The essence of the new agreement is that most of the amendments will be subject to a simple up-or-down vote — if they get 50 votes, then they pass — while several of the amendments will require 60 votes to pass (allowing, in essence, the Republicans to filibuster those amendments without actually having to go to the Senate floor and engage in a real filibuster).
Senate Democratic leadership sources are trying to claim that this is some sort of victory for Senate Democrats, and echoing that sentiment, even some of the most insightful and knowledgeable around — such as McJoan at Daily Kos — are hailing the agreement as evidence that "Dems didn’t cave" and that "they held tough." Unless there is something I’m overlooking, I don’t understand that perspective at all.
It seems rather clear what happened here. There are certain amendments that are not going to get even 50 votes — including the Dodd/Feingold amendment to strip telecom immunity out of the bill — and, for that reason, Republicans were more than willing to agree to a 50-vote threshold, since they know those amendments won’t pass even in a simple up-or-down vote.
But then, there are other amendments which might be able to get 50 votes, but cannot get 60 votes — such as Feinstein’s amendment to transfer the telecom cases to the FISA court and her other amendment providing that FISA is the "exclusive means" for eavesdropping — and, thus, those are the amendments for which the GOP insisted upon a 60-vote requirement.
The whole agreement seems designed to ensure that the GOP gets everything they want — that they are able to defeat all of the pending amendments which Dick Cheney dislikes, and to do so without having to engage in a real filibuster. In what conceivable way is this an instance of "Dems not caving" or "holding tough?"
Dodd agreed to Unanimous Consent regarding the time limits to debate various amendments. Dodd will get up and talk about retroactive immunity, but this agreement limits what he can do to stop things from going forward. We’re trying to get clarification, but the short version seems to be that at the end of the day there will be a cloture vote unless there are 40 senators willing to stand with him — and there aren’t.
We’ll keep you posted on how it goes down, but it looks like the House is now driving this.
How this is anything other than utter capitulation to Mr. 25% JAR on Harry Reid’s part is beyond me.
Related posts:
- Senate Likely to Need 60 Votes to Insert Stupak Amendment into Health Care Bill
- House Voting Now On The Rule For Health Care Debate
- House Judiciary Committee to Propose PATRIOT and FISA Reforms
- Lieberman-Graham Threaten to Shut Down Senate, Add Detainee Photo Suppresion Amendment to FDA Tobacco Regulation Bill
- Public Option to Be Left Out of Merged Senate Bill?
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
NOOOOO
Coup D’Etat…one drip at a time…
Damn!
What a crock! All this work and NO Backbone!
Get rid of them all. FUCK!
Is Reid impeachable? Because he’s surely not doing the job we-the-public are paying him for.
(’Rubber stamp’ is not in the public version of his job description, AFAIK, and if there’s a secret version, it should be illegal.)
I am dumbfounded
I cannot take this
November can’t get here soon enough.
Yesterday I heard a conversation on FISA in MPR and I think I heard one of the guests say that retroactive immunity is unconstitutional. Can this law be challenged in court?
Yeah, I know, the Roberts Court. Well, we might’s well get all of ‘em on the record…so history will know who’s responsible for:
U.S. Constitution…R.I.P.
I cannot stand another second of politics tonight, this is driving me nutzo
see all tomorrow
Ooooooh, that hurts!
Fuck Hairless Reid.
-G
I can’t imagine what else they’ll accomplish before November. Even then we’re stuck with the most useless leadership on the planet.
Dammit, Edwards and now this. What have they got on Reid? Or his family? Can’t he resign and let someone who honors the constitution lead the fight? Arghhhh!!!
Thanks Jane I don’t like what I read but it is necessary that we have the information so we can now start formulating where we go next to ry and get this immunity removed from this bill!
Dugg it!
It’s time to man the phones and the toobz between now and Monday.
Jane, please put up your list of the Dems who voted the wrong way originally on this. Just maybe, public sentiment can save (sway) the day.
predictable outcome.
Pull back to the big picture. Go back to the PNAC documents and do a timeline forward…Cheney picking himself as VP…Bushco appointed by SCOTUS…spying starts early 2001…9/11…Patriot Act….and on and on and on….
It is all in the timeline….they are ruthless, and they will stop at nothing..
God Help Us.
The immunity in the bill covers 9-11 forward to PAA. Didn’t Nacchio suggest some bad acts prior to 9-11? Shouldn’t we still go after those?
Let’s not despair. As Darcy Burner learned today, we can be a blogSWARM!
Surprise!
SHIT!
(To coin a phrase)
Clinton and Obama were dragged kicking and screaming into nominally supporting Dodd and Feingold because they had something to lose — the support of engaged potential voters — if they hadn’t.
What do Feinstein and Schumer and the other Yellow Puddle Democrats have to lose by not backing Dodd and Feingold? I’m asking this seriously. What do they have to lose that we can see to it they do lose if they don’t stand opposed to cloture on Dodd’s filibuster? We need 40 votes against cloture. Is there no leverage we can bring to bear on the corporate Democrats to force them to do the right thing?
So what is always with the pretense of the Dems “fighting” in the first place?
Lucy!
Hehehe.
Feinstein is married to a war profiteer. She votes with the republics more than the Dems. Her husband was under investigation that all seems to have vanished.
Did she learn that? Have we heard from her?
Yeah. That was supposed to be a big cover story in The Nation a year or so ago and it got “disappeared.”
I thought the handwriting was on the wall when the votes the other day were 45-48, twice. We couldn’t even get 50 votes. This is going down on the day before Election Day if I read this right. That means that there are likely to be many empty seats on the 4th. Each of those seats must be considered the same as a no vote, because only the yes votes count in a situation wherein you need 50 votes to win. Same reason that we could never really gather enough support to impeach anyone. My disgust is immeasurable, but I can still count.
Adjusting my tin foil hat….
Just exactly are they using to keep these weak knee Dems in line?
Nothing, nothing could be worse than the crimes of GWB…. spill it and be free
Does anyone know if spine transplants are covered with the Congressional Health Plan?
Jane How do we get Harry removed as Majority Leader? Is there anything that can be done to remove him legally?
The only thing that would surprise me anymore is if the Dem Leadership actually stood their ground and fought for the American people and their base…who’ve they screwed again. They talk big and then ALWAYS CAVE….F**K them and their mothers and the ship they came in on…
I think the Dems will find some way to blow this next Presidential election too…..
I didn’t vote for her in the last election. She has nothing to lose since she isn’t running again.
It appears Sen Feingold is good with it.
http://tpmmuckraker.com/2008/0…..rveill.php
Who is caving now?
Feingold took a lot of cheap shots at Edwards. His apparent backbone on this matter has withered.
It’s been pretty clear to anyone watching with one eye shut that DiFi is personally profiting from WOT.
Happy Corproate Sovereignty Day!
I was reading Glenzilla on this earlier today. Thanks for bringing the debate over here.
It looks to me like what we need to do is
(1) mobilize our troops to phone, fax and email our Senators to support every single one of the good amendments (mainly those by Feingold &/or Dodd) but not the one by Bond/Rockefeller
(2) ask our senators to support any Dodd or Feingold filibusters
(3) ask our Conference Committee senators to cede to the House version of the bill,
(4) ask our representatives to vote *against* the reconciled bill if it is as bad as we suspect it will be;
(4) hope that Bush vetos the bill entirely out of pique that we haven’t totally caved in on everything.
We should point out to everyone that the 1978 law that is on the books, plus the extension on certain parts of the PAA will give the gov’t everything they need for the rest of Bush’s term of office.
Have I got all that straight?
Bob in HI
New Harry Reid Hearts Mitch McConnell doll.
and Happy Corporate Sovereignty Day, as well!
Two words: conference committee.
If they like, Reid and Pelosi can appoint only immunity-opposing Senators to that committee and win the vote.
There are still options–we just have to fight hard enough to make the leadership use them.
I kind of wish MoveOne would have held back their endorsement until this was resolved.
EEEck. MoveOn
This is exactly why I suggested (at emptywheel’s place today and Think Progress yesterday) a compromise to allow the immunity in exchange for net neutrality. Hell, even if immunity was stripped, Bush would find a way to prevent anything from happening, either via signing statement or through the DOJ.
I just fucking knew Reid and others would cave and that we’d get jack shit, while BushCo got everything it wanted.
And, lo and behold, that’s what happened.
It was what I expected.
Like the song “You win again.”
damn!
You gotta be joking. Fuck. This has been a bad week.
Obama and Clinton need to lead on this or they wont get my vote on Tuesday.
This procedural stuff is hard to follow. I’ll take Greenwald’s analysis as the correct one for now but maybe he is partly wrong since Feingold and Dodd are on board. Are they being fooled too? Are they folding? We will know soon enough.
As if the calculus needs to be drawn out again, here goes. There will be another significant terror attack here, sometime. All these votes and laws and anti laws are meant as political cover. “See, we did everything we could to stop it they can say”
It was an astounding thing that not one iota of blame was ever put on Bush for 911, fairly or not. You know if Gore had been president he would probably have been impeached, even if he had done the follow up in Minnesota and caught the whiff of oddness at the Florida flight school and got the CIA info to the FBI about the guys living in California. All that and still the plot might have gone on. It was a slam dunk because of faiilures going right to the top and Bush skated. Anyway, Democrats know they can’t skate the next one so they shuck and jive to this dance.
Fuckery, plain and simple.
It’s been pretty clear to anyone watching with one eye shut that DiFi is personally profiting from WOT
from 37.
what is WOT?
I’m dubious about the argument that it’s Unconstitutional if the basis of that is that it represents an ex post facto law. Ex post facto applies only in cases were a law where individuals who confront prosecution is passed after their acts, or where penalties are increased.
It doesn’t apply to cases where laws are voided or penalties reduced. Recall that the amnesty of Draft Dodgers during Vietnam, those who fought against the Union in the Civil War, Shay’s Rebellion. There are hundreds of laws that have been voided or reduced in US history…I’ve never heard anyone challenge them on the basis that those who were released or had their sentences revised downward were being shown leniency Unconstitutionally?
War on Terra.
what did Reagan used to say ?
There they go again.
war on terror
Oh, crap.
lol – he got that right
My contempt for Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman knows no bounds.
Really.
How do we change the Majority leaders. It is pay back time for Harry Reid. He has done nothing for the party since given leadership. Lets get a primary candidate ready to challenge him in his next electionstarting now. Lets start the Boot Harry & Nancy Fund.
Emptywheel has a lot more analysis on this topic on her branch as well as some strategic discussion about what’s possible and where lobbying should focus.
LATimes endorses McCain and Obama….
makes me lean heavily toward Clinton.
Holy Shit! :o)
One of the biggest of the netroots organizations votes for Obama 70-30!…and they endorse him.
James Brown, I feel good, too!!! :O)
John? Al? :o)
(cross-posted from EW’s place a few hrs ago:)
W/r/t the UC plan, I don’t have a good feeling about it. The R’s wouldn’t have agreed to any thresholds they’re not confident they’ll be able to prevail on, at least not for the ones that really matter. Smells like a Pyrrhic victory to me — yeah, we got the right to vote on amendments, but so frickin’ what since (and where have we heard this one before?) the votes are all rigged. And I include the Monday schedule there — going back to my earlier comment, Reid now seems to have taken Super Tuesday into account all right, but not in a positive way since he may well be down 2 hands when it matters most.
I hope other Senators join Feingold if he should have to Filibuster.
One thing that would be very helpful would be if someone could put together a concise list of each amendment (by amendment number) and how we think our senators should vote on them. There is a large number of amendments – I think it will be very confusing for most of the Senators who aren’t on either the SSCI or Judiciary Committee. That list would then become the basis of our faxes and e-mails.
damn. that’s what i was saying this morning. wtf made the dems cave on this one?
the republicans have made it clear since dec 17 that they did NOT want to filibuster. dodd et al had a real lever of power. why did they give it away?
damn. damn… when christy and cboldt jumped all over me, i was hoping i had it wrong.
cboldt thinks there won’t be a conference committee, but christy thinks otherwise.
The scripts are written in the back rooms..we get excited by what we see on C-Span but the ending is already determined. All the filibuster talk is crap..all that it would have taken is for one Senator to object to the UC. The mixing of majority and 60 votes on amendments means, as Glenn points out, that the UC was structured for the Thugs to win. It’s easy to point the finger at Harry, but the reality is that the Thugs have a reliable 10-14 Bush Dogs to work with. The bottom line is that a lot of big talk and outrage but no objection to the UC. After Feingold’s slap at Edwards; I now think the score is even.
that would have required objecting to this UC.
yes.
i wonder if they got a good price for their capitulation. 30 pieces of silver?
How do we know they’ll do that? It seems like at least Reid is going out of his way to do the opposite.
They’re codependents in an abusive relationship WRT The Most Holy George W. Christ The Infallible. Perhaps we ought to send them some books on the subject.
Exactly, the filibuster talk is Kabuki..The objection to the UCs would have forced them to grind it out vote by vote and would have gummed up the Senate schedule. Any Senator doing that would have been thrown out of the club..I guess none of the 14 though it was worth it..too bad.
Jane- your first sentence:
“Harry Reid once again used Senate procedure to tank retroactive immunity…”
To me tank = deep six, so maybe a slip of the pen?
you know, i don’t think i’d be quite so pissed if they didn’t try to bullshit me about it.
I get the feeling that something’s going on that I don’t understand. I can’t see Dodd or Feingold agreeing to UC if they knew that the retroactive immunity would pass. Wouldn’t either of them, but particularly Dodd, attempt to filibuster? What’s up?
the only way i could see to prevent immunity was a poison pill amendment passing – one that would make cheney tell bush to veto it.
so, they give up on the best way they had to stop it.
i have never seen either of them object to their leadership’s decisions (except dodd breifly last dec). in the end they’ve always gone along… i guess this time is no different.
Sorry, imprecise. I should have said: I hope other Senators will join Feingold in voting against final cloture on the bill should it become necessary.
That’s what makes me rather sad about the calling and faxing…we are responding to the fiction that we watch on C-Span..it isn’t real. The bottom line is, Harry doesn’t have the votes. The Republicans have a reliable majority of 60-62 votes.
I did my part and called my senator and also Clinton’s and Obama’s offices and urged them to get off the campaign trail on Monday to be in the Senate and back their words with a vote to strip immunity from the bill. Feeling good about that, I then read Glenn Greenwald’s piece last night and immediately realized that the amendment will not pass and became depressed.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..index.html
Seriously, assuming all of the Republicans show, there is no way the amendment stripping immunity passes. Joe Lieberman voting for the amendment? LOL. Besides, if the vote is close, Darth Cheney will be there with his tie breaker. Likelihood of him needing to be there, slim or none. In fact, all you will need to know about the capitulation by Reid will be evident once it becomes apparent that Darth didn’t even bother to take the ride down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Senate. Therefore, telecom immunity for ATT and Bush & Cheney will be a fact of life after Monday.
In the end, all of this comes down to Harry Reid’s total lack of effectiveness as a majority leader in starting with the intelligence committee bill rather than the judiciary cmttee version. Everything after that is pure kabuki, including the votes earlier this week.
The only remaining hope then will be the House, with its ineffective leader, Nancy “Impeachment is off the table” Pelosi. In other words, not much hope there either.
Someone please tell me again ANYTHING positive about Reid and Pelosi and what has been accomplished with a supposedly Democratic controlled congress?
You know, it seems to me that there might actually be a way to stall the whole thing. Don’t they need a quorum? What’s to prevent our Dems from just not showing up the day before election day? Are these people in such an ivory tower that they’ve never actually heard of blue flu? The way I see it, if a strike is good enough for the blue collar workers (especially over health and safety issues), then it should be employed by these Senators if they care anything at all about the health and safety of the Republic. Why haven’t they made a public fuss about this to get the people on their side? The Prez has the biggest bully pulpit in the world; why haven’t many, many Senators sought press conferences over this? Keith and even Jon Stewart did bits about what’s happening to our Republic. If you missed it last night, Raw Story has the funniest part of last night’s show (on signing statements and their effects) here.
Harry intended to screw Dodd from day one. What I don’t understand is how Dodd went along consenting to UC on all of this.
this shit just makes me want to go and buy hard liquor again so I can get smashed.
I just want to scream.
These have always been 60+ votes to pass the Cheney bill..McConnell overplayed his hand and put the Dems who wanted to vote for it in a bad position. The UC is structured to allow everything that Cheney wants to become law and at the same time provide cover for the ~12 Dems who want to vote for it.
Demopussies
As was said in a thread yesterday somewhere, Harry and Nancy are doing exactly what they want to do. They are not on “our” side—that is the side of the rule of law.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The consequences for objecting to the UC would have been severe. The Republicans could do it because they vote as a block. The number of Dem Senators who are willing to stick their necks out over this is probably less than 10..not enough to protect a Senator who objected to the UC.
That may be true. But until the votes happen, I’m going to make it as tough on those Dems (including my own senator – McCaskill – who was one of the 12) as possible. That means faxing this weekend and phone calls on Monday. We need to see this one through until the end.
The U.S. Congress has become a very bad joke. Unfortunately no one is laughing except for Reid and Bush. Bush will be gone in less than a year. Hope it’s the same for Reid.
Ding!
Could you explain what the consequences are or direct me to where I can find them already explained, please? I haven’t had a chance to read the entire thread, just the post and the comments toward the bottom.
Harry probably lied to him.
Or Harry’s mind got changed afterward.
I’d like to know what they’re using on the Democratic non-leadership, to get them to fold every f*cking time they come to ‘hold or fold’.
If I hear one more time what a poker player Harry is . . . . .
don’t ask.
Time to ask who he things his opponent is, maybe. Same with the overworked boxing analogy. Seems to me the public are the ones being kept outside by that good jab of his.
in this case i don’t think that is true for all the amendments – if it was, the Rs would not have been freaking out over having simple majority votes. i think we could have won some of these – if they were allowed to pass with a simple majority… BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS WERE NOT GOING TO FILIBUSTER (which would have required 60 votes to get cloture). i think we had this one in the bag and blew it.
How do we get rid of Harry Reid? It’s way past time to start looking for ways to replace the Democratic leadership.
Would you agree that “we” does not necessarily include Harry? In the sense that he’s perhaps more “they” than “we”?
“So that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth…”
I don’t have the link “handy” but when this first began, KagroX wrote a diary about how the Senate “really works”. Basically the Senate can’t function without UCs. There is a lot of horse trading and arranging by staffers to formulate the UC. A “hold” is nothing more than a notification to the majority leader that a Senator will object to a UC. If, a Republican puts a hold, they can make it stick. The Dems don’t usually have the votes to do the same. If a Senator or small group objects and pisses off enough people..They will never get legislation or amendments or projects for their States again. That is the nuclear option to keep “maverick” senators in line.
it’s not just reid – any senator could have blocked the UC. that they did not means that either:
1) they like the agreement
2) they price they would have to pay was too high – because the vast majority of the caucus wants the bills to pass and will exact a steep price on anyone who gets sin their way.
i think that is true for not just reid, but also most of the senators.
Ok you want to put a stop to this, then boycott buying anything other than what’s necessary to survive. I mean it. We have the clot, if we are willing to use it. But there has to be unity within the progressive community and a clear and easily understandable explanation of why you should boycott. And also, as a carrot, tell the progressive populous, if successful here, we can extend this method for other actions, such as impeaching bush and gang. Note that the MSM would most certainly pick this up, maybe in a big way, so there is our voice to the general public.
I think the amendments were carefully placed in each category, some will pass some will fail but the ones that count have been carefully coordinated to pass or fail. Kabuki. This is what was supposed to happen last week but Mitch got a little to full of himself and screwed it up.
Mr. Reid seems to have spent most of his time falsely allaying the fears of Democrats that he would cave. His job was to confront the GOP and their president over demands that they – along with their corporate aiders and abettors – should immunized from their past, current and future criminal behavior.
Mr. Reid is a coward and a liar. As is each Senator who supports him and his tactics on this issue.
I’ve lived in SF since ‘76 and I have ALWAYS felt she was a Rep in Dem clothing. It was and is IMPOSSIBLE to be elected in SF, the Bay Area and at that time California as a republican. So consider yourself warned:SHE IS A REPUBLICAN or a raging DINO.
I admit I don’t know enough about the prerogatives of being Majority Leader to know how much power Reid actually has to direct the course of events in ways opposed by a majority of Senators, but what we’re dealing with, after all, is a Republican agenda of unrelenting all-fronts attack on the constitutional foundations of the country, with the support of a significant number of Democrats. Absolutely everything they do is intended to advance the goal of gutting effective constitutional limits on the arbitrary excercise of presidential power.
Reid either doesn’t see that this is what’s happening, or he approves of it, or he’s afraid to use what prerogatives he has to interfere with it for fear his caucus will remove him as Majority Leader, or he genuinely feels impotent to stop it, but likes the ML position so much he’ll play along rather than resign on principle, or he’s simply incompetent (which I don’t believe). Is there any other possibility I missed?
Whatever the reasons are, it’s not as though he has no choice but to let it play out the way it does (over and over and over again).
i’m not sure about lasts week, but i agree about this week.
all reid has to do is protect anyone who wants to object. he doesn’t even have to lead.
Ack! I’m talking about DiFi!!!
Hmmm! Payback perhaps?
A Grand Jury has subpoenaed reporter David Kelley regarding his sources regarding CIA Efforts To Block Irans Weapon Programs
Kelley has been involved in the reports about how the CIA screwed up an effort to sell the Iranians bogus nuclear detonators.
There’s a lot of mystery about this initial report and the motive behind it. Some have accepted it at face-value and presume that the report is accurate…but the recent NIE raises the issue as to whether the Iranians even had a nuclear program at that stage. Or the plans may have been given over as an incidental to their efforts to obtain civilian nuclear technology. Perhaps it was planted with other documents.
Another theory is that someone leaked the tale to discredit Valerie Plame, who would have presumably been involved in such a Covert Ops.
Is the CIA going after an informer who erroneously suggested that an operation failed, when it actually didn’t?
Lot’s of stuff involved here…or is it really the reason Kelley is being targeted at all?
Kelley also was involved in disclosing the violations of US law in the current non-FISA warranted wiretapping issue.
Far better that the PAA expire than it be amended this way and made permanent.
Essential programs would continue until after George Bush and Dick Cheney leave office. Plenty of time later to amend it in a rational fashion. For Bush, however, his only chance to immunize his followers is now.
Presumably, that includes scores of Democrats; otherwise, they would not so willingly be leading us off this unconstitutional cliff.
And yet…
Totally culpable.
You mean Risen…
I think Harry gets a little more abuse then he perhaps deserves. If you look at the voting records of the Senators it seems to break down to a Dem block of about 36 and a Rep. block of 49 then the 14 Bush Dogs and Lieberman. That is what Harry has to deal with and after LBJ, the Senate reformed the rules to reduce the Majority leaders power. Ehd of story. We need to pick up more Senate seats and then the Majority leader will have more leverage on the purple Dems.
all of them are.
Thanks, I think I followed that. So they get their state punished if they take a stand on principle. Unfortunate! But I can’t blame Dodd if that’s the case. I wouldn’t like it if he represented me.
i disagree – if a majority of the dems (39) were really on our side, then they would be blocking this UC. this UC, and others like it are made to mask that we don’t even have 39 – this lets 39 senators vote our way (kabuki) while insuring that we lose.
Right! James Risen…Kelley is his attorney.
Wasn’t there a Bill that passed last year protecting reporters from just such subpoenas? Or did that apply to National Security issues?
I would have thought that this is a case of a whistleblower, in any case.
I don’t think he can..any Republican can place a hold on any Senator’s legislation and they have to votes to make it stick..every time. Reid doesn’t have a reliable block of Dems to do the same..IMO.
Fuck Harry Reid. He has the spine of a jellyfish, and the intelligence of a mollusk. Why does he keep selling us down the river? Why does he hate freedom? Why does he hate the Constitution? Fuck Harry Reid.
As I understand it, that is the ultimate penalty. That is why being thrown out of the “club” is no joke, either for the Senator or his State.
Reid chose to advance the version of the legislation most likely to please the WH – and most difficult for the Dems to block.
He is a master tactician – he chose the tactic that most empowers the Rethugs and the telcomms.
This tactical choice serves only one strategy – passage of the Cheney/Telco Amnesty.
Reid is getting exactly what he set out to obtain.
Just like his other tactical “blunders” that sank progressive causes – except this one is more widely known.
Dirty Harry adds this to his long list of victories: for the corporatist party.
the name REid must be made MUDD like Bush,for all further office seeking
but that’s just my point!!!
this time the Rs were NOT going to filibuster! one senator would have been enough to make it stick!
this was different – this one could have been stopped. if you haven’t already, please read my comment at emptywheel.
that analysis has to be wrong if the republicans were going to force the 60 vote threshold. would like to know if you think that is wrong. thanks.
Well, yes. But as I used to say to myself as I’d walk though the courtyard of an apt building I once lived in, and saw the wind-scattered junk mail that no one seemed willing to pick up, “I may not be responsible for it being there as I’m walking toward it, but if it’s still there after I pass, I am responsible for it still being there.”
It’s the principle of being 100% accountable for one’s own choices, no matter what anyone else is doing. Of course, that’s not the political culture we live in just now. It’s officially sanctioned unaccountability all the time, at least for those in so-called “positions of responsibility.”
Nahhh – the Democrats are just weak and a little confused. Its not like they are stabbing us in the back or anything.
They want the same thing the R’s want. They are all going to be tracking all of our email, for sure anything on the web, telephone, text messages etc – putting them in a database and tracking trends, etc.
The whole thing is set up to have a good laugh at us all between cocktail parties. They are going to get most of this stuff done before there is a potential D president and never go back on it again (and not even talk about most of it).
All the D’s will do is say waterboarding is torture (and they will do it anyway; see Schumer and DiFi).
1984 was only a few years off of reality. It was really like 1994 with Echalon and Carnivor and perfected in 2004 when Bush “won” “again”.
Can’t say..I am way over my head already..A few weeks ago, I lined up the Senators by their likely vote and I couldn’t come up with a situation where it wouldn’t pass eventually. The only way to have stopped it was objection to the UCs and trashing the Senate calender. The bottom line, as I see it, is that the Republicans have a reliable 48 votes against cloture (McCain doesn’t vote any more) and can usually muster 60+ votes for cloture for bills that we find most offensive.
Thanks KO, there is one person in the entire country that is brave enough to give straight talk. I might write him in in November.
yes, but that’s not the case here with regards to germane amendments – you’re, i think, talking about the underlying bill. i’m talking about the amendments.
in this case it would have to be the Rs filibustering THE AMENDMENETS in order to be able to stop each amendment with only 40 votes. they have the 40 votes – no problem. but they don’t have a certain majority to defeat all the amendments .
that is the really key point. if they had a majority on all the amendments they didn’t like, they would have been happy to let them all come to a vote – in order to be defeated. BUT THAT WASN’T GOING TO HAPPEN. just look at the history – how else can you explain the republican’s actions?
Is Reid impeachable?
—-
LOL. That is reserved for the rich boys (and girls) club when a person that breaks the club rules or is not classy enough for them to stand. The people just get rigged election full of media lies.
argh.
am i the only one who sees it this way?
i don’t think i’d be quite so pissed if they didn’t try to bullshit me about it.
Heheheheh. That takes the fun right out of politics.
Adjusting my tin foil hat….
Just exactly are they using to keep these weak knee Dems in line?
Nothing, nothing could be worse than the crimes of GWB…. spill it and be free
Does anyone know if spine transplants are covered with the Congressional Health Plan?
—–
They are using the Dems desires to have these things. I imagine most of the ones who are allowed to vote like a “Dem” are the ones that need it for an election (as long as it does not disturb the overall vote), and there are maybe a handful of people doing what is right because they want to.
That is why the votes are always….oh so close.
What if the Dems aren’t weak but have been threatened with bodily harm unless they vote the right way?
What’s to prevent our Dems from just not showing up the day before election day?
I’m not making this up – what keeps them from this is the Sargent at Arms.
Rule VI: Quorum – absent Senators may be sent for
The bottom line is that a lot of big talk and outrage but no objection to the UC. After Feingold’s slap at Edwards; I now think the score is even.
yes.
i wonder if they got a good price for their capitulation. 30 pieces of silver?
———-
What does this mean please?
oh, yeah. it’s a ton of fun, except for the dead bodies everywhere. deadly serious and losing while being betrayed by the people who claim to be representing me has already purged every bit of fun that might have been there.
But..but..I was just a pre-med major. It would be great if Jane could find an experienced ex-Senate staffer who would explain how things really work. My impression is that the UCs are fashioned by the staffers and that the “horse trading” for votes may extend to legislation or favors totally unrelated to the bill under consideration. The Republicans have it easier because all but perhaps 2 or 3 are true believers and Arlen and Olympia can be kept in line quite easily.
I just have the feeling that all of the angst that we feel about the process is mis-directed. The “public process” is the fiction for us to see and by the time that we see it the end is already determined. Liberal’s sending faxes to Bush Dogs is unlikely to change any of their votes. And that is were the problem is, IMO.
I think the amendments were carefully placed in each category, some will pass some will fail but the ones that count have been carefully coordinated to pass or fail.
That’s true as a general rule, but I’ve seen some cases where an amendment was put in the “gotta have 60 votes” box, in order to make it LOOK like it was contentious, then have the darn thing get something like 35 votes, or 95 votes.
The public face of the Senate is a translucent window, at best, to the real goings on.
betrayal.
sorry, reference to my religious indoctrination.
Exactly..That is why people saying “the vote was so close, if only so and so had been there” is fiction. The outcome is already known and if so and so was need they would have been there.
you got a better suggestion? ‘cuz sitting this one out is not an option. again with the dead bodies.
personally, i’d like to see a massive movement of street politics.
My impression is that the UCs are fashioned by the staffers and that the “horse trading” for votes may extend to legislation or favors totally unrelated to the bill under consideration.
The UCs are well understood by the Senators, but I think your right about the exact language being done by staffers. Still, the exact language follows “form letters” or “form paragraphs” that have been around for 100+ years.
Liberal’s sending faxes to Bush Dogs is unlikely to change any of their votes.
It depends. The public can affect the process, but it takes a HUGE public uprising, e.g., immigration literally plugged the Congressional switchboard. BUt if you watch long enough, you start to see that persistence (by “them”) pays off. What’s rejected this year passes next year, or the year after, etc. There is an incredible number of “durable” issues before Congress, year after year, buried in big bills.
I suspect that those situations are rare and are aberrations of the system.
For all we know Dodd used this to get something with Banking that is run out of his state, especially with likely banking changes coming (or the reverse the threatend his assignemnt to the committee). Or who knows the guy is on the rules committee so he should know what he is doing.
I am sad that I do not put anything past ANY of them. I would love to study the truth behind what goes on there because I am sure there is nothing more interesting. Sure this is all a little crackpot – BUT, that is my point in a real democracy people would be educated so we could make the best decisions and move our country forward.
Senator Dodd’s Committee Assignments
Health, Education, Labor & Pensions
Foreign Relations
*Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs
*Senate Rules and Administration
As an aside great job on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs (especially the R’s – drive people out of the cities to the burbs, screw the price of gas, have a housing bubble via home loans, etc).
Tomgram: Michael Klare, Barreling into Recession
http://www.tomdispatch.com/pos….._recession
deadly serious and losing while being betrayed by the people who claim to be representing me has already purged every bit of fun that might have been there.
God,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
well, i do know for a fact that if we do nothing, then we will have NO influence.
we don’t know for a fact that making the effort over the long haul won’t. just take a look at history. how often to movements succeed in a couple of years. more like a couple of decades.
No I know the 30 pieces of silver :) (former alter boy, lucky to have dodged a few nasty priests).
But what was the betrayal, what is the thought on the back story. Is it just another reference to the impenetrable mysteries here as to why the shanking of Edwards? Or is there something more concrete that you were thinking about?
that doesn’t make a fun game.
and god never gave me anything just because i asked.
I suspect that those [60 vote margin on non-contentious amendment] situations are rare and are aberrations of the system.
I think you’re right. I don’t see any of those in the FISA UC. I’ve seen (guessing from memory) about 1 out of 5 on Iraq pullout and similar (torture, habeas) amendment-pairings, where the other side couldn’t come up with a contentious alternative to balance “I’ll take a 60 vote margin on this one, if you take a 60 vote margin on that one” trades.
I think we have to let the staffs of these folks know that by being employed by folks like Reid, DiFi, Pelosi, Emanual, and all these other corruptors that they have permanently made political enemies. Having this on their resumes will be an albatross around their political careers.
It’s the only way that we can shake these idiots out of their cocoons…make their staffs rise up and say “What are you doing to MY career? I wanted a relationship and a mentor that would help, not destroy me!” Ultimate staff defections and lack of support in an election campaign will pay its price.
steve – i think you’re looking at this as a short term process. we call, they are supposed to change their votes or else that means our calls are useless. not so. we call to begin an education process, we call to move things a fraction of a micron. and when calls don’t work we visit. and when visits don’t work we primary. and when primaries don’t work we sit in, and on and on and on.
I’ve lived in SF since ‘76 and I have ALWAYS felt she was a Rep in Dem clothing. It was and is IMPOSSIBLE to be elected in SF, the Bay Area and at that time California as a republican. So consider yourself warned:SHE IS A REPUBLICAN or a raging DINO.
—-
I was thinking about this the other day. Normally you would think a very liberal place would have the same in their elected reps (as well it is a rich place of course, and diverse). But in these areas do the R’s strategize and push their support to DINO’s? In other words the irony being that in very liberal places the R’s have an effective strategy of fooling un-informed people into voting for someone just because there is a D next to their name.
Point 2: How the hell do two people so terrible when it comes to being D’s get into the top positions…! How is this even possible, especially coming off so long in minority?
that doesn’t make a fun game.
Truth be known, it’s possible that I get more stressed over this shit than you do, and internalize it. I.e., I don’t have the sort of wisdom one asks for in the serenity prayer.
i’d like to see a massive movement of street politics.
I’d like to see the federal government about 10% of its current size and influence. That way I wouldn’t care so much about their action.
There are a substantial number of aspects to the constitution, as written, that have been modified in ways that naturally lead to government and bureaucratic growth.
As it is, the parties are really invested in winning, because at bottom, they are all control freaks. They all deny being control freaks, but their demands for government action belie them.
Somebody’s going to have to buy a Super Bowl ad to get the urgency across.
I agree entirely. I was just going to make that same point. What we are seeing now began decades ago and began to show itself with Reagan. If it can be reversed it is going to take a long time and were are going to have to grind it out election by election. I guess the point I was trying to make is that acute interventions are unlikely to affect outcomes but are part of a long process of pressure on the political system. The rapid cycles of hope and despair that I see in the comments are to political processes that IMO aren’t “real”. I think too much of that will cause people to quit the fight.
As far as street demonstrations..I don’t see it happening. I was in school in DC during the 60’s and it isn’t the same now.
I don’t but from comments here and other sites, there are a lot of people who do. I don’t want them to get discouraged because of a misunderstanding of what is happening. Cycles of optimism and defeat aren’t healthy…so I stay pessimistic and send money to Liberal challengers.
we all need to see to see a bit of progress ocassionally to help with the motivation. and to help recruit more people to the effort. so little successes do matter in that way.
there’s lots of ways to do street politics – it doesn’t have to be the same as in the ’60s, we can think of new ways if necessary to act.
imo, neither is chronic pessimism.
I see a lot of progress..the ‘06 elections..looks like we are going to do very well in ‘08 and hopefully will also take the Presidency. But the Republican party is like a serious illness and the cure is going to be slow and painful. It is still progressing but we have slowed the rate.
cboldt, great to have you here.
Moses never saw the promised land.
This is a marathon, not a sprint.
Ah..but my pessimism is based on reality and causes me to act to try to change the reality.
If you really want to get bummed out..read climate research, especially about “polar ice”.
the democrats, on a daily basis, proving ralph nader correct – that there is no difference between democrats and republicans. which is bad enough, but when there is so little difference between republicans and fascists, its particularly bad.
I wish Members of Congress at least knew what the telecoms-government team had been doing, is doing, and plans to do before blessing it all past, presently, and for the future. The current round of FISA legislation conveys, “Hey, these are important matters—look at all the attention we’re giving them,” without introducing viable protections so far as I can tell.
“the only way i could see to prevent immunity was a poison pill amendment passing – one that would make cheney tell bush to veto it.
so, they give up on the best way they had to stop it.”
Wouldn’t just about any of the Feingold amendments be regarded as a poison pill? That’s why I think we should push to get at least one of the “good” amendments passed (push for all, hope for one).
I think that this has gone on long enough that everyone understands what is at stake here, especially with the immunity provision. Let’s push for passing as many of the Feingold (& Dodd) amendments as possible.
My own best scenario now is that whatever makes it through the Conference committee DOES have a poison pill in it that Bush will veto. I don’t know if we can get a better outcome than that.
Of course, he could do his signing statement trick again, too.
Bob in HI
“this shit just makes me want to go and buy hard liquor again so I can get smashed. I just want to scream.”
We need you sober and active more than we need you drunk and incoherent.
Bob in HI
please tell me in what ways you think i’m not not acting consistent with reality? come on – where’s this coming from?
if i’m wrong about anything, call me on it. but lay off telling me how to feel about it.
the chances of those amendments passing is not very good (that said, i don’t believe in giving up).
cboldt, great to have you here.
Thanks. I don’t show up often, having a narrow range of stuff that I care/dare to post about. Senate process and FISA is one of those combos.
if i’m wrong about anything, call me on it. …
Not the best place for me to chime in about your analysis that concludes somehow the DEMs might have obtained ultimate victory, but I’m too lazy to scroll up and this is where my browser landed after jumping over to your long post at EW.
I agree that the DEM fight could have been much more strenuous, no doubt about it. Insist on Senate floor objections instead of 60 vote margins up front, for example.
Other than the OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE difference between having Title II be in the base bill vs. having to be added by an amendment (which would sort of put Title II on the same [weak] footing it would have if it was an independent bill), the only thing the DEMS could do was put on more or less of a fight. The outcome is set because there are 41 GOP (plus a few DEMs) who will vote against all the poison pill amendments (defined s anything the president signals he will veto). There is no way to overcome the determined objections of a block of 41 Senators. It’s impossible. The only thing that can be done is fight more, or fight less in the open. That is, take more, or take less time.
That was my conclusion just from counting votes based on voting records and then doing hypothetical whip counts on various combinations of bills or amendments. The only way to have won was to trash the calender and cause the bill to be withdrawn…wasn’t going to happen.
i think there is reason to believe that might not have been the case this time. first time i’ve ever thought that.
completely agree - if they are willing to filibuster. there is reason this time to thing that might not be the case.
this is the argument i’ve been making – that the republicans have been signaling since dec 17 that:
1) they were not sure they had the votes, and
2) that they were unwilling to be seen as filibustering – in this specific case.
a very unusual circumstance. that i wish the dems had taken advantage of.
if that’s the case, then tell me why weren’t the republicans willing to vote on the amendments?
i’m not talking about only immunity here. how about exclusivity, for example?
my point is not what your whip count is…. it’s what was the whip count the republicans got?
No kidding. Then again, Feingold’s always been shortsighted and easily fooled. Look at how McCain hosed him on McCain-Feingold. And he has the nerve to attack John Edwards?
I am beginning to think that the Democrats in the Senate have serious blackmail material threatening them or are all on the take.
WTF is going on? Have we already lost our democracy?
Laws were broken. Day in court? I am sick to my stomach.
If we don’t see a change after the Dems win in November, I am going to switch to Nader’s party and to hell with the Dems. How can I continue to support the destruction of our civil rights.
I will at least register independent so I can vote for whom ever I want. Louisiana just stopped its open primaries.
This is madness.
that the republicans have been signaling since dec 17 that:
1) they were not sure they had the votes, and
2) that they were unwilling to be seen as filibustering -
I agree with point #2, and disagree with point #1. The DEMS and GOP both knew that there were 41+ objectors to stripping immunity and certain other provisions. The DEMs misfortune on this bill is that they set themselves in agreement that something had to pass so that the PAA would not expire. Something HAD TO PASS.
In that position (not that I necessarily think its a good position, but I didn’t choose their position for them either), withholding the bill altogether is not an option.
Then there is the question of SJC vs, SSCI as the base bill. Again, I think Reid, the DEMS and GOP made a conscious decision to go with SSCI. They blinked, to use the vernacular, at the veto threat. And there they are, with HAS TO PASS. Narrowed the options decidedly, but establishes the only viable procedure to get to the necessary outcome.
Sure, other paths get to the same place, and I would have preferred many other potential paths. I’d have sent the bloody thing and had it vetoed. But that’s me, and I’m not a Senator.
At any rate, once the base bill is SSCI, the biggest fight that the DEMs could have forced was to cause cloture motions and 3 day delays, and then only a few of them, at most. This relatively short delay was an issue last year, when Reid had to get appropriations done or else shut down the government. He doesn’t have that time barrier at this moment.
The only difference between the UC and running on the objection/cloture rules as written would be forcing the GOP to object to simple majority vote, then move to limit debate time via cloture. That’s where the 60 votes comes in. The 60 vote margin can be forced by objectors, in this case the GOP being the objectors.
The only difference between the UC and running on the objection/cloture rules as written would be forcing the GOP to object to simple majority vote, then move to limit debate time via cloture.
Not to minimize the effect of this, I used “only difference” meaning that the outcome at the end would be the same. Yesterday, well before the UC agreement was announced, I’d speculated on the backroom negotiations hinging on the difference between agreeing to 60 vote margins up front, and not. The short version is that insisting on objection/cloture clarifies the identity of exactly who is asserting minority power (minority rules? most people think that is a bad way to legislate); and in a similar vein, makes it clear that the proponent (McConnell) isn’t as confident in his margin as his “this passed 13-2″ bluster would indicate.
Dodd/Feingold could have forced this sort of showdown — but with effectively unlimited time to get the bill passed, the showdown doesn’t change the outcome.
The D’s should have let the Senate schedule be shredded. What’s more important than this?
The paragraph below, from a letter jointly sent by several consumer rights and government accountability organizations to Senator Reid, sums up why we should care whether telecom immunity gets Congressional approval.
Simple summaries like that help the likes of me put it all in perspective.
On a related subject, I’ve read some interest in the question of a House/Senate conference. At this point, the Senate is specifically NOT requesting a conference. There are certain formalities that are always in place at the insistence to amendment and request for conference, and those formalities are not in place – although “the form is filled out” for sending this to the House. IOW, this was an appropriate time to ask for a conference,the Senate has discretion to ask for one or not, and it chose not to.
The House can ask for a conference (same sort of issue though, it’s discretionary, no matter how many times a bill bounces back and forth) but only if it changes the bill from what the Senate sent.
Aside from whatever pressure is put on the Senate (I don’t think the pressure has an effect on this bill, but it does have a cumulative effect – I encourage calling and requesting specific votes), now is also the time to put pressure on the House, and in particular, House leadership.
In the long run, it’s really an uphill battle. The House will see the fight in the Senate, and will be reluctant to send it back for a repeat of the same fight.
Simple summaries like that help the likes of me put it all in perspective.
And it’s a good simple, accurate summary too.
My sense is that the government is personally backstabbing and lying to me. It’s trying to make me believe that it should be trusted, and too, that it trusts me and values my support. And then it turns around and snoops against the rules, and changes the rules retroactively. In other words, it doesn’t really trust me, and it sees itself as a moral superior.
I fart in their general direction.
I just got back, hadn’t seen the threads since the ‘Loyalty’ thread this morning.
This is very disheartening news, but not unexpected.
For some decades, being interested in history, I have practiced a form of prognostication based upon a very simple methodology.
Whatever ‘event’ or possible ‘adventure’ is in the air; consider the worst-case scenario, the proclivities of the ‘players,’ the studied disinterest of the media, and the seemingly profound indifference of the citizenry as a whole: Careful observation, over time, will reveal that, more likely than not, you will see your insights, fears and nightmares played out.
My concerns now shift to the great ‘wisdom’ of Democrats now seeking office, from Bruner (with her consultant, Sandeep Kaushik – I do, I admit have a hilarity problem with that last name, it comes across as a bovine scatological production, which is just what I consider his views about FDL and the rest of us to be), all the way to our illustrious Senators and their much-vaunted ‘elect-ability’ in the presidential popularity contest.
And I find assurance that disbelief of the it’s-all-about-terrorists explanation is well-founded when I see what the better informed than I have to say, such as Illegal Government Surveillance: It’s Not Just For Foreigners [third post form the top] at EFF’s Deeplinks.
Make that [third post from the top].
I sometimes struggle with making a link that goes to one selected post on a multi-post page.
That this surprises anyone just amazes me.
Yes, so remind me again just what this progressive blogosphere stuff is all about. I see dancing chihuahuas and miniature poodles in a circus ring. What am I missing, exactly?
but that, according your own and current usage is filibustering – which you said you agreed the republicans did not want to do (and maybe would not have).
this is confusing what is procedurally possible with what is politically feasible. if you believe, as you state above, that “2) that they were unwilling to be seen as filibustering” then “having the votes” can’t mean “having the vote if willing to filibuster”.
Expect more of this if Obama is our next president. This is what ‘reaching across the aisle’ will do.
BAC
the showdown would not be over dodd/feingold – it would be over another amendment – one that the Rs might actually not have the votes for (difi’s exclusivity amendment is a good candidate).
once again. the showdown to block immunity should have been fought indirectly via the other amendments (since we don’t know which of them cheney considered the dangerous poison pill).
the capitulation by the dems was that they did not do this. they gave up their only way (imo – or at least their best chance) to actually block immunity from becoming law.
dodd promised us he would fight to the end. feingold said he would fight against immunity.
what we get instead is kabuki.
Pardon my parliamentary ignorance, but is there any chance any of them will break their UC agreement on Monday, and choose to toss the Senate calendar out the window? Or has that ship already sailed, procedurally speaking?
pretty sure that ship has sailed.
cboldt can confirm, but once it was agreed to (which happened on the senate floor later thursday), then it;’s a done deal.
that’s why i’ve been so pissed off.
please don’t confuse surprise with outrage.
That’s the “Hell, give’m anything they want (if they’re Republican) Harry” Reid I’ve come to know. Unless Clinton and Obama start acting like leaders on this, I’m sitting this goddamn election out. And I ain’t giving any more money to these downticket chickenshit Dems anymore either.
then “having the votes” can’t mean “having the vote if willing to filibuster”.
True, if the only measure of “want” is ultimately having the amendment resolve as desired.
I think the pro-immunity, broad surveillance without oversight proponents had other reasons for avoiding the objection/cloture (normal) process, even though the outcome, (the rejection of the amendment in these cases) would be the same either way.
—
is there any chance any of them will break their UC agreement on Monday, and choose to toss the Senate calendar out the window?
The time for debating each amendment is “set in stone”, as is voting on the cloture motion. There is some amount of variability in timing and procedure. For example,
the question of conducting roll call votes is settled when a senator asks for the yeas and nays, and obtains concurrence from 2/5ths of the senators present.
But the UC can’t be changed materially, as in choosing to not debate an amendment at all, or changing the margin for passage, or eliminating the right to move to table, or (to your question) to extend debate for some indefinite (objectors would say interminable) period of time. It takes ANOTHER UC agreement, to modify the terms of an existing one. Again, this happens often on details, but rarely (I know of zero instances) on tough-fought aspects of the agreement.
I mentioned above that the formation of a conference committee has not been initiated by the language of the UC agreement. The words are not there, period. Well, a motion to appoint or elect conferees is debatable (Riddicks, p.457); and an objecting senator can gum up the works (albeit only temporarily, but perhaps to good political effect) if a motion is made to “go to conference.”
Conference Committee practice (formation of the committee, rules of operation of the committee, handling the resulting conference report), is a complex subject of its own right — and it’s not my object to try to summarize all of it in one post. The simple point is that the Senate “mostly” has control over that, on this bill — at this point and even if the bill comes back from the House, amended — and the Senate is not pining for a conference.
the showdown would not be over dodd/feingold – it would be over another amendment – one that the Rs might actually not have the votes for (difi’s exclusivity amendment is a good candidate).
Understood. My point is that the 60 vote margin can be forced on any amendment, by the objecting minority. The only difference is whether that margin results from the application of public objection and cloture, or by backroom wheeling and dealing.
I think the whip count is unchanged from December last year until now.
Off the FISA topic, Can you imagine how the Senate worked when the cloture margin was 67? or even 2/3rds of those present and voting (all of which are historical thresholds under Senate rules). And for a significant period of Senate history (1806 to 1917) the Senate operated without cloture — a single objecting senator had the (theoretical but fully rules-supported) power to refuse to agree to a time to vote, and the Senate had no parliamentary procedure to get around it.
What the immunity proponents have done is effectively marginalize the opposition. One has to ask, any and every time that happens, is whether the opposition is in fact marginal (not popular [enough to make a difference] with the public).
I’m thinking not just about the public opinion, but also with the issue of “marginal” as it applies within the body of the Senate. I think pure democracy is awful, and I don’t expect or want the House or Senate to follow the fickle public wind. But it disturbs me greatly when these bodies treat the public and the constitution with such disguised disdain.
In the Senate, warrantless snooping and near-absence of Court oversight are POPULAR ideas. They don’t trust the public.
If they like, Reid and Pelosi can appoint only immunity-opposing Senators to that committee and win the vote.
In the Senate, committee formation is a debatable/negotiable proposition. And obtaining agreement to create a conference committee involves negotiating how that committee will be populated.
I haven’t researched the formation of conference committee from the House Rules side.
we’re going to get progressive stuff passed after the election how exactly? seriously.
how about not horrible? not corporate blowjobs? not blatantly illegal?
Don’t be fooled by that ‘D’ after Reid’s name. His party is called the Status Quo, and he acts accordingly every time.
That is a serious threat which will be an ineffective as similar threats. 2008 has gone by the board. The question is can we get anything going by 2012? We can’t even stop going to the movies to support the writers. Should be something to ponder.
“Asselephants” The one party system beholding to a “corporate aristocracy?”
The “threat” from within………
Mukasey is protecting those interests………
What does it take to get rid of this absolute “slime” in our White House?
This is about protecting corporate interests at the expense of the constitution!!!! Go to hell BUSH/CHENEY!!!!
KO is correct…….. constitutional treason!!!!