Straight up or down vote! Rule of law! Republi- I mean Democratic obstructionism! Nuclear option!

Ahh, 2005, how I miss thee. :p

And have you noticed the news never uses the F-word anymore? Democrats "fillibuster" but when Reps do it the press breaks out the thesaurus...

Let me just guess which side Lieberman voted on. . .

mhr: According to my dictionary (Webster's New World), "apropos of" means "in connection with" or "with regard to." They don't seem to have a problem with this construction.

On the other hand, my unabridged Webster's doesn't list it at all.

On the third hand, Marian's American Heritage dictionary not only approves it, but gives it its own separate entry.

Usage patrol over and out.

Don't worry, gentlemen: if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, you can be sure, beyond any possible doubt, that the headlines will scream about Republican filibusters of all of his or her judicial nominees.

To their credit, the current Washington Post on-line headline reads, "GOP blocks longer leave for troops." NYT has nothing up at the moment

Now that Dems are in the majority, filibusters are bad, right?

The problem here is the cloture vote. If the Repukeliscum want to filibuster, let them filibuster. Stop using this shortcut of the cloture vote. Reid should go for a strategy to defang the filibuster. Bring in the roll-away beds, and stay in the Senate for 2 months straight. If they want to filibuster, make them filibuster.

Kevin, I'd guess that the journalistic avoidance of partisan vote breakdowns, and the associated attribution of partisan defeats/obstructionism to the undifferentiated entity "Congress" is simply more High Broderism.

This serves High Broderism not only by eliding polity differences, but also by elevating the importance of "centrist" swing votes.

This filibuster by the GOP really shows how sincere they are about supporting the troops.

Dems should use this to their advantage. Keep the f-word out, it would make them sound too much like last session's repug shilling, but hammer home the fact that GOP DOES NOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS AND SO THEY ARE UNPATRIOTIC.

Kevin, don't bother humoring Mere Hapless Retard, I'm impressed he had any idea the word even existed.

Still, if 80% of Republicans oppose something while 80% of Democrats favor it, and the measure fails, I think it would be fair to write a headline that says "Republicans Block Vote on X." (And vice versa when Dems do it.) Instead, we usually get a headline that says merely "Congress Votes Down X." This is a disservice to readers, who then have to wade through the story to find out what's really going on.

Well said, Kevin- good post.

It was a cloture motion to cut off debate so they can vote on the amendment up or down. The cloture motion didn't get 60 votes so the measure lost and Webb withdrew the amendment.

I think it would be fair to write a headline that says "Republicans Block Vote on X." (And vice versa when Dems do it.) Instead, we usually get a headline that says merely "Congress Votes Down X."

Associated Press usually headlines its wire stories with "Republicans Block X". If one did a thorough survey, the different constructions might be evenly split. The issue is what voters hear, and who do they blame?

Some rally by "GOP dissenters." It still fell four votes short.

Gues we know now that Lugar, Alexander and Domenici are full of shit.

Kevin Drum >"...That's more than most stories do."

I`m sure it was an editorial mistake that they will be "correcting" soon

SocraticGadfly >"Gues we know now that Lugar, Alexander and Domenici are full of shit."

We`ve always known that so it ain`t news

"Politics is just high school with guns and more money" - Frank Zappa

The vote was 56-41, with 49 D's and 7 R's on one side and 40 R's plus Lieberman on the other. So it's 98% of Dems (Johnson did not vote), and 14% of R's on one side, and the other consists of 86% of R's and 100% of the Lieberman for himself party.

The neat thing for Republicans is, with a 60 vote rule, those up for election can safely vote with the majority while guaranteeing that the Bush Will will be done. It's the best of all worlds: they can bushit to the voters back home and still have Bush loyality on their side.

I agree with the comment upthread - make 'em talk for 24 hours straight. Remember the high entertainment value of Al D'amato singing Yankee Doodle at the lectern?

This vote was unconscionable. Here are the seven Republicans who voted "correctly."

Republicans Chuck Hagel (the bill’s co-sponsor) Norm Coleman, John Sununu, Gordon Smith, John Warner, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe crossed party lines to vote with the Democrats. Snowe is the only one of the Republican’s to support the bill who is not up for reelection in 2008.

It is no surprise that the perpetually ignoble Joe “More War!!!� Lieberman voted with the feckless republicans to kill Senator Webb’s reasoned and reasonable troop-protection amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill for FY 2008. I hope no one is too taken aback by the feckless fools Domenici and Lugar, who showed their true colors (various shades of yellow) and an unwillingness to do what is right and break ranks with the resident on this issue.

I doubt I'm alone in wanting to see a sleep-deprived Joementum stuggling to keep the floor at 4 AM while wheezing through dried lips "The enemy in Iraq is on the run..." A supreme schadenfreude moment--sort of like aBizzaro Jimmy Stewart.

I wonder if there's any interest within Lieberman's constituency in a RECALL VOTE.

I mean, really. What is with the cloture votes. Just schedule votes on all the no-brainer budget bills (that is, those having nothing to do with DoD), then bring the defense bill, with the "bring our troops home" provision, to a vote. Screw cloture. If McConnell wants to filibuster, let him do it the old fashioned way. See who he tag-teams with. Let McConnell and his band of lunatics draw REAL media attention to themselves. Hold semi-hourly quorum calls. Then sit back and watch hilarity ensue.

But the GOP leadership's use of a parliamentary tactic requiring at least 60 votes to pass any war legislation...

Um, can't they (and don't they) use this "parliamentary tactic" to block other kinds of legislation? Unless they are using a similar but slightly different tactic that only applies to war legislation -- I can't be sure since the article doesn't actually use the word filibuster.

It's very odd. Sure, not everyone knows what a filibuster is, but in part that's because articles like this don't explain it (or explain it but don't tell you what the name of it is).

"I wonder if there's any interest within Lieberman's constituency in a RECALL VOTE."

No doubt. Unfortunately, I am pretty certain members of Congress cannot be recalled, even in a state that permits recalls.

You can get a hefty dose of anti-Lieberman bashing here.

That's the problem -- the Democrats cave to the fillbuster the moment the first cloture vote fails. The right answer is to refuse to pull the bill from the calendar, and every hour, on the hour, ask if there are any more Senators that wish to address the bill (if there are not, debate ends.)

Send the whips out to the press with the statement "We'd love to get to work -- as soon as the GOP allows us to vote on this bill, we'll find out if it passes or not, then, we'll get to work on the next bill. " Keep doing that, and they'll cave -- they don't want to be on TV every night defending Bush.

Unfortunately, I am pretty certain members of Congress cannot be recalled, even in a state that permits recalls.

Guess we'll just have to hope he gets hold of some bad pharmaceuticals on one of his Big Pharma lobbying orgies, then.

Here's the Washington Post head line as of 3pm:
"Senate GOP Blocks Longer Leave for Troops"
They must have read your column!

Thanks, Blue Girl. I needed that.

You are most welcome, ObF - Connecticut Bob rocks!!! (Holy Joe's world!)

Lovely how the WaPo won't actually call it a filibuster though.

And the difference between this and the Dem 'obstruction'? Dems mostly wielded the threat of a filibuster, and that was enough to elicit cries of obstruction.

Reps seem to be actively filibustering everything they can, and it's simply 'Congress shoots down X Bill!'

I doubt I'm alone in wanting to see a sleep-deprived Joementum stuggling to keep the floor at 4 AM while wheezing through dried lips "The enemy in Iraq is on the run..."

Heh. mr. shortstop does a stellar Joementum imitation. He stopped, though, when he noticed my interest in romance dropped off sharply for at least 24 hours after each impression.

Additional good Joe-bashing sources here and here.

Guess we'll just have to hope he gets hold of some bad pharmaceuticals on one of his Big Pharma lobbying orgies, then.

I'm partial to tar and feathers, myself.

POed Lib is right. Make them filibuster, and we'll see how many republicans will actually stand on the floor for that long to prevent troops from having defined missions. It's all obviously an empty threat, because the Republicans know as well as anyone that if they do filibuster the press will have to report it, and the press will have no choice but to make it clear which party is fucking the dog here.

I'm partial to tar and feathers, myself.

And a rail - don't forget the riding him out of town on a rail. Make the feathers yellow, tho, for Mr. Deferment-taking warhawk.

...

Usage patrol over and out.

Shorter Kevin:
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/quotes)

We may have to wait a long time for the media to start separating the Ds and the Rs in Congress.

But it would be a good start if the Ds themselves were more careful when they talk about what's going on in Congress. I just heard a soundbite about today's vote on the radio from Dick Durbin, who said "we" failed to help the troops and "we" need to do more for them.

In the same amount of time, he could have said, "The Democrats are doing everything in our power to support the troops. The Republicans, unfortunately, are blocking any progress."

The problem is not "we." It's "them." People need to hear that.

Goddamnit! QUIT CALLING THEM FILIBUSTERS! They are NOT filibusters, they are procedural jacking-offs. There is not anything remotely filibustery about these silly games.

Reid could put an end to this with the blink of an eye but he is an ineffectual and weak leader, like Pelosi. He COULD require REAL filibustering but he prefers theoretical faux filibusters because it means he can go home on time and soak his poor little aching feet in a nice warm epsom salt bath.

Watch for filibusters all you want but you will NEVER see one so long as Reid is in charge.

Kevin wrote:

"Still, if 80% of Republicans oppose something while 80% of Democrats favor it, and the measure fails, I think it would be fair to write a headline that says "Republicans Block Vote on X.""

I presume therefore that Kevin has a problem with the Post characterizing the bill that was blocked as a "bipartisan [effort] to force a change in the American military mission in Iraq." After all, over 80% of Republicans voted against the bill so, by Kevin's measure, the Post should have written "Democrat efforts to force a change..."

Brian: Now that Dems are in the majority, filibusters are bad, right?

Another day, another lie.

Point to the Democrats threatening to use the "nuclear option" if Republican filibusters are not halted.

You can't.

The issue is crystal clear:

Democrats are willing to live by their own rules.

Republicans are not.

Democrats are willing to adhere to tradition, even when it frustrates the wishes of the majority they control.

Republicans are not.

Pointing out Republican hypocrisy on filibusters is not calling filibusters bad.

And that is where you lie.

Praedor is absolutely correct (no surprise there) - they are not fucking filibusters. And I can't top "procedural jacking-offs" either. So well said all around, Major. (Or are you a Lt.C now?)

Bottom line: if Democratic senators - not just Harry Reid, but rank and file senators - were attacking their Republican colleagues for obstructing legislation in the print, tv, and cable news media...the story would get covered.

Democrats still aren't ready for the bloodsport of modern politics. They would rather be polite and preserve decorum than get their way. They refuse to call out their opponents in the minority like they were so often called out. They refuse to attack their opponents on a personal level for their failure to allow votes to go through. They barely comment when a fillibuster occurs. They almost never confront their cowardly Republican counter-parts in the media. Thus, the media doesn't cover it.

Meanwhile, Joe Lieberman calls Harry Reid names on Sean Hannity's radio show with nary a response from Dems.

Hacksaw: I presume therefore that Kevin has a problem with the Post characterizing the bill that was blocked as a "bipartisan [effort] to force a change in the American military mission in Iraq." After all, over 80% of Republicans voted against the bill so, by Kevin's measure, the Post should have written "Democrat efforts to force a change..."

More dishonesty, since only one Democratic senator joined the Republicans, not 20%.

In other words, roughly 15% of Republicans voted with roughly 98% of Democrats against a group composed of 85% Republicans and 2% Democrats (figures based on total voting, not total members), sufficiently supported by the opposing party to be bipartisan and opposed by so few Democrats as to render a bipartisan characterization of the opposition utterly mendacious.

The new guy from Wyoming showed his true colors pretty quickly - and he stands for a special election in just over 15 months - in a state where a fallen soldiers final trip home got the top spot on the front page and a visit by the POTUS was shoved below the fold. Even tho the veep calls that state home. (Until his relocation to Dubai, at least).

I hope Wyoming voters remember this and make him a short-serving senator.

anonymous:

I think you got my point backwards. I wasn't suggesting that the Post should have characterized opposition to the bill as bipartisan. Rather, I was using Kevin's 80% threshold to suggest that the Post was stretching when it described support for the bill as bipartisan (when only 15% of Senate Republicans voted for it).

Reid could put an end to this with the blink of an eye but he is an ineffectual and weak leader

I hate to admit, but I'm starting to agree with comments like these.

Filibusters take other forms than a member holding the floor for hours in debate, reading from the phone book: one can be mounted by multiple members making small speeches, by the offering of multiple amendments, by simply refusing to allow a UC agreement to be adopted fixing a time certain for a vote, by not permitting the motion to proceed to a measure or matter to be adopted withoput cloture, or by some combination of all of these. Since the days of Leader Mike Mansfield, who created the "two track" system for considering legislation, Senators have not done the "Jimmy Stewart" type of filibuster. But these are filibusters, no doubt, so please, please, people, quit the nonsense about these not being filibusters. Those statements are factually wrong and they also give cover to the obstructionists.

Also, as I noted when this topic came up two days ago, the reason Senate Leaders do not "make them go to the floor and engage in extended debate" is because it does not work. It's harder on the majority opposing the filibuster than on the obstructionist and it incurs tremendous opportunity and political cost. There is no way to "muscle" something in the Senate. It just doesn't work. To say that it does reveals a lack of understanding of the ruels and precedents of the chamber.

And Kevin ... enough with the "apropos," OK? It's nothing more than an affectation.

Also, as I noted when this topic came up two days ago, the reason Senate Leaders do not "make them go to the floor and engage in extended debate" is because it does not work. It's harder on the majority opposing the filibuster than on the obstructionist and it incurs tremendous opportunity and political cost. There is no way to "muscle" something in the Senate. It just doesn't work. To say that it does reveals a lack of understanding of the ruels and precedents of the chamber.

I really, really disagree. Every single issue in the Senate is now, using this approach, subject to the ridiculous, unconstitutional 60 vote limit. The supermajority has been defined as the new majority. That's because, using this idiotic and constitutionally vapid cloture approach, it is so EASY to filibuster. You just say "I am filibustering that." If you HAD to stand up there and FILIBUSTER, they would be MUCH MUCH rarer, and we would be back to the constitutionally defined majority system.

Praedor: Goddamnit! QUIT CALLING THEM FILIBUSTERS! They are NOT filibusters, they are procedural jacking-offs. There is not anything remotely filibustery about these silly games.

Well, then the Democrats never filibustered either.

But technical definitions aside, Republicans are refusing to allow debate to be cut off, something they called a "filibuster" when the Democrats were using the tactic and refusing to vote "yes" to cut off debate.

I don't recall any Democratic senator speaking for hours in order to stall debate, but it was still called a filibuster by the GOP and turn about is fair play.

If the GOP wants to use their own special dictionary, then I say we use their own definitions against them.

I was talking to Webb about ideas like this bill at a reception in Williamsburg a few months ago. He already had similar bills planned at the time. I wondered why more along these lines hadn't been done already. The advantage is, you can inhibit continuance of the war without proposing direct deadlines that are easier for "no surrender" critics to complain about. But, they complained anyway...

But above all, Kevin, why are you surprised that the press refers to "Congress" as a whole, doesn't do the partisan breakdown, doesn't inform about the 60 votes really being needed to pass legislation, etc? They don't want people to understand what's going on ...

No, they are NOT filibusters. These are procedural masturbation. Reid COULD force filibusters to be FILIBUSTERS ala Mr Smith if he desired. The DEMS make the rules and the rules should make filibusters (GOP obstructionism) very hard, very painful, and costly in time and effort. Instead, he has a setup that lets EVERYONE go home on time and eat their cush dinners at their favorite expensive restaurants with their favorite lobbyist.

There needs to be pain involved here. This is candy-assed and WAY too easy. And the Dems simply go limp like Limbaugh's dick whenever the GOPers go "boo!"

Hacksaw: I think you got my point backwards. I wasn't suggesting that the Post should have characterized opposition to the bill as bipartisan. Rather, I was using Kevin's 80% threshold to suggest that the Post was stretching when it described support for the bill as bipartisan (when only 15% of Senate Republicans voted for it).

You are free, as always, to enlighten us as to what measure (percentage or absolute) of GOP support would be required for it to be bipartisan.

As it is, all we get from you is darkness.

Enlightenment remains a distant and hazy concept when reading your posts.

b-pärt-zn, -sn

ADJECTIVE: Of, consisting of, or supported by members [pl.] of two parties, especially two major political parties: a bipartisan resolution.

Members of both the Democratic and Republican party supported the resolution.

By definition, bipartisan.

Note, the definition does not support an interpretation of opposition as bipartisan, but even assuming opposition could be so characterized only one member (singular) of the Democratic Party participated in opposition, not members (plural) of the Democratic Party.

The supermajority has been defined as the new majority.

I have to plead real ignorance as to the machinations of the Senate but I just don't get this. How is EVERY fucking bill being exposed to cloture vote and this 'supermajority' 60 vote shit? It was not this way when the Dems were in the minority and it wasn't like this on "School House Rock" (I'm Just A Bill, Yes I'm Only a Bill..)

Call your senator and tell them that we want actual filibusters, where senators have to sit around and wait out the talker. Enuff of this fucking cloture shit. I want senators passing out and peeing in buckets. They get paid a huge amount of money, and we want some action.

Does anyone have an idea of the frequency of the filibuster before this fucking cloture crap got institutionalized? What's the fucking point of a fucking majority if it isn't a fucking majority?

There is a lot of careless use of the word majority floating around.

Fact: the current U.S. Senate consists of 49 Dems and 49 Republicans and a couple of independents, one of whom is Joe Lieberman who does not vote with the Democrats on matters related to Iraq.

We need a few more Democrats in the Senate.

mhr: "Grammar alert!"

Who cares, mhr? Who cares?

It seems that the dems are just postering . They could have ended the war by not authorizing funds. Webb introduced his amendment and then withdrew it. Had it passed then he would have been responsible for decreasing the readiness of the military. The dems didn't really want it to pass they can't handle responsibility. No wonder Cindi Sheehan is gonna run for Pelosi's seat.

It seems that the dems are just postering . They could have ended the war by not authorizing funds. Webb introduced his amendment and then withdrew it.

Does your Mom know that you are posting on an adult web site? You need to take Civics before posting.

"Does your Mom know that you are posting on an adult web site? You need to take Civics before posting."

That's intelligent. When people criticize the messenger instead of the message it lends support for the message.

Your "message" exhibited a total ignorance about politics and the entire process of politics that there was nothing to attack. No there there, donchaknow.

POed Lib I wish you would stop your childish attacks and discuss the senate debate rules like and adult but if you can't I'll just cry a bit and go on. hasta

Does anyone know how long the Webb amendment was debated. Troop readiness is very important and I would hope it was fully debated.

Goddamn it, Kevin, filibusters haven't become standard procedure at all. Voting 'no' on cloture, which sets the stage for a potential filibuster, has become standard GOP procedure on everything, right down to motions to select conferees for a House-Senate conference committee.

But as others have said upthread, if in response to the GOP's blocking cloture on a vote like this, Harry Reid kept the bill on the floor instead of moving on to the next item on the agenda, the GOP would then have to do an old-fashioned talkfest of a filibuster in order to prevent a vote.

This would exact costs to the GOP for blocking cloture: first, they'd have to go to the trouble of maintaining the filibuster, and second, there'd be no way to hide just who was doing the obstructing.

Hell, even Fred Hiatt - can you believe that?! - said on Monday that the Dems ought to force the GOP to actually filibuster. (On a different issue, of course, but still.)

So, Harry, let's make 'em filibuster. And Kevin, please distinguish between defeating a cloture motion and filibustering.

Again, anonymous, you seem to have read right past my point.

It was Kevin who suggested that "if 80% of Republicans oppose something while 80% of Democrats favor it, and the measure fails, I think it would be fair to write a headline that says "Republicans Block Vote on X.""

I simply suggested that if that was the case, the the converse must also be true and that, in effect, if over 80% of Republicans opposed something, then the Post probably should not state that that thing has bipartisan support.

So refer your complaints to Kevin, who it seems is as stupid as I am, since he suggested that even if 20% of Dems support something, the headline should not leave the reader with the impression that that thing has bipartisan support.

"But as others have said upthread, if in response to the GOP's blocking cloture on a vote like this, Harry Reid kept the bill on the floor instead of moving on to the next item on the agenda, the GOP would then have to do an old-fashioned talkfest of a filibuster in order to prevent a vote."

This is what makes me wonder if the dems are really serious about the lefts desires or just playing politics. Apparently Cindi Sheehan thinks it's just politics since she's about ready to run against Pelosi. It seems to me that they are rushing these cloture votes a bit.

It's also more than possible a couple of grandstanders like Webb and Hegel would have proposed the legislation without knowing about the 60 vote Kabuki that would be played out. I agree we should end the filibuster abuse - I'd like to see the filibuster done away with entirely - but to say the filibuster stopped this legislation is not true.

The Dems -could- force the issue, sure. But to keep the filibuster going, it would take only a few hardy GOP senators, versus pretty much the whole Dem caucus to attempt to break it. There's very few natural resources as rare as the time of a US senator - especially in a campaign season where more than one of them are running for the Presidency. Every day they spend in Washington is a day they're not out raising funds or glad-handling potential donors and supporters.

It's that financial cost that's really preventing a serious attempt to force a filibuster. At this point, it would absolutely hurt the Dems much more to attempt to force the issue than it would hurt the Republicans.

There's very few natural resources as rare as the time of a US senator

I agree. The cost would be high, for the first several. After that, the Repukeliscum would be much more cautious about the use of the filibuster.

I wanted very much to see the comments about the filibuster matter again, even though read them yesterday. My problem? I can't find them in the July 10 commentaries. HELP! I want to review what Kevin said!

It was only so long ago that 'bipartisan' meant skimming one or two Democrats off to top to vote for something...

Dems should just accept the filibuster.

Let the Republicans talk and talk and talk. Don't close the floor until they want to stop talking. Don't allow any other bill to come to the floor until the Iraq situation is voted upon. And I mean voted upon, not "motion for cloture voted upon".

Just let the Republicans keep talking. The longer it goes, the longer they block it, the more the American people will take notice, and will finally understand that it is the Republicans who are holding things up. And the more pissed the American people will be at them.

Take a stand, Dems. Letting the Republicans talk as long as they want would kill the Republican party.

Here's the headline from the evil right-wing Washington Times:

"GOP foils minimum leave"

Darn conservative media bias.

Lots of tough guys here INSISTING that Dems make Republicans go to the floor and carry out their threat to filibuster. One genius even said "Harry Reid can end this obstruction any time he wants." OoookAY. I'll play. Anyone care to tell us how many instances obstruction has been defeated in this way? I mean in the 200+ year history of the Senate?

Anyone care to tell us how many instances obstruction has been defeated in this way? I mean in the 200+ year history of the Senate?

I don't know the answer to that, but one prominent example is the Civil Rights Act.

Could someone please explain why an actual filibuster (non-stop standing on the floor of the Senate reading out of the telephone book, etc.) is not required?

*That* action, with the accompanying television footage, would make it much clearer what is actually going on.

And, if some Senators really want to filibuster, they should relish the chance to stand their ground vocally.

I don't understand the current purely procedural approach to filibustering.

To be fair, I'm not sure which civil rights act you mean, but on the vast majority of civil rights legislation that became law, such as the landmark 1964 Act, they did not break a filibuster. They were unable to. What they did was they invoked cloture. In other words, they made the necessary political and policy moves necessary to get the votes to limit debate. Which is precisely my point as to why they don't do what so many people here keep suggesting. It doesn't work. It almost never has. In fact, it makes things worse. But hey, people, don't let the facts get in the way.

Lots of tough guys here INSISTING that Dems make Republicans go to the floor and carry out their threat to filibuster. One genius even said "Harry Reid can end this obstruction any time he wants." OoookAY. I'll play. Anyone care to tell us how many instances obstruction has been defeated in this way? I mean in the 200+ year history of the Senate?

Sure: the entire GOP-held Congress up until last election. See, they did NOT have 60 votes. Never did. They managed to keep the Dems flat on the floor with tricks and rules that PREVENTED the Dems from stalling much of anything. Of course, part of the problem is that Dems are inherently weak and pathetic and get a wet in the pants whenever someone says "Boo!" to them while their GOPer compatriots simply yell "Boo! Yerself". But it is not entirely cowardice and pathetic lack of dick and balls by the Dems. It was the GOPers actually making the rules work for them. The way Reid COULD if he had a dick and balls.

He's a candy-assed wimp, however, so he just sits there and IMMEDIATLY pulls bills out of consideration whenever the GOP clears their throats. He is playing an idiot game upon the instructions of idiot handlers: make ALL votes a mere trick for trying to win over votes for next year's election. After THAT election, they will be advised to continue in this vein because, you know, in a mere two years there will be yet another election. Must ALWAYS play underhanded and harmful games with American lives for the sake of the next election. In NO case are you to actually PASS anything that actually helps the Republic (and helping the Republic is NOT equal to helping corporations).

Reid CAN make it hard for GOPers to stall much of anything...for instance, when they come up with 300 amendments to a bill (an amendment filibuster) he can say, "OK, our 'esteemed' colleagues across the isle have 300 amendments they wish us to consider. So here we go, I am submitting ALL 300 amendments to the floor for an immediate vote, yah or nay. All in favor of approving all 300 amendments here and now say "aye", all opposed say "nay". That's it, the nays have it. Let's vote on the bill itself."

He has no sac so he thinks the rules are written in stone and have been unchanging and unchangeable since Homo sapiens first walked out of Africa. When the Dems need to learn from the GOP, they do not. The GOP showed them all that the rules are rubbery and ever changeable by the majority party. CHANGE THEM.

The GOP showed them all that the rules are rubbery and ever changeable by the majority party. BREAK THEM.

Fixed it for you.

truthpolitik: This is what makes me wonder if the dems are really serious about the lefts desires or just playing politics.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that the nation is “entering a period this summer of increased risk.� When asked for how he knows this information, he said his remarks were based on his “gut feeling.�

really?

“I understand he’s got feelings. The problem is, the states and cities, who have to react to the Department of Homeland Security guidance, can’t do squat on his feelings. … It seems more politics than terrorism.� - Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt 7/11/07

"It seems more politics than terrorism.�

ouch...