Interesting, Choldt. I didn’t know he had to vote “no,” which is why his doing so struck me as a crass political move, as it was for Blanche Lincoln to do so. Several seem to be sure he had to vote “no” to be able to bring it back up. But you seem to be sure that is not the case. Thanks for your input.
Cloture is unique in this regard, where, on failure, there are two equally useful paths to keep going. One path is to move to reconsider the failed cloture motion. Fine. The underlying issue, and the exact same cloture motion, are both alive. At some point, there can be a revote on the failed cloture motion.
In the alternative, just let the cloture motion fail. The underlying issue (in this case, a motion to proceed to the defense bill) is still alive. Failing cloture NEVER kills the underlying issue. At some point, the proponent files another cloture motion. Heck, Reid could do that (file a second cloture motion) even with the first cloture motion hanging out there "to be reconsidered."
Now, if the vote had been on say, passing an amendment or passing a bill, and the majority voted NO on passage, THEN a motion to reconsider has the effect of preserving the issue. There is not (supposed to be) an unlimited number of times to vote on an underlying substantive point. But cloture is in the nature of "shall we conclude debate and get to the vote?" and that question can be asked as many times as it takes.
I have no idea why Reid uses motion to reconsider on cloture. He has another procedural quirk when he "fills the amendment tree."