If this fails, can't the Dems put attachments onto spending or budget bills? I thought that the budget and large appropriation bills were exceptions to the filibuster rule. I remember the Republicans bypassed filibusters by hanging things onto the budget bills(Anwar drilling for one). I don't know the details of Senate rules so perhaps someone else could explain it.
Posted by Marvyt at February 5, 2007 08:11 AMSteve,
Here's my concern.
While the Senate debates the so-called Iraq "surge," the neocons in the administration have managed to redirect precious attention away from their newest objective: war with Iran.
Once again, it appears the Bush administration has beat the Democrats to the finish line.
Posted by Christopher at February 5, 2007 09:01 AMthe real problem with all the various wrangling over passing resolutions is that the Dems seem to have forgotten that they are now the Majority Party, with the approval of a large majority of the public behind them. Go ahead and Recind the AUMF, go ahead and vote a hard line "get out now, no new troops" measure. Go ahead and put a timeline on when funds will be cut.
Having the stick doesn't matter if you don't use it. And for all the whiners who say Iraq will decend into chaos if we leave or fail to support Bush......look at the damn TV - it is chaos now.
T2 is right.
A huge part of power is understanding how to use it and wield it. I haven't seem much evidence yet either Pelosi or Reid "get" it.
Guess what? The GOP is the M.i.n.o.r.i.t.y. party!
Posted by Christopher at February 5, 2007 09:12 AMSadly, in the Senate Dems are barely the majority, and the rules of the chamber give the minority a lot of power to gum things up.
I like this proposal for a plan B on Iraq, but I'm more concerned that they quickly, like this week, get down an explicit bill that there is NO authorization for military force against Iran. The administration keeps telling us it has no plans to attack Iran, so let's all set that in law. NOW. Before we wake up to find bombing has begun.
I figure we have now have a few weeks worth of window before then.
Posted by biggerbox at February 5, 2007 09:26 AMGo ahead and Recind the AUMF, go ahead and vote a hard line "get out now, no new troops" measure.
You may recall a parliamentary technique known as the "filibuster." Measures such as the above would never go to an upperdown vote.
Posted by dj moonbat at February 5, 2007 09:55 AMFrankly, it's a GOOD thing that Republicans are so intransigent! Democrats are always such weak-kneed triangulating losers! Better if they can't stand up to Bush to TRY and pass their meaningless resolution, have the Republicans block it, and then smash them in the face every day in the media.
My own Senator Salazar (D-Colo.) has been instrumental in pushing the "compromise" Warner bill.
What is the point of the "compromise"? AS far as I can tell, it's to avoid embarassing President Bush and to pretend to be doing something while letting him have his surge as well as gear up for war with Iran.
There's nothing good that a "non-binding" resolution can accomplish. Chaney has already said publicly, "it won't stop us."
NOthing but cutting them off at the knees will stop them and the sooner that Democrats set about it, the better.
The Republicans in Congress are NEVER going to have the guts to stop Bush's war and brand their own party as responsible for the failure that is Iraq.
So, either we have to let Bush continue this insanity and drag us all down the rat-hole or we stop him.
Posted by Cugel at February 5, 2007 09:58 AMwell then DJ , since we are powerless to use our majority, it will spare us lots of handwringing in the Election of 08. Doesn't matter if the Dems lose seats because they can't do anything with them anyway. But seriously, let them filibuster the measures...put them on record, make them face the public as having furthered the crime. You don't just quit because they threaten a filibuster.
Posted by T2 at February 5, 2007 10:06 AMPlan B is an irrelevancy. The shell game has already begun and Hillary and her friends are on board. Will the action begin during the new moon in February or March. My guess is March.
Posted by Nobody at February 5, 2007 10:45 AMBut seriously, let them filibuster the measures...put them on record, make them face the public as having furthered the crime.
Oh, I totally agree. Even if it never became law, Dems should push a bill rescinding the AUMF.
The area where the Dems can win is in the votes on the supplemental appropriations for next year and 2008. Because the White House needs those appropriations bills to pass (or else the war runs out money), a filibuster isn't going to help them.
Posted by dj moonbat at February 5, 2007 11:18 AMwe have very low expectations of our senate. they are acting the same as they did before, with very few exceptions. This is good and bad. numerous republicans will not be re elected, and that has probably all ready happened. This is bad because they have nothing to lose to their constituents, and everything to gain from lobbyists. they need the money the lobbyists will raise for legal fees in most situations, so their loyalties are not with us.
should we expect our senate to actually vote to change the rules to castrate the lobby? yes, we should. will they? I will give you 10:1 they do not make any substantive change whatsoever. why?
because all they know how to do is talk. they have a majority of members that don't want to go on record as having done anything, so they won't. one of our senators knows he will lose the job next election, so he is acting like a demo now. sad and pathetic imitation of a human that he may be, he knows his job is very close to gone. when he know for sure that mr. smith won't return to washington, he will go along with the hard line, as they have always been the ones that pay him the most money.
and we are screwed.
We should tell stories :
1. The teenager who abuses his drivers license. We take it back. That's bush and the Aumf/whatever that he used for IraqAttaQ.
2. Tell me about what $4B is ( half of a week in Iraq), then tell me what it could do in real life. Could $4B/week : quadriple Afghanistan effort, pay Pakistan $10B a year to educate and pacify and negate Al-Dueda, ans insure ALL our children, all at the same time?
Could $4B/week health insure everyone in the USA? I mean buy all the insurance plans, get everyone else in, eliminate the profit motive, and move this country ahead?
I m,ean, what are we spending?