - BUY a considerable part of the voters ...

= PLUTOCRACY is the probable reason.

The fact is a taboo in itself, as it seems.
For you, too, Matthew Iglesias?

(No, I am not sure that I am right. It's a complex thing, and I know I sit in the armchair, far away, it is difficult to understand such complex matters. But maybe you or anybody else can tell me why or to what degree I am wrong with this CONSPIRACY theory! Please accept that I do not assume Big Money sitting in a PolitBureau together, and I know that there is some pluralism among Big Money, too.)

Posted by Leo Brux, Munich, Germany | December 17, 2007 2:03 PM

I think Dodd should get some props in this context for fighting the good fight on principle, even though it is probably hurting his campaign for the presidency! If Chris were here, I'd give him a BIG HIGH FIVE.

Posted by William | December 17, 2007 2:25 PM

Harry Reid is a republican tool. They are wielding him like a blunt instrument. Reid is as dumb as a box of hammers if he does not understand this.

Harry Reid, like Tom Daschle before him, is the Democratic Party in purest, distilled form.

Posted by sglover | December 17, 2007 4:50 PM

It's clear that Reid wouldn't be interfering with the traditional privileges of a Senator like this unless he felt sure of overwhelmingly support within the body. The Senate as a whole clearly wants this to pass, and that seems to include even some members who are going to nominally go against it.

That's not true at all. Some of the bills where he has allowed holds to stand passed the House with margins like 422-2. Are you saying that the bill asking to continue to investigate civil rights-era criminal actions like the Emmett Till case did NOT have overwhelming support in the Senate?

Reid is simply taking a different standard on holds based on what GEORGE BUSH thinks about the bill, not what the majority of the Senate thinks.

Posted by dday | December 17, 2007 5:54 PM

So, are there any English-speaking democracies left, or do I need to start studying another language?

Posted by tinman | December 17, 2007 6:00 PM

It's clear that Reid wouldn't be interfering with the traditional privileges of a Senator like this unless he felt sure of overwhelmingly support within the body. The Senate as a whole clearly wants this to pass, and that seems to include even some members who are going to nominally go against it.

That's not true at all. Some of the bills where he has allowed holds to stand passed the House with margins like 422-2. Are you saying that the bill asking to continue to investigate civil rights-era criminal actions like the Emmett Till case did NOT have overwhelming support in the Senate?

Reid is simply taking a different standard on holds based on what GEORGE BUSH thinks about the bill, not what the majority of the Senate thinks.

Posted by dday | December 17, 2007 6:04 PM

Dodd bought us some breathing room, over Reid's objections. A couple more of these events and Reid will actually be forced into a progressive posture.

Don N

Posted by Don N | December 18, 2007 1:38 AM