Ten hours to read a climate change bill is 9.5 hours too long.

Perhaps we should have all bills read.

Could Obama as president (with the involved citizenry who put him there) cause any difference in the way Congress operates?

And I care about Bob Novak how?

Seems to me that if one party created problems in Senate procedures, having the other party use those same procedures is hardly the way to produce the changes needed to "fix" the Senate.

There is no reason to confirm even one more Bush judge. Not even 1 more.

The BIGGEST obstructionist is pelosi - her "impeachment is off the table" is criminal and a blatant disregard of her oath of office.

I understand why and understand why the repugs/neocons protect the criminality.

I cannot accept a democratic leader providing the lead in covering up the repug/neocon crimes.

The Senate Majority Leader doesn't need to make the rules. Because he (by precedent) has right of first recognition, he can under some circumstances prevent other Senators from offering amendments to a bill on the floor.

Earlier Senate Majority Leaders occasionally did this, for example to prevent nongermane amendments from being added to legislation or appropriations bills the Senate needed to pass. The climate change bill is different, because it had not been brought before the Senate before and because Sen. Reid had no intention of trying to get it passed or even seriously considered.

He only wanted to say he brought it up, and had it blocked by Republicans. It was a campaign tactic, and a campaign tactic only. Novak's contention is essentially that the Senate under Reid is just an accessory to the Democratic campaign apparatus, and he's basically right.

Incidentally, Brownstein makes an interesting point about how both Republican and Democratic Senators shied away from a bill because they were afraid of being accused of favoring higher energy prices. Since concealing higher energy prices from the public is the principle reason cap-and-trade is being promoted instead of a carbon tax, doesn't this suggest this bill won't do any better next year, even with a Democratic President?

OT: Countrywide's Many 'Friends' Two U.S. senators, two former Cabinet members, and a former ambassador to the United Nations received loans from Countrywide Financial through a little-known program that waived points, lender fees, and company borrowing rules for prominent people.

Senators Christopher Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut and chairman of the Banking Committee, and Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota, chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee, refinanced properties through Countrywide’s “V.I.P.” program in 2003 and 2004, according to company documents and emails and a former employee familiar with the loans.
[SNIP]
Most of the officials belonged to a group of V.I.P. loan recipients known in company documents and emails as “F.O.A.'s”—Friends of Angelo, a reference to Countrywide chief executive Angelo Mozilo. While the V.I.P. program also serviced friends and contacts of other Countrywide executives, the F.O.A.’s made up the biggest subset.

A choice quote:

Senator Conrad borrowed $1.07 million in 2004 to refinance his vacation home with a balcony and wraparound porch in Bethany Beach, Delaware, a block from the ocean. Mozilo instructed a subordinate to “take off 1 point,” or $10,700, according to a March 17, 2004, email.

The responses from the these VIP customers make it sound like they didn`t notice the red carpet treatment. That would be kind of a problem in and of itself. It sounds like Angelos friends wont have to go trough roller coaster interest rates and wont be joining the run on the bank the rest of us have to go trough.

I recall an old blogpost by Drum about another list of VIPs in IIRC the credit rating industry. Can anyone find it?

HT to Ken Silverstein

I'd say it started with Newt Gingrich. He introduced the wide-spread personal attack with his list of words to use when talking about Democrats and their ideas.

Yaeh, maybe so... but at least they have the fortitude to stand up against an opponents agenda, something Democrats seem incapable of.

The climate bill was a political ploy. No politician wants to raise energy prices which is what any effective climate legislation must do. This is why carbon taxes are not on the table- politicians don't want to be strung up like oil company executives for even proposing such things. The present bill was never meant to be passed, and everyone in Washington knows this. It was a way for some to look like they are trying to do something about global warming without having to actually do anything.

"The normal give-and-take of legislative compromise isn't in their playbook these days."
This is a good thing. Reid should just chuck the rule book and start running everything on majority vote. The filibuster is no good for Dems.

At least Novak used the proper formulation of the 60 vote supermajority, "the 60 votes needed to close debate on the bill"....

I'd say it started with Newt Gingrich.

You can blame Gingrich for a great many things, but I'm not sure the decline of the Senate is one of them--he wasn't a Senator, after all.

To say Harry Reid is using control of the Senate for political purposes is hilarious. Everything...EVERYTHING the Republicans are doing is political. It is they who are revolting (remember the Reagan Revolution) and they who are making the system dysfunctional and it is they who must pay a heavy price for this (nearly) treasonous plan.

If they want to prevent Democrats from achieving anything, then they should do it the honest way, by winning in honest elections. This subversive behavior of saying they're going to filibuster every single bill isn't proper senatorial practice.

They're acting like scum and should be treated that way. But, their office (of senator) should be treated with respect, as always.

A Constitutional question: if the VP is President of the Senate, how come he doesn't issue the rulebook at the start of each Congress? In the past few years I've had to grudgingly concede the Repubs had a valid complaint about their nominees not getting at least an up-or-down vote -- now that we see McConnell preparing to filibuster everything all the time if our side wins, wouldn't it make sence to start rewriting these unconstitutional rules now?

This has been said before, but taking the long view, once the Dems have a vice grip on both chambers and the White House, and once these kinds of bills fly through the process while obstructionist Repugs whine like babies, Americans will see and remember what it's like to have functional, mature adults running the show. This they will not forget (especially in comparison to the last seven years), just like those who experienced it never forgot liberalism's amazing military and economic success in WWII and afterwards. Reid is at least in part laying yet another brick for modern conservatism's long, hard road to irrelevance.