What do you make of the Dems all night Senate session?

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Cheap theatrics by the Dems.

strom thurmond reading the NY City phone book over 48 hours was a cheap trick too, no? Oh Wait! It's perfectly OK when repubs do it... :roll:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Cheap theatrics by the Dems.

I guess you don't consider the R's having a policy of complete obstruction to be a cheap theatre trick?

No I don't; it's continuing to keep the defeatists at bay.

..and continuing to excite the war mongering, keyboard soldier, chicken hawks who tickle in delight every time they hear words like "surge". :thumbsup:

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The Democrats are SO far away from being able to stop the war at this point that they should stop trying and instead work on passing of the bills sitting around waiting for action.

The R's are going to block passage of anything whether related to Iraq or not and Bush suddenly discovered his veto. Effectively the R's have paralyzed the legislature, hooray!

 

[theeedude]

While there is frustration with Republican obstructionism and Democrats inability to overcome it at the national level, you have to think at what's going to happen to Republicans who are voting against withdrawing troops at the local level when there are ads running saying that they voted to keep the war going next year.
Unless you think public opinion is going to change to supporting the war, that is going to be a tough thing to overcome. Keep in mind a lot more vulnerable Republicans are up for election in the Senate next year. If their voters don't support their obstructionism and continuation of the Iraq mess, there will be a steep price to pay.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
They seem to be taking my advice finally. Not that it will work. They should have started these tactics the moment they took control instead of waiting for their approval ratings to drop south of the Iraq war. Now it looks like a cheap stunt.

Agreed. Too little, too late.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: senseamp
While there is frustration with Republican obstructionism and Democrats inability to overcome it at the national level, you have to think at what's going to happen to Republicans who are voting against withdrawing troops at the local level when there are ads running saying that they voted to keep the war going next year.

Unless you think public opinion is going to change to supporting the war, that is going to be a tough thing to overcome.

Keep in mind a lot more vulnerable Republicans are up for election in the Senate next year.

If their voters don't support their obstructionism and continuation of the Iraq mess, there will be a steep price to pay.

It will be quite a thing to see how they use brainwashing to spin this:

7-18-2007 Senate Republicans scuttle troop pullout bill

The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules

It was a sound defeat for Democrats

As members cast their votes, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hurried between private meetings with lawmakers in their Capitol Hill offices to make the administration's case for the war

Republicans were mostly unified in their opposition to sidetrack the legislation, with four exceptions. Three Republicans ? Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska ? announced previously they support setting a deadline on the war.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is up for re-election next year, also voted to advance the bill. Spokesman Kevin Kelley said Collins believes the measure should be subject to a simple majority vote and not the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster. She opposes the legislation, however, Kelley said
=================================================
We've pretty much known the war will be passed to the next President.

Republicans are banking on a Republican Presidential win to stay in Iraq.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: marincounty
A big publicity stunt, but at least they are in town and at their job. The Republican Congress only worked 3 days a week and Bush is the laziest president ever, taking more vacations than Reagan.

That is an amazing account of the situation. Everyday a new thread pops up about how Bush has destroyed this country more than any president. For being the laziest president he still got a lot stuff done.

Or is this more of the left logic like Bush is a complete idiot when he isnt stealing two elections, pulling off the biggest conspiracy in 9-11, conning the entire world on Iraq, , and listening in on everybodys phone call while reading billions of email a day.

It took the Iraqis hundreds of years to build Baghdad and we were able to destroy it in a couple of nights.

Ripping sh*t apart ALWAYS takes less work, effort and time than building things up.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What do you make of the Dems all night Senate session?

I think it proves the Republicans in Congress are amnesiac, amoral hypocrites. When they controlled Congress, they threatened to do away with filibusters permanently.

Now, the shoe's on the other foot, and their collective feet are in their lying, hypocritical mouths. :roll:

 

[ProfJohn]

Harvey, this wasn?t a filibuster though. This was just some way to get some attention before holding a vote.
They could have held the vote at 10pm and ended up with the same results.

 

[Hacp]

Didn't Harry Ried vote against the measure so some complicated maneuvering could go into place? It was on the NY times.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.../fyi-harry-reids-vote/

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Harvey, this wasn?t a filibuster though. This was just some way to get some attention before holding a vote.
They could have held the vote at 10pm and ended up with the same results.

They wanted to vote on the actual bill and the R's wouldn't do it, so Reid made a "motion to invoke cloture" which would have foprced an up and down vote... for the record, but apparently the R's would rather not go on record yet as having been against the war after they were for it.

Reid: Republicans Continue To Block Democrats' Efforts To Change Course In Iraq, Make America More Secure

All they wanted was a straight up and down vote? Why should the R's be afraid of that?

A little history of the 110th congress and the use of obstructionism

Filibuster and Cloture in the Senate

 

[theeedude]

It's time for the Democrats to do what the Republicans threatened to do, get rid of the Filibuster in the Senate. There is no filibuster in the Constitution.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's time for the Democrats to do what the Republicans threatened to do, get rid of the Filibuster in the Senate. There is no filibuster in the Constitution.

There doesn't need to be a Constitutional clause. Congress is permitted to create it's own rules. The fillibuster is permitted under them, and has been said, this wasn't a fillibuster.

On topic,
The Dems are going to get clobbered if they don't attempt something, and they are if they do. As my old time Southern relatives would say "Might as well as eat a bug". 😀

 

[teiresias]

so much for all of that Republican rhetoric that things deserve an up or down vote.

 

[TallBill]

Well I personally think it was a drama-fest, it is better for them to spend all night at work then not to show up at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's important for Dems to draw attention to the truth of the matter, which is repub intransigence on this and many other matters. Apparently, it's the only available counter to the spin from the Right and their hypnotic spell over the supposedly liberal media...

It also shows just how tightly the current repub leadership is chained to the oars of the USS Bush, something they'll attempt to deny vehemently come sept and oct of 2008...

The smart move for Senate repubs would have been to let it pass, make Bush take the heat with a veto. They're too busy protecting the Whitehouse while attempting to discredit the dems, and themselves, to let that happen.

Here's to many more all night sessions, and the attention they'll bring to the processes at work- Cheers!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: teiresias
so much for all of that Republican rhetoric that things deserve an up or down vote.

That's the way I read it. It's pretty rich of them to claim this was only theatrics on the part of the Dem's.

 

[kage69]

All they wanted was a straight up and down vote? Why should the R's be afraid of that?

Remember how they howled for it when we were about to be saddled with the worst Attorney General ever? Clearly cloture is uncalled for when the issue is the lives of our overstretched enlisted that got thrown in the middle of someone else's civil war.

The established republican trend of holding political face higher than that of American lives continues on, but we all just need to remember it's those damn democrats fault.

🙁

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
52-47!! that is it? They got two Republicans to vote for the thing and that is all?

In the house they also only got 2 to vote for it.
Meanwhile 10 Democrats in the house voted against it.

The Democrats are SO far away from being able to stop the war at this point that they should stop trying and instead work on passing of the bills sitting around waiting for action.

6 months into their term and congress has not really done anything other than fund the war and pass a wage increase...

Don't ya just love the reading comprehension skills of a shill that portrays themselves as a 'Prof' - obviously NOT a Professor, but some other 'Prof'

The links included a role-call tabulation of the voting record BY NAME.
There were 4 Republicans that DID vote with the 47 Democrats who were on the record,
I includes the absence of Johnson, recovering from a debilitating brain hemorrage, and lists those who opposed the measure,
including Reid's NO vote which he held off on casting until the trend was established, so he could use that specific tactic to withdraw the motion, and save it for a future attempt.

There were a handfull of GOP Senators who claimed to have parted with Bush on the war support, but those people continued to vote in support of Bush, typical shills.

This part of your comment stuns me:
In the house they also only got 2 to vote for it.
Meanwhile 10 Democrats in the house voted against it.

This was ALL IN THE SENATE! There was no measure in the House for that specific Senate vote. The House is a completely separate branch of Congress from the Senate.
Do you have any clue as to how the Government is set up and how the two chambers of Congress work?
The House votes on their bills, the Senate votes on their bills, there is no cross-over of votes.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: kage69

All they wanted was a straight up and down vote? Why should the R's be afraid of that?

Remember how they howled for it when we were about to be saddled with the worst Attorney General ever? Clearly cloture is uncalled for when the issue is the lives of our overstretched enlisted that got thrown in the middle of someone else's civil war.

The established republican trend of holding political face higher than that of American lives continues on, but we all just need to remember it's those damn democrats fault.

🙁

Let the Dems come up with a workable operational plan that will not worsen the situation.
If congress wants to micromanage, then they need to provide the details of their plan.

As present, the Dems have not presented anything other than "bring them home".
Where is the timetable?
What divisions are to be withdrawn and when?
Where are the logicstics to transport them?
What is to be done with the existing equipment (ala Viet Nam)?
We know that the Dems will not allow the Pentagon to control this; so Congress better step into the Pentagons shoes to handle everything.
Them Dems need a step by step plan presented and analyzed up front; otherwise the Republicans are not going to jump ship.

Politicians micromanaging a conflict - never will work.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
This part of your comment stuns me:
In the house they also only got 2 to vote for it.
Meanwhile 10 Democrats in the house voted against it.

This was ALL IN THE SENATE! There was no measure in the House for that specific Senate vote. The House is a completely separate branch of Congress from the Senate.
Do you have any clue as to how the Government is set up and how the two chambers of Congress work?
The House votes on their bills, the Senate votes on their bills, there is no cross-over of votes.

The house voted for the SAME bill just a few days before the Senate.

But you are right about the vote count, I just looked at the totals and did not notice that Harry had voted against the bill.
But even if Reid and Johnson had voted yes they would have been 6 votes short and 12 votes from overriding a veto. Time for them to move on to something else.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper


Let the Dems come up with a workable operational plan that will not worsen the situation.

Leaving in a timely and orderly fashion to let the Iraqis stand on their own two feet is an operational plan. It may not work, but it also may be just what the docotr ordered? It's a given that the people aren't going to stand around footing the bill for this fiasco for the next 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years as some people have suggested. That's ludicrous.

Iraq is not our childrens, childrens, childrens responsibility, it's Bush's baby. He wanted it, he got it, and now he and his supporters are accountable for it. Too bad, so sad, but that's reality.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Harvey, this wasn?t a filibuster though. This was just some way to get some attention before holding a vote.
They could have held the vote at 10pm and ended up with the same results.

This was a filibuster by Republicans who demanded enforcement of their right to require a vote by 60% of the Senate just to cut off debate on the bill, and bring it to a vote. That's exactly the Senate rule they said they threatened to kill when they threatened their "nuclear option" in 2005.

Republican threats of "nuclear option" put United States at brink of parliamentary war, suggests congressional expert Steven Smith

By Gerry Everding

Feb. 2, 2005 -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is playing with fire when he suggests that Republicans will deploy the so-called "go nuclear" option to prevent Democrats from using filibusters to block controversial judicial nominations expected to reach the floor in mid-to-late February, says congressional expert Steven S. Smith

"Decrying Democrats' tactics as unconstitutional, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has threatened to ban judicial filibusters by majority vote, a procedural move dubbed the "nuclear option" since it would invite massive retaliation by Democrats," suggests Smith.
.
.
(continues)

I wouldn't deny them their rights under Senate rules, but I believe the word for those Republicans who are more concerned with the politics of protecting their criminal President than they are about the lives of our troops or our genuine national security interests is, HYPOCRITE. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

For someone who calls himself a "Prof," you may want to improve your homework skills. :Q