Reid is quite good on procedure as are Durbin and Byrd. I think you nailed possibly the top three. Dodd has proven pretty good in the past, but I think he might be busy with other things right now.

And never forget Teddy. He’s a master.

It’s all well and good to talk about Byrd, Kennedy, etc. as “masters of procedure.” But does anybody know if they plan to use those chops to ACT against this bastard McConnell? For some reason all their supposed savvy didn’t prevent that rider from being attached to the ethics reform bill. I don’t really care how much any of them know if it’s not going to be translated into action. This is 2007, the Dems finally have power, there is no excuse for not striking against Rethugs like McC — hard!

Look at the left side of his face. Look familiar? Remind you of Cheney? Did ALL these loons have strokes?

It is an FDL tradition not to criticize people for physical deformity.

Moral deformity, have at it.

It seems like what’s needed is some sort of unexpected ju jitsu moves against McConnell, something that would throw him off balance, or back him into an unexpected corner.

Cliff’s article made me think something along the same lines as Mrs. K8, actually, so I ducked out to check on some terminology. I’d suggest that what Sen. McConnell needs is a shadow—what in football is called a spy. In football defenses, a spy is a player who is assigned to make sure that a player on the opposing offense who is particularly dangerous and unpredictable because of his mobility when holding the football—Michael Vick, say—is never alone. If the spy is also a good athlete, he might be able to nip big plays in the bud; in any case, he can at least holler (so long as he doesn’t get faked out;).

In football, spying is a relatively high-risk strategy that coaches use only reluctantly, since even if the team has a good enough athlete to play the opponent straight-up, resources for doing the other defensive tasks get stretched, and the damage might in the end just take another form.

But suppose there’s no restriction on the total resources that any side—our side—can use? So long as much of the business of Senators, and the Senate, is done in public, it’s possible for members of the public to stay meticulously informed of many of the moves made by Sen. McConnell, and their motivations in terms of outside interests, etc. Perhaps an interested person could co-ordinate a blog centered on these efforts …

Blub writes:

Only for a price.. he extracted a commitment that the rethug proposal to give shrug a line item veto on the budget will be debated by the Dems after he attaches it as a rider to another piece of legislation.

Clinton supported the line item veto when it was passed by congress in 1996. It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998 by a majority decision in an opinion written by Stevens and joined by Reinquist, Thomas, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Souter with Scalia, O’Connor and Breyer dissenting. McConnell wants a second bite at that apple – so what?

well, so long as they believe they can install another republican, they might allow a line item veto

however, Roberts and alito have to be wary, it is not likely a Republican will hold executive office in two years

for this we have hope that they will not risk setting precedents allowing a unitary executive

time will tell

Blub writes:

Only for a price.. he extracted a commitment that the rethug proposal to give shrug a line item veto on the budget will be debated by the Dems after he attaches it as a rider to another piece of legislation.

Clinton supported the line item veto when it was passed by congress in 1996. It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998 by a majority decision in an opinion written by Stevens and joined by Reinquist, Thomas, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Souter with Scalia, O’Connor and Breyer dissenting. McConnell wants a second bite at that apple – so what?

I’m sorry, this is TOO good not to repeat, MAN I am STOKED!!!

Pelosi told Sawyer, “[W]e will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war
He has dug a hole so deep he can’t even see the light on this. It’s a tragedy. It’s a historic blunder.” Asked about reports that President Bush has already begun increasing U.S. troop levels by 3,500 soldiers, Pelosi said, “The president knows that because the troops are in harm’s way that we won’t cut off the resources. That’s why he’s moving so quickly to put them in harm’s way.”

nancy gets it right and NAILS BUSH TO THE WALL

wow, I can’t say how excited I am, she is holding his feet to the FIRE, she is bringing him DOWN!

I read the WaPo political Q&A today and someone (and I wish I could remember who, just so I could give them credit) suggested Congress fully fund the war but cut ALL OTHER Pentagon spending requests, (i.e. weapons research, supply replenishments to other bases; in short anything not directly related to the war in Iraq.) in order to pay for the war. Cutting funding for the war may not be possible, and probaly unwise, but that doesn’t mean the runaway budget deficit can’t be trimmed. I’m sure a suggestion like that will get the Joint Chiefs’ attention rather quickly.