squirmy and weaselly!

But cockroaches hate the light!

waiting for the afternoon news Fredo dump.

That is one of the coolest photos I’ve ever seen! Incredible!

The Senate really needs to update their rules. What I’d like to know is whay didn’t any Dem Senators do this when they were the minority? Why the helpless act?

Fozzetti @
5

The Senate really needs to update their rules. What I’d like to know is whay didn’t any Dem Senators do this when they were the minority? Why the helpless act?

They tried it a couple of times, especially later on. But the thing is that this maneuver is (or used to be, before the GOP took over Congress) considered to be slimy in the extreme, and principled legislators generally avoided it.

my immediate thought was lieberman (remember the funny money spent out of petty cash this summer?)… but he’s not on the list.

and yeah, i know it’s supposed to be a republican – but you can’t tell me that leiberman isn’t one.

My first thought was Trent Lott.

I like this comment from the myrtepeert link under the photo:

How’d he get up there?

spurious @ 8

My first thought was Trent Lott.

But so many troglodytes to choose from!

Ten bucks on Mel.

the magic 8 ball says it is Trent.

OT — I know it’s your blog, Christy, Jane, but this comment left downstairs is incredibly valuable and worth attention on a post. Thanks.

Senator Gregg’s office doesn’t know anything about this and cannot comment.

I don’t see Ted Stevens name on that list.
He came to mind for not understanding how the internet works and I figured he would try to block the requirement because it had to do with toobz and trucks and them pesky email things.

puesto — from the previous thread;

cough, cough, — it is “shone” not “shined”.

The tension mounts. Who will be voted off on this afternoon’s episode off Friday News Dump? Alberto Gonzales is the media favorite right now, after his disastrous performance in front of the Senate yesterday. But my money is on Iraq War Architect Paul Wolfowitz, who is under fire for giving his Libyan-born mistress a five-figure salary hike and is now MIA. Let’s see what happens…

The list above was compiled after a number of calls were made and the folks making them got answers from staffers on this. It’s not a random list — it’s the folks who have not given a flat out yay or nay.

Christy! thanks for everything yesterday
and thanks for keeping the sun shining on the gov’mnt

Rayne @ 13:

Yes, very important comment that I missed in last thread. Thanks.

Senator Snowe’s office did not find the bill right away, thought I might be mistaken. They found it after some looking and said she’d not commented on it but doubted that she would be blocking it.

selise @
7

my immediate thought was lieberman (remember the funny money spent out of petty cash this summer?)… but he’s not on the list.

and yeah, i know it’s supposed to be a republican – but you can’t tell me that leiberman isn’t one.

DITTO………………..

selise @
7

my immediate thought was lieberman (remember the funny money spent out of petty cash this summer?)… but he’s not on the list.

and yeah, i know it’s supposed to be a republican – but you can’t tell me that leiberman isn’t one.

I was thinking the same thing. “Republican” could just be a Freudian slip by Feingold.

Rayne @ 13

OT — I know it’s your blog, Christy, Jane, but this comment left downstairs is incredibly valuable and worth attention on a post. Thanks.

That’s just sickening.

I remmeber when Abu was pulling his “support the troops (career employees). I wanted to scream throught the radio that he’d obliterated the ranks of career employees.

What a putz.

Hats off to sen Feingold for a reasonable start. We need to go as lot further too, and set a fixed limit on how much our representatives may spend, as happens in Holland, Germany, UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, you know, everywhere that they actually have democracy, and not a gang of thugs who can buy or be bribed into their positions and then appoint thousands of crackpots to run our lives.

The Democratically-controlled house and Senate (just) would make the country very pleased if they began to address such things. They need not be scared about not having enough money to throw at their next election, everyone would be in the same boat.

OT to Biodun. Your comment from a couple days ago about the ruling global elite being a condominium. Very apt description, IMHO. The elite have their exclusive areas, and joint use of the limited common. In contrast, the rest of us are down here in general common just struggling to survive. Meanwhile the MSM tells us we’re living fee simple and we just aren’t pulling hard enough on our bootstraps to get ahead. No?

Just spoke with Senator Roberts’ office – woman claims that he has not placed a hold on the bill. Hard to know if she knew what she was talking about or just brushing me off…

Trent Lott: possible

Olympia Snowe: not

Good morning again. I don’t know anything at all about this topic. Will sit and “listen” for now.

Pardon OT EPU from last thread, but LJ/Aquaria @ 133

Ah found a link to the original incarnation of Ole 60 grit. This is when FDL was on blogspot and used Haloscan. Ah, those were the days!

I followed that link but couldn’t find any mentions of “grit” or “60″ that looked relevant…?

OT – Barney Frank on CSPAN1…

OT – Leahy on Face the Nation Sunday.

..and now, off topic, back to the Osprey cam…mom was feeding moments ago.

The aide who would know in Senator Martinez office is not in today, and the person I spoke with has no idea.

Texas Betsy @ 29

Good morning again. I don’t know anything at all about this topic. Will sit and “listen” for now.

g’morning to you TexasBetsy – did the UPS folk ever show up?

newspaperbrat @ 35

Texas Betsy @ 29

Good morning again. I don’t know anything at all about this topic. Will sit and “listen” for now.

g’morning to you TexasBetsy – did the UPS folk ever show up?

Not UPS. Need to check the regular mailbox.

Warner’s office told me it is definitely not him.

retirin’ in five @ 26:

Thanks. Condominium indeed. Robert Kaplan, who writes for The Atlantic (and whose views I don’t always agree with), wrote an article over ten years ago titled “The Coming Anarchy.” His metaphor in that article for the global elite among the rest of us: Think of it as a limo driving through Harlem.

OT – Vermont Senate: Impeach the president

How about Mel Martinez?

S.O.S. from MA @ 30

Pardon OT EPU from last thread, but LJ/Aquaria @ 133

Ah found a link to the original incarnation of Ole 60 grit. This is when FDL was on blogspot and used Haloscan. Ah, those were the days!

I followed that link but couldn’t find any mentions of “grit” or “60″ that looked relevant…?

Do a search for sandpaper. You’ll see….

Rayne @ 13

OT — I know it’s your blog, Christy, Jane, but this comment left downstairs is incredibly valuable and worth attention on a post. Thanks.

I missed that comment, too – thanks Rayne. It would be interesting to hear more about Red-Viking’s experience and any others with similar experiences with DOJ.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 18

The list above was compiled after a number of calls were made and the folks making them got answers from staffers on this. It’s not a random list — it’s the folks who have not given a flat out yay or nay.

Pardon this EPU, but I’d like to get it on the record:

re: Schumer remarks on 750,000 Indian Affairs Comm. docs

To all,

I think I may have first posted the comment yesterday that’s feeding this part of the story.

For what it’s worth, when I posted, I was streaming the C-SPAN3 live feed through RealPlayer, in real time (so the comment by Schumer happened moments after the lunch break gavel). I was not paying attention to the video however, so I can’t describe the scene visually.

But I will stand by my post…during the lunch break press frenzy, crowd outbursts & background noise, a reporter asked Schumer something about document volume for Gonzo/USA Purge, and Schumer chuckled “wait until you see the Indian files”. (a bit quietly, as if turning his head to address just the questioner and not the entire gaggle.)

It was there, but I doubt I’d be able to extract & link to it in any practical way.

Thanks,

Acting Interim EPU Steward
:)

S.O.S. from MA @
30

Pardon OT EPU from last thread, but LJ/Aquaria @ 133

Ah found a link to the original incarnation of Ole 60 grit. This is when FDL was on blogspot and used Haloscan. Ah, those were the days!

I followed that link but couldn’t find any mentions of “grit” or “60″ that looked relevant…?

S.O.S. I followed linkie as well. About 2/3 way down the story there’s a bit about Kate O’Beirne and a “nickname” for her with the line about that’s why she won’t be wearing taffeta.

Not feeling the love (or functionality) from the “edit this comment” link. I just meant to point out that no one would have given a flat-out yay or the search would be over.

Gunga Djinn @ 44

Pardon this EPU, but I’d like to get it on the record:

re: Schumer remarks on 750,000 Indian Affairs Comm. docs

To all,

I think I may have first posted the comment yesterday that’s feeding this part of the story.

For what it’s worth, when I posted, I was streaming the C-SPAN3 live feed through RealPlayer, in real time (so the comment by Schumer happened moments after the lunch break gavel). I was not paying attention to the video however, so I can’t describe the scene visually.

But I will stand by my post…during the lunch break press frenzy, crowd outbursts & background noise, a reporter asked Schumer something about document volume for Gonzo/USA Purge, and Schumer chuckled “wait until you see the Indian files”. (a bit quietly, as if turning his head to address just the questioner and not the entire gaggle.)

It was there, but I doubt I’d be able to extract & link to it in any practical way.

Thanks,

Acting Interim EPU Steward
:)

Does this help? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/15/114515/619

ralphbon @ 46

Not feeling the love (or functionality) from the “edit this comment” link. I just meant to point out that no one would have given a flat-out yay or the search would be over.

Unless they are lying.

My money’s on Pat Roberts, with Martinez and Kyl vying for a close second.

ifthethunderdontgetya @ 40

How about Mel Martinez?

Up my bet on Mel to $100

S.O.S. from MA @
30

Pardon OT EPU from last thread, but LJ/Aquaria @ 133

Ah found a link to the original incarnation of Ole 60 grit. This is when FDL was on blogspot and used Haloscan. Ah, those were the days!

I followed that link but couldn’t find any mentions of “grit” or “60″ that looked relevant…?

http://firedoglake.blogspot.co…..ntrol.html

Ol’ Dudd Gregg is a good option as well. i would doubt Snowe or Warner as they appear to have some principle, at least as far as any
republic does these days.

ralphbon @ 46

Not feeling the love (or functionality) from the “edit this comment” link. I just meant to point out that no one would have given a flat-out yay or the search would be over.

I’m confused. What are supposed to be doing then? I thought this was to put some pressure on these people to make their positions clear.

Cozumel @ 8:48,
Ahh, the good old days, eh?

morning, all.

I just found this set of Bush quotes rather amusing today (via Huffpost)

_”Politics comes and goes, but your principles don’t. And everybody wants to be loved _ not everybody. … You never heard anybody say, `I want to be despised, I’m running for office.’”

_”The best thing about my family is my wife. She is a great first lady. I know that sounds not very objective, but that’s how I feel. And she’s also patient. Putting up with me requires a lot of patience.”

_”There are jobs Americans aren’t doing. … If you’ve got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I’m talking about.”
(LOTF: this is my personal favorite)

_”There are some similarities, of course” between Iraq and Vietnam. “Death is terrible.”

_”I’ve been in politics long enough to know that polls just go poof at times.”

Bustednuckles @ 54

Cozumel @ 8:48,
Ahh, the good old days, eh?

The way back machine! LOL

By my count, we’ve lost Warner, Roberts, and probably Snowe from that list.

People with action on Martinez are still in the game.

Fozzetti @ 5

The Senate really needs to update their rules. What I’d like to know is whay didn’t any Dem Senators do this when they were the minority? Why the helpless act?

Me, too. I mean wtf. Could the Dems have stopped Alito w/ this ploy? The bankruptcy bill? The Military Commissions Act?
Really, enlighten me, cuz if it’s that easy, why didn’t we do it?

ralphbon @ 46

Not feeling the love (or functionality) from the “edit this comment” link. I just meant to point out that no one would have given a flat-out yay or the search would be over.

Its like a deduction puzzle. Identify the ‘NO’s and the last one open is the ‘YES’.

Solai @ 58

Fozzetti @ 5

The Senate really needs to update their rules. What I’d like to know is whay didn’t any Dem Senators do this when they were the minority? Why the helpless act?

Me, too. I mean wtf. Could the Dems have stopped Alito w/ this ploy? The bankruptcy bill? The Military Commissions Act?
Really, enlighten me, cuz if it’s that easy, why didn’t we do it?

We were waiting for something important. Ugh!

Solai @
58

Fozzetti @ 5

The Senate really needs to update their rules. What I’d like to know is whay didn’t any Dem Senators do this when they were the minority? Why the helpless act?

Me, too. I mean wtf. Could the Dems have stopped Alito w/ this ploy? The bankruptcy bill? The Military Commissions Act?
Really, enlighten me, cuz if it’s that easy, why didn’t we do it?

Just FYI, here’s a link to a proposal from 2002 to eliminate these secret holds.

regarding my post @ 55, digby has a great post that explains Bush’s comment about how Iraq is not like Vietnam. As always, digby nails it.
Bush says Iraq is not like Vietnam because…

My short list on this: Kyl, Roberts, Martinez, Lott, in order of decreasing probability.

EPU’d, reposting:
Had the thought that if the respected senators from Vermont and RI want to get a little deeper into this they might want to look into these:

Coaching before hearings – are nominees coached in how to lie when answering questions about setting aside their political etc views when making decisions in their jobs? are members of the committee coached as to what questions to ask or avoid asking?

Political criteria for nominees – who does the selection and vetting of nominees? are political considerations the primary consideration in selection of nominees for non-partisan positions?

And then call as witnesses Roberts, Alito, Gonzo, Brownie, Hatch, Cornyn, and Specter. Just to make sure that we know what’s going on in our names.

I’d also like to know how Roberts, Alito, and Scalia would explain to a daughter or granddaughter that a medical procedure that could save her life is now illegal, if she were in the position of needing a late term abortion for medical reasons (which, AFAIK, is the only reason anyone has one that close to term).

Ticked off at this administration and what they’ve done? Oh yeah. (And I’d like to hear more about this prescription database system that even medical pros didn’t know existed until this week! Potential for misuse? Can we say h*ll yes?)

Oh yeah: Specter. He gets revved up in his attacks and then when you expect him to deliver the coup de grace he delivers a hug and a pat on the head of the witness. Arrgh!

please pardon an outlander but how can such a thing be done anonymously?shouted out from the back of the room?phoned in?email?letter?classic kidnappers note of cut up newspaper?not trying to be too smart alec here but when the message is received it has to come to an accepted point from somewhere.

Lou Costello @ 47:

Yes, thank you. But I noticed some comments on the last thread about people searching the Gonzo tapes unsuccessfully for the Schumer remark I had mentioned.

Just wanted to re-affirm it’s existance; not a fabrication or rumor on my part.

(and not a “I don’t recall saying that”)

:)

may @ 64

please pardon an outlander but how can such a thing be done anonymously?shouted out from the back of the room?phoned in?email?letter?classic kidnappers note of cut up newspaper?not trying to be too smart alec here but when the message is received it has to come to an accepted point from somewhere.

IANAL (or a Senator) but the hold has power because lots of Senate business is done by unanimous consent. A member can inform his leadership that s/he will object to bringing a bill up, and I believe there is custom that that request can remain anonymous. Don’t know if the leadership knows and won’t tell, or if there’s a special anonymous procedure.

But it’s gutless not to put your name on it.

wait until you see the Indian files”.

Just listened to it again. I heard “You must read the Legal Times.” Then something about being envious. 3 hours, 10 min, 51 sec into session now posted on C-SPAN, if that’s what you’re referring to.

Rightwinger Smerconish slated for Imus spot.

-GSD

GSD @ 68

Rightwinger Smerconish slated for Imus spot.

-GSD

this guy?

Mutant Poodle @ 66

may @ 64

please pardon an outlander but how can such a thing be done anonymously?shouted out from the back of the room?phoned in?email?letter?classic kidnappers note of cut up newspaper?not trying to be too smart alec here but when the message is received it has to come to an accepted point from somewhere.

IANAL (or a Senator) but the hold has power because lots of Senate business is done by unanimous consent. A member can inform his leadership that s/he will object to bringing a bill up, and I believe there is custom that that request can remain anonymous. Don’t know if the leadership knows and won’t tell, or if there’s a special anonymous procedure.

But it’s gutless not to put your name on it.

I remember the TV show West Wing did something on this. IIRC, Josh discovered that it was one of the putative sponsors of a bill who put the hold. He outed the Senator involved. Of course, we are talking TV which has less reflection of reality than even the beltway.

GSD @ 68

Rightwinger Smerconish slated for Imus spot.

-GSD

Oh, joy. But I guess you couldn’t get a lefty to do teenage boy humor…

GSD @ 68

Rightwinger Smerconish slated for Imus spot.

-GSD

TV or Radio spot? If radio, who gives sh*t what WFAN AM is doing. If TV, MSNBC/NBC will have some ’splainin’ to do.

9:03 AM Arizona Time

Spoke with Kyl’s office and expressed my interest in whether Kyl was the Senator who put the hold on S223? Was Kyl opposed to transparency in government?

The aide replied, “I would be very suprised if the Senator would do something shady like this”.

That’s what I know in Arizona.

Gunga Djinn @ 44

Pardon this EPU, but I’d like to get it on the record:

re: Schumer remarks on 750,000 Indian Affairs Comm. docs

To all,

I think I may have first posted the comment yesterday that’s feeding this part of the story.

For what it’s worth, when I posted, I was streaming the C-SPAN3 live feed through RealPlayer, in real time (so the comment by Schumer happened moments after the lunch break gavel). I was not paying attention to the video however, so I can’t describe the scene visually.

But I will stand by my post…during the lunch break press frenzy, crowd outbursts & background noise, a reporter asked Schumer something about document volume for Gonzo/USA Purge, and Schumer chuckled “wait until you see the Indian files”. (a bit quietly, as if turning his head to address just the questioner and not the entire gaggle.)

It was there, but I doubt I’d be able to extract & link to it in any practical way.

Thanks,

Acting Interim EPU Steward
:)

at 3:10:45 of the c-span webstream “Senate Judiciary Hearing on the Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys – Morning Session” in the archives.

dakine01 @ 72

GSD @ 68

Rightwinger Smerconish slated for Imus spot.

-GSD

TV or Radio spot? If radio, who gives sh*t what WFAN AM is doing. If TV, MSNBC/NBC will have some ’splainin’ to do.

Is it just WFAN or CBS Radio syndication?

Rightwinger Smerconish will be on CBS radio, not simulcast on MSNBC.

GSD @ 68

Rightwinger Smerconish slated for Imus spot.

-GSD

Please say it isn’t true. More trash talk coming…more trash talk rewarded at MSNBC.

I also spoke to Warner’s office, and I can confirm that they are saying it was not him.

dakine01 @ 72

GSD @ 68

Rightwinger Smerconish slated for Imus spot.

-GSD

TV or Radio spot? If radio, who gives sh*t what WFAN AM is doing. If TV, MSNBC/NBC will have some ’splainin’ to do.

He’s being considered for the MSNBC TV spot. Makes me sad and angry. I had such hopes that a progressive would get that spot. What a naive fool I am.

twolf1 @
39

OT – Vermont Senate: Impeach the president

good on ‘em. now if some state will pass a binding resolution for impeachment we can get this thing rolling. i have to disagree that this would hinder us getting the troops out of Iraq. there is no question that President Pelosi, in three months or however much time she would have, will get the troops out of Iraq quicker than will happen any other way. we need to get seriously behind an impeachment process whether or not it gets Fuckwad and Cheneycakes out and on their way to Uruguay/Dubai or Ouagadougou. this boil is just going to keep getting bigger unless we prick the festering boil and start boiling the pricks. the poison that’s in the blood of this nation cannot be sweated out or waited out. it requires surgery now.

eCAHNomics @ 67

wait until you see the Indian files”.

Just listened to it again. I heard “You must read the Legal Times.” Then something about being envious. 3 hours, 10 min, 51 sec into session now posted on C-SPAN, if that’s what you’re referring to.

ha! looks like several of us went back to check.

i heard it too… but not enough of the context to really understand what schumer meant. am interested in to know what others can hear.

If it’s a secret hold, can’t the Senator’s office just lie and say “no, not us”?

Elliott @ 82

If it’s a secret hold, can’t the Senator’s office just lie and say “no, not us”?

Then when it gets out he’ll have to explain the secret hold and the lie.

-GSD

But we all know this…

“‘Devastating’ Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming”

http://www.editorandpublisher……1003574260

Mutant Poodle @ 66

may @ 64

please pardon an outlander but how can such a thing be done anonymously?shouted out from the back of the room?phoned in?email?letter?classic kidnappers note of cut up newspaper?not trying to be too smart alec here but when the message is received it has to come to an accepted point from somewhere.

IANAL (or a Senator) but the hold has power because lots of Senate business is done by unanimous consent. A member can inform his leadership that s/he will object to bringing a bill up, and I believe there is custom that that request can remain anonymous. Don’t know if the leadership knows and won’t tell, or if there’s a special anonymous procedure.

But it’s gutless not to put your name on it.

drdave @ 73

9:03 AM Arizona Time

Spoke with Kyl’s office and expressed my interest in whether Kyl was the Senator who put the hold on S223? Was Kyl opposed to transparency in government?

The aide replied, “I would be very suprised if the Senator would do something shady like this”.

That’s what I know in Arizona.

so when you do find out who it is, that individual is on record as having balked an extremely popular bipartisan effort.
why would anybody want to put themself in that position?

GSD @ 83

Elliott @ 82

If it’s a secret hold, can’t the Senator’s office just lie and say “no, not us”?

Then when it gets out he’ll have to explain the secret hold and the lie.

-GSD

OK, I see.
Thanks GSD

I just called Pat Robert’s office. I know someone already called, but I figured it would get it higher on their radar to have another caller.

The answer was a definite no, “He has not put an anonymous hold on the bill.”

IIRC, this isn’t the first time this hinky shit has been pulled by the R’s.

Re: “Ruh Roh” from previous thread…
Saw a funny bumper sticker yesterday:
“What Would Scooby Do?”
It’s been a tough week. Thought I’d share a smile.
Fight on, pups, fight on.

plainjane @ 84

But we all know this…

“‘Devastating’ Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming”

http://www.editorandpublisher……1003574260

Wow, thanks for sharing! Will be keeping ears & eyes peeled for this.

may @ 85

Mutant Poodle @ 66

may @ 64

please pardon an outlander but how can such a thing be done anonymously?shouted out from the back of the room?phoned in?email?letter?classic kidnappers note of cut up newspaper?not trying to be too smart alec here but when the message is received it has to come to an accepted point from somewhere.

IANAL (or a Senator) but the hold has power because lots of Senate business is done by unanimous consent. A member can inform his leadership that s/he will object to bringing a bill up, and I believe there is custom that that request can remain anonymous. Don’t know if the leadership knows and won’t tell, or if there’s a special anonymous procedure.

But it’s gutless not to put your name on it.

drdave @ 73

9:03 AM Arizona Time

Spoke with Kyl’s office and expressed my interest in whether Kyl was the Senator who put the hold on S223? Was Kyl opposed to transparency in government?

The aide replied, “I would be very suprised if the Senator would do something shady like this”.

That’s what I know in Arizona.

so when you do find out who it is, that individual is on record as having balked an extremely popular bipartisan effort.
why would anybody want to put themself in that position?

it’s not logical. some people hate themselves and America and yet are still arrogant enough to pull a sneaky trick like this. it’s called getting even, even when you know you’re wrong….

I was just told that Senator Crapo does not have a hold on the bill.

oops! sorry about the Zig!

plainjane at 84 and everyone — FreePress is havng some house parties with regard to the Moyers documentary. You can find information on them here. HTH!

GSD @ 83

Elliott @ 82

If it’s a secret hold, can’t the Senator’s office just lie and say “no, not us”?

Then when it gets out he’ll have to explain the secret hold and the lie.

-GSD

Then we should be recording the calls. Would Skype work?

OT–

Re: Smerconish.

Read this exchange between him and Tweety last night on Hardball:

SMERCONISH: All right. I wish that he had, and I—you know, I think you bring me in here every once in awhile because you need a sanity check from outside the Beltway, from your old hometown, so let me give you one.

This is a total Beltway story. [Note: He means Plamegate] It is so damn confusing, I don‘t think it‘s going to have any net effect with voters whatsoever unless we learn that the president himself decided to out Valerie Plame in order to embarrass Joe Wilson.

This is in the category of Whitewater, which was some confusing land transaction, and not in the category of Watergate which was a burglary that we Americans out here beyond the Beltway can all appreciate and understand.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me help you as you speak for the entire world beyond this city.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: Let me tell you what I know and I know audiences are damn interested in this because I do check on occasion how many people are watching and ever since we began covering this story, there‘s been increased interest because of this reason, Michael.

It doesn‘t have a damn thing to do with what you just talked about. It has to do with why we went to war with Iraq and the case made was we faced a nuclear threat from Iraq, not only a nuclear weapon that was going to be in the hands of this guy Saddam Hussein, but he had a weapon to deliver that vehicle. That was a real threat.

Tweety is right on this one. Smerconish doesn’t know what the f*ck he’s talking about. CBS radio (actually Westwood) can have him. But he will not be simulcast on MSNBC.

Senator Warner does not have a hold on the bill.

Senator Lott’s office “has no idea if he’s the one who has the anonymous hold. Okay? Thank you, maam.”

Boston1775 @ 98

Senator Lott’s office “has no idea if he’s the one who has the anonymous hold. Okay? Thank you, maam.”

I didn’t know Mrs. Gonzales worked in Lott’s office.

Boston1775 @ 98

Senator Lott’s office “has no idea if he’s the one who has the anonymous hold. Okay? Thank you, maam.”

That’s not exactly a “No” is it!?

re 91
yairbut,it’s a lose/lose position

Texas Betsy @ 95

GSD @ 83

Elliott @ 82

If it’s a secret hold, can’t the Senator’s office just lie and say “no, not us”?

Then when it gets out he’ll have to explain the secret hold and the lie.

-GSD

Then we should be recording the calls. Would Skype work?

IANAL, but I believe you MUST disclose that you are recorfding a phone conversation or you can get in BIG trouble.

Biodun @ 96

OT–

Re: Smerconish.

Read this exchange between him and Tweety last night on Hardball:

SMERCONISH: All right. I wish that he had, and I—you know, I think you bring me in here every once in awhile because you need a sanity check from outside the Beltway, from your old hometown, so let me give you one.

This is a total Beltway story. [Note: He means Plamegate] It is so damn confusing, I don‘t think it‘s going to have any net effect with voters whatsoever unless we learn that the president himself decided to out Valerie Plame in order to embarrass Joe Wilson.

This is in the category of Whitewater, which was some confusing land transaction, and not in the category of Watergate which was a burglary that we Americans out here beyond the Beltway can all appreciate and understand.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me help you as you speak for the entire world beyond this city.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: Let me tell you what I know and I know audiences are damn interested in this because I do check on occasion how many people are watching and ever since we began covering this story, there‘s been increased interest because of this reason, Michael.

It doesn‘t have a damn thing to do with what you just talked about. It has to do with why we went to war with Iraq and the case made was we faced a nuclear threat from Iraq, not only a nuclear weapon that was going to be in the hands of this guy Saddam Hussein, but he had a weapon to deliver that vehicle. That was a real threat.

Tweety is right on this one. Smerconish doesn’t know what the f*ck he’s talking about. CBS radio (actually Westwood) can have him. But he will not be simulcast on MSNBC.

Tweety’s gettin’ a bit more radical these days. Or perhaps I’m just catching him at the right times.

According to Drudge Report (and I hope it’s another lie) Smerconish is to have a trial run on MSNBC

dakine01 @ 45

… S.O.S. I followed linkie as well. About 2/3 way down the story there’s a bit about Kate O’Beirne …

Got it… :) that and a bit of Googling satisfied my curiosity… Yay (((Jane)))

Someone out there is scared.

They watched in horror as the blogs devoured the DOJ document dumps. “But . . . but . . . that was supposed to take them weeks to get through!”

Someone does *not* want folks like us looking through their campaign finance reports in near-real time.

OK, that doesn’t narrow the field down much (I’m with Lee Baby @ 49, btw), but it brings a smile to my face, thinking that some Republican in the Senate is this scared.

Smerconish is a pompous arse, full-of-himself bloviator. i don’t know if he’s into racist trash talk like Don Anus but he would fit right in with somebody like Larry Kudlow …….

IANAL

What does this stand for?

OK.. I just checked their voting records on congressional affairs/ethics on votesmart.

I think we can probably eliminate Ensign, Kyl, Vitter, Crapo and Snowe who have OK records in support of sleaze (basically, opposed only measures that the president clearly came out against.. which can be ascribed to partisan as opposed to evil/corrupt motivations. Kyl seems unusually strong on anti-sleaze.

Lott also seems unlikely to me. Despite being evil, he has (vaguely) voted to support non-partisan anti-sleaze measures.. Don’t rule him out, but rate him a maybe at worst.

Gregg and Warner have mixed records on sleaze and remain suspects, but not quite as likely as the dirty two, below.

Roberts consistently votes against ethics measures.. in fact, he has nearly a perfect score in supporting sleaze. Martinez’s record isn’t quite as crappy, but it’s nearly so… so , anyway, Roberts and Martinez should, I think, be the top suspects.

Texas Betsy @ 107

IANAL

What does this stand for?

I am not a lawyer.

S.O.S. from MA @ 105

dakine01 @ 45

… S.O.S. I followed linkie as well. About 2/3 way down the story there’s a bit about Kate O’Beirne …

Got it… :) that and a bit of Googling satisfied my curiosity… Yay (((Jane)))

you don’t mean you were googlin’ O’Beirne directly to satisfy your curiosity, does it?

Texas Betsy @ 108

IANAL

What does this stand for?

I am not a lawyer

OT–

Re: Smerconish:

Drudge is not a reliable source. MSNBC has not confirmed a trial run.

Mandrake (#103):

Tweetie knows which way the wind blows, especially in Washingtown…..
but he don’t play a geetar or a harmonica.

Fresh thready goodness up for the reading.

Elliott @ 111

… you don’t mean you were googlin’ O’Beirne directly to satisfy your curiosity, does it?

Naah, http://tinyurl.com/2d8pvt was enuf 4 me :)

fahrender @ 107

Smerconish is a pompous arse, full-of-himself bloviator. i don’t know if he’s into racist trash talk like Don Anus but he would fit right in with somebody like Larry Kudlow …….

I wanted a liberal. And it would even make financial sense. Americans are begging for someone who will tell them the truth. There is a huge audience out there for this perspective. It would be a hit. Imagine the only show on the air that would not be afraid to show a liberal bias.

Senator Gregg’s office still does not know. I’d left a voicemail before for the Communications Director and I almost got put through to her this time… that is until she just stepped out.

Texas Betsy @ 108

IANAL

What does this stand for?

I Am Not A Lawyer. Typically you can find the answer to all of these Qs by googling the acronym.

LJ/Aquaria @ 41. I followed the google keywords “sandpaper o’beirne” and found an interesting oldie from Salon that Trex might have some fun with.

http://blogs.salon.com/0003935/2004/09/26.html

Mandrake @ 90

plainjane @ 84

But we all know this…

“‘Devastating’ Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming”

editorandpublisher

Wow, thanks for sharing! Will be keeping ears & eyes peeled for this.

The sad thing about this is that it comes in the fifth year of the war. Put another way, there is a 4-plus year time lag in the conscience of the mainstream press that nevertheless operates on a 24/7 news cycle. And that is only for those that (so far) have a conscience about the war. (You can bet Kristol and Safire do not, and neither has a child in uniform, I would venture to say). Gives new meaning to the term “cognitive dissonance.”

But at bottom, the explanation is clear: cover your ass, protect your job, and keep those cocktail weenies coming.

S.O.S. from MA @ 116

Elliott @ 111

… you don’t mean you were googlin’ O’Beirne directly to satisfy your curiosity, does it?

Naah, http://tinyurl.com/2d8pvt was enuf 4 me :)

whew, for a minute there, I thought you figured it out first hand.
;)

Solai @ 117

fahrender @ 107

Smerconish is a pompous arse, full-of-himself bloviator. i don’t know if he’s into racist trash talk like Don Anus but he would fit right in with somebody like Larry Kudlow …….

I wanted a liberal. And it would even make financial sense. Americans are begging for someone who will tell them the truth. There is a huge audience out there for this perspective. It would be a hit. Imagine the only show on the air that would not be afraid to show a liberal bias.

but that’s not what NBC really does (except maybe for Keith and a very few others). they will keep whoring the demographics and try to find somebody that will appeal to the Don Anus crowd)…..

Smerconish is good news for us – he’s so clueless, he’d burn himself smoking a cigarette.

Did a little bit more research on vote-smart and senate.gov. My odds are:– 80% Roberts, 15% Martinez, 3% Lott, 1% Gregg, 1% somebody else.

Elliott @ 82
If it’s a secret hold, can’t the Senator’s office just lie and say “no, not us”?
————
GSD @ 83

Then when it gets out he’ll have to explain the secret hold and the lie.

-GSD
————
Texas Betsy @ 95

Then we should be recording the calls. Would Skype work?
————
Mutant Poodle @ 102
IANAL, but I believe you MUST disclose that you are recorfding a phone conversation or you can get in BIG trouble.

It varies state by state and depends on the states involved

http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.tel.tape.law.html

Blub @ 125

Did a little bit more research on vote-smart and senate.gov. My odds are:– 80% Roberts, 15% Martinez, 3% Lott, 1% Gregg, 1% somebody else.

interesting analysis!

Elliott @
127

interesting analysis!

Well, Roberts’ voting record is pure crap and his lobbyist contacts make him seem to be bought and paid for. Martinez seems to be only slightly better. Lott just doesn’t feel right to me, but since he’s evil, it’s always good to keep him on the list. Gregg’s ambivalent on sleaze, and the others (including Kyl) seem incredibly unlikely to me. At worst (Kyl and Warner) they’re just party line voters, whose record on congressional affairs votes reflects the party line and not a propensity for sleaze.

Yes, not disclosing you are recording in many states is a wiretapping rap and is quite illegal.

-GSD

Elliott @ 127

Blub @ 125

Did a little bit more research on vote-smart and senate.gov. My odds are:– 80% Roberts, 15% Martinez, 3% Lott, 1% Gregg, 1% somebody else.

interesting analysis!

But Roberts has denied twice. Three times and the cock will crow, I guess…

Pat Roberts office said it wasn’t him. Another senator’s aide explained to me that Republican’s have a 72 hour rule on disclosing who put a hold on a bill.As opposed to Democrats who allow a non-disclosure to continue indefinitely….?

Texas Betsy @ 108

IANAL

What does this stand for?

You can Google any acronym: http://www.google.com/search?s…..mp;q=IANAL

But Roberts has denied twice. Three times and the cock will crow, I guess…

Well, assuming they’re not lying through their evil teeth, that would leave Martinez as #1 suspect. ‘course it could still be Lott.. playing some type of shell game, as opposed to just being sleazy. Since he’s evil.

eCAHNomics @
67

wait until you see the Indian files”.

Just listened to it again. I heard “You must read the Legal Times.” Then something about being envious. 3 hours, 10 min, 51 sec into session now posted on C-SPAN, if that’s what you’re referring to.

OK, thanks eCAHNomics, I was prepared to do the mea culpa after your post, and went back to C-SPAN to listen again with the timing you provided.

Here’s what I got (timing approximate):

3:08 Leahy, on camera, making open comments to gaggle at podium.

3:09 Specter, on camera, making open comments to gaggle at podium.

3:10 C-SPAN commentator making out-tro about live coverage of Gonzo hearings continuing after the lunch break, camera frames entire room.

3:10:45 C-SPAN commentator ends, live mic & full room camera frame, chatter, female voice chatting with Schumer out of camera frame.

Female Voice: (inaudible)
Schumer:”…you must be reading the Legal Times…wait till you see the Indian files!…
Female voice: “(chuckles)…the Indian files?”
Schumer:”(inaudible)…justtttt soooo many inconsistencies..(inaudible)”

3:11 inaudible background noise continues.

Rewind & second playback:

Female Voice & Schumer, garbled & mostly inaudible.

Rewind & third playback:

Female Voice & Schumer, garbled & mostly inaudible; “…legal times…just so many inconsistancies…”.

did about 3 more rewind & plays…

here’s what’s happening:
The data is there on the C-SPAN masters; digitization artifacts and digital-to-audio conversion artifacts are occurring in download, transmission, queing, caching, error correction stages, etc. (an aggregate, quasi-random aliasing effect of sorts, if I may.)

Bottom line: It’s there, and I stand by my original post from yesterday.

If you need more, I’ll be glad to testify under oath to the Congress (but we’ll probably need to subpeona the C-SPAN master, my DSL providers netware, my audio card manufacturers circuit diagrams and RealPlayers proprietary source code.)

(wink :)

Schumer:”…you must be reading the Legal Times…wait till you see the Indian files!…
Female voice: “(chuckles)…the Indian files?”

Your ears are better than mine. Couldn’t make out a word of that.

eCAHNomics @ 135:

Your ears are better than mine. Couldn’t make out a word of that.

It’s my amp, eCAHNomics. The “acute” knob goes to 11. Most amps just go to 10. Mine goes to 11. Right there, past the 10 notch…11.

:D

Gunga Djinn @ 134

Here’s what I got (timing approximate):

3:08 Leahy, on camera, making open comments to gaggle at podium.

3:09 Specter, on camera, making open comments to gaggle at podium.

3:10 C-SPAN commentator making out-tro about live coverage of Gonzo hearings continuing after the lunch break, camera frames entire room.

3:10:45 C-SPAN commentator ends, live mic & full room camera frame, chatter, female voice chatting with Schumer out of camera frame.

Female Voice: (inaudible)
Schumer:”…you must be reading the Legal Times…wait till you see the Indian files!…
Female voice: “(chuckles)…the Indian files?”
Schumer:”(inaudible)…justtttt soooo many inconsistencies..(inaudible)”

3:11 inaudible background noise continues.

that is also what i heard. wish there was more… at least enough to get the context of the conversation.

as it is…. suggestive, but not conclusive (imo).

selise @ 7

my immediate thought was lieberman (remember the funny money spent out of petty cash this summer?)… but he’s not on the list.

and yeah, i know it’s supposed to be a republican – but you can’t tell me that leiberman isn’t one.

My gut thinks you have hit the nail square on the head! Remember Lieberman is neither Democrat nor Republican. He has been sucking up to the Neo-Cons quite a bit recently, and this has his finger prints all over it!

I am 99.9% sure it is Judd Greg, the snake in the grass, arm twisting, twisted senator from NH.

Selise @ 137,

This began as an off-the-cuff post by me yesterday in real time, to the effect “did anyone else just here Schumer say that the 75,000-document Indian file is going to be released?” LS or GSD corrected me by saying “it’s 750,000 documents!”

Today, I saw some posts by people trying to confirm “that Schumer/indian files release” thing.

I just wanted to take responsiblilty for the post, add a few clarifications, avoid any suspicions that I was rumor-milling, etc. Also was not attempting to “scoop” the DKos story linked above, which predates yesterdays hearings by almost a week.

Hope everyone understands, as my fingers are ready to give out, and I’m drowning in EPU.

(man oh man, now I understand this thing about a story “growing legs” :)

I’ll leave it with this, and answer any questions that may come up:

I think I heard Schumer suggest that the Indian files might be released.

sorry for any confusion.

I figured what the hey, i have 5 min, i’ll make a call. So I picked Trent Lott and called the # above.

I asked the receptionist “I’m calling to find out if Senator Lott is the anonymous Senator who has placed a hold on Senate bill 223.”

))) (friendly) I wouldn’t know that.

Oh I know that. But could you find out?

))) Sir, I don’t, what is this bill? Are you in favor of it?

Oh. Yes. It’s Senate Bill 223, sponsored by Senator Feingold, and it’s a bill to require Senate campaign reports to be filed electronically.

))) I have no idea what his stand is, but are you in favor of it?

Yes, I am. I know you want to just mark that in a checkoff column, but the reason I’m calling is to find out if he is the Republican Senator who has placed the anonymous hold on that bill.

))) I have no way of knowing, but I will pass along your concern –

Is there a deputy you can ask, because it’s pretty simple, yes or no, there’s a list of 12 Senators who have not gone on record about this bill, and I simply want to know if Sen. Lott is the Senator who placed the anonymous hold on it?

))) I will pass along your comments.

Thanks you and could you add, please, “If you ARE the one Senator, could you please release that hold?”

))) I will pass your comment along.

—

hah hah! Like fat chance the comment goes anywhere, but I just liked asking the straight-forward absurd question “Could you find out if he’s the one who placed the anonymous hold on the bill, and if so, ask him to release the hold?”

fun with government, 101

John Ensign’s office commented only to the effect that they did not think it was him.

selise @ 137

Gunga Djinn @ 134

Here’s what I got (timing approximate):

3:08 Leahy, on camera, making open comments to gaggle at podium.

3:09 Specter, on camera, making open comments to gaggle at podium.

3:10 C-SPAN commentator making out-tro about live coverage of Gonzo hearings continuing after the lunch break, camera frames entire room.

3:10:45 C-SPAN commentator ends, live mic & full room camera frame, chatter, female voice chatting with Schumer out of camera frame.

Female Voice: (inaudible)
Schumer:”…you must be reading the Legal Times…wait till you see the Indian files!…
Female voice: “(chuckles)…the Indian files?”
Schumer:”(inaudible)…justtttt soooo many inconsistencies..(inaudible)”

3:11 inaudible background noise continues.

that is also what i heard. wish there was more… at least enough to get the context of the conversation.

as it is…. suggestive, but not conclusive (imo).

This spells out what he’s talking about: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/15/114515/619

Gunga Djinn @ 140

Selise @ 137,

This began as an off-the-cuff post by me yesterday in real time, to the effect “did anyone else just here Schumer say that the 75,000-document Indian file is going to be released?” LS or GSD corrected me by saying “it’s 750,000 documents!”

Today, I saw some posts by people trying to confirm “that Schumer/indian files release” thing.

I just wanted to take responsiblilty for the post, add a few clarifications, avoid any suspicions that I was rumor-milling, etc. Also was not attempting to “scoop” the DKos story linked above, which predates yesterdays hearings by almost a week.

Hope everyone understands, as my fingers are ready to give out, and I’m drowning in EPU.

(man oh man, now I understand this thing about a story “growing legs” :)

I’ll leave it with this, and answer any questions that may come up:

I think I heard Schumer suggest that the Indian files might be released.

sorry for any confusion.

appreciate your post! that’s what we’re all here for… to try to figure things out together.

I just called Senator Snowe’s office (I am a Maine resident.) I asked the person who answered about Sen Feingold’s bill and, before I could idenifty it by number, she said, “you mean S. 223?”. When I said yes, and asked whether Snowe put the hold on it, she said that she couldn’t tell me that, but could say the Snowe supports the bill. When I asked more particularly whether she could find out, she said they don’t disclose that kind of thing. I told her to pass on my objection to that kind of policy.
That being said – and still without any concrete data or response from Snowe – I doubt she it the one who put the hold on – she’s usually consistently above-board.

I called each senator and either received a negative to the hold, that they support the bill or an unqualified

I do not think so

or

I doubt it

other than KYL or LOTT who refused to deny the possibility. A very friendly and informative staffer named Mike at Sen. Gregg’s office mentioned it was RNC policy to make an announcement within 72 hours of the hold as to who would have placed it.

Its totally Lott.