Reid voted no due to the rules of the Senate -- a motion to reconsider can only be put forward by a no voter.

Nelson was apparently voting no at Warren Buffett's "request" -- Buffett thinks existing derivatives need to be grandfathered in, and there's no exemption in the current bill for them. He might well be right on that one.

From the US Senate:

cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

And Reid also "forgot" that he voted no - and this is not the first time.

Dude is losing his marbles fast . . . .

Quote: Originally posted by wrmiller13 on 4/27/2010rlahann - I thought that the cloture vote is a vote to END the debate, and bring the matter before the full Senate for an up or down vote?

That's right - a successful cloture vote ends debate.

The Mr. Smith version of the filibuster doesn't exist any more. The modern version simply votes down cloture, and prevents the bill from getting to a final vote.

Yeah, I hear you, wrmiller...but every recap of the vote this morning talked about how this vote prevented debate. So damn ugly.

So here's my best guess at figuring it out...the cloture vote would both begin and end debate in that it would start it up, but have the anti-fillibuster time limit on it? We need a parliamentary expert up in here.

Good luck finding one of those . . .

Quote: Originally posted by rlahann on 4/27/2010
So here's my best guess at figuring it out...the cloture vote would both begin and end debate in that it would start it up, but have the anti-fillibuster time limit on it? We need a parliamentary expert up in here.

That... sounds right?

Senate rules are fakakta.

This points out something that's bothered me for ages. Why are we following parliamentary rules that were written hundreds of years ago, with archaic, indecipherable terminology that nobody understands and makes it almost impossible to achieve anything in a reasonable time?

It doesn't matter which party is running (ruining?) things. It's all FUBAR.

Because "Roberts" says so??

(isn't that what it is - Roberts rules of parliamentary somwething or other?)

It's well past Roberts Rules of Order at this point...there are scores of other rules put in place...the job of Senate Parlimentarian is seriously complex. I read a Slate piece on it a couple months ago...takes years and years of prep in order to be qualified to do it.

That was it - Roberts rules of order.

My pastor and I actually had a semi-serious discussion on those when I was the chair of our Deacons committee and whether or not we really had to "follow" them for our meetings to be "official". Being the good Presbyterian that I am, I gave in on that point, and then asked him nicely to stop bothering us at our meetings (they are much more enjoyable when the "boss" is not watching).

Quote: Originally Posted By antonsirius on 4/27/2010

Quote: Originally posted by raucous on 4/26/2010

With everyone that I talked to at the Tea Party, most of us (including myself) wouldn't have been there if Bush didn't spend 6 years blowing out the budget and then Obama making twice as bad.

I have two questions for you then:

1) How do you feel about the Republicans blocking the current financial regulation bill, which couldn't get past a cloture vote in the Senate yesterday?

2) If the economy picks up real steam sometime around 2011 or so, and Obama's budget staunches the bleeding in the deficit, would you consider voting for him in '12?

1 It wasnt really Republicans. This bill wasnt going to go through. Everyone knew that it was too quick and they didnt have time to get their ducks in line. The Arizonia law forced dems to do something, and they failed. Give it a few days, a new bill with some bone thrown to the Pubs will come out and pass.

2 I oppose Obama on more than a few issues. He really believes that government can make our lives better. He feels that rich people need to pay more to make America better. In his heart I believe if it didnt have any negative impact he would ban all personal weapons. I cannot imagine the Republican opponent that would make me vote for Obama, he may not exist.

And I know you were not asking me...sue me.

Let 'em slug it out like the South Koreans.

I didn't realize raucous was a swamphawk alias.

It isnt. Only Pinnacle 23, lol!

Why do you ask?