CNN's Cafferty, Wash. Post's Murray left out GOP filibuster in reports on Democrats' failed Iraq legislation
During the November 16 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, while discussing the Senate Democrats' failure to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster on a bill that would have provided $50 billion for the Iraq war while requiring President Bush to begin redeploying troops, CNN commentator Jack Cafferty described "the 53-45 vote" as "seven votes shy of what they needed for the measure to advance." Similarly, in a November 17 Washington Post article, staff writer Shailagh Murray reported, "The 53 to 45 vote in favor of the bill fell seven short of the 60 votes needed and signaled that the contours of the war debate, now nearing its first anniversary, have barely changed." Neither Cafferty nor Murray pointed out that the reason the Democrats -- despite having attained a majority of votes -- failed to advance the bill was that the Republicans forced a cloture vote, for which a 60-vote supermajority is required to overcome a filibuster. A July 20 McClatchy Newspapers article documented the Senate Republicans' repeated use of the filibuster to block legislation since they lost the majority in the Senate.
Furthermore, as Media Matters for America noted, in an April 18 article, Roll Call quoted Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) acknowledging the GOP's "obstructionist" strategy. He said, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail ... For [former Senate Democratic Leader Tom] Daschle (S.D.), it failed. For [then-Senate Minority Leader Harry] Reid [D-NV], it succeeded, and so far it's working for us."
From the November 16 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
CAFFERTY: Democrats tried to tie more money for the Iraq war to troop withdrawal, but they failed -- again. The Senate blocked a Democratic proposal today that passed the House yesterday, the 53-45 vote seven votes shy of what they needed for the measure to advance. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the only way to get the money was to include restrictions that would have required troops to begin coming home as early as 30 days from now.
But Republicans say the Democrats are being irresponsible. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell slammed the Democrats for an inability to accomplish anything in the Senate. Earlier this week, Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties war money to troop withdrawals, then they won't send the president any bill this year. Instead, they will revisit the issue in January.
Democrats say in the meantime, the Pentagon can use part of its $470 billion budget to keep paying for the war.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says unless Congress passes war funding without conditions, it could mean the Army would have to shut down bases in this country by mid-February and lay off up to 100,000 civilian employees and contractors.
So our question is this: Should Congress hold off sending President Bush any more bills funding the war in Iraq until next year?
From Murray's November 17 Washington Post article:
Senate Republicans yesterday blocked Democrats' latest effort to end the Iraq war, rejecting a $50 billion military funding package that would have required President Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops.
The 53 to 45 vote in favor of the bill fell seven short of the 60 votes needed and signaled that the contours of the war debate, now nearing its first anniversary, have barely changed. An alternative GOP proposal, which would have provided $70 billion with no strings attached, was rejected outright, 53 to 45.
Good for the Dems, putting their foot down on this. I love me some McConnell, denying the reality that the funding comes when the Repubs compromise, and instead making it out like the Dems didn't even get a bill to the floor.
All he said was that they didn't have the votes. That doesn't even come close to implying that the bill didn't get to the floor.
Dex,
The Democrats look like they are playing politics ahead of national interests.
By tying up the budget in a time of war, the Dems are, imho, cutting off their collective nose to spite their face. By taking this position they will be attacked by every conservative and moderate pundit for not 'supporting the military' because they are, in essence, refusing to pass funding "for the troops". It seems very tone def to me for the Democrats to do this especially with the violence in Iraq going down. It only feeds into the Republican playbook that the Democrats are invested in defeat. Demanding strings be tied to the funding will only hurt the Democrats especially if the General's comment prove true and the military has to start shutting down bases.
Don't you see the issue though, AA? I'm no blind Dem/liberal by any means, but the Dems have REPEATEDLY assuaged the Repubs and Bush by watering down their military appropriation bills. It's dishonest to assume or believe that the Repub leadership has any interest in sitting down with the Dem leadership AFTER the appropriations bills have been passed with no strings attached and address their concerns and come up with a compromise, so what other option do the Democrats have?
This might get messy, especially if the Pentagon begins to lay off staffers, and public opinion will have the ultimate say in which side prevails.
Dex,
Yes, I see your point. However I think Republicans see that most Americans push politics aside when it comes to being at war. The Republican Administration know this and use it to their advantage. By trying to manage the war and use the power of the purse to bring the soldiers home, they have staked out a position where it is very easy to accuse them that act like they are invested in defeat.
ps. Let me clarify my last sentence. I meant to reference the Democrats.
Sorry for the confusion.
At some point the Jingofascists must be reined in. We have to grow up and realize that not all wars are created equal. Iraq is NOT WWII. The long Defense Gravy Train has to at least slow down...the bill is coming due, and we don't have the money to pay for it.
AA. you say "most Americans push politics aside when it comest to being at war".Apparently, the republicans aren't willing to push politics aside and vote for the $50,000,000,000.00. Why do these republicans hate the troops?
The Dems want to pull the troops out just after the elections. If that isn't putting politics in front of the military I don't know what is.
It would essentially be voting for a surrender date if we can't get things stabilized by then.
Wrong again. You must think that the new president can just snap his (or her) fingers and all the troops will be home safe in their beds.
It will take MONTHS and possibly YEARS before the majority of the troops are back home.
The Dem's are not playing politics. The Repubs are playing politics with the lives of soldiers in order to enrich their corporatist cronies (see Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR, etc).
Tell me this: If Bush turns out to be right and Iraq turns out OK while we get to leave within, let's say, 2 years, who would benefit more politically? The D's or the R's?
If Iraq turns into more chaos and we can't stop it (whether or not we keep troops there), who would benefit more politically? The D's or the R's?
Both sides stand to gain from the war, but I think only one side. And I think it depends on the outcome. What do you think?
--Please answer the basic question without nitpicking if you would.
Tell me this: If Bush turns out to be right and Iraq turns out OK while we get to leave within, let's say, 2 years, who would benefit more politically? The D's or the R's?
HAS JUNIOR BEEN RIGHT ABOUT ANYTHING? You want to risk more American lives HOPING that Junior is right when he's NEVER BEEN RIGHT ABOUT ANYTHING regarding this war? I'm not willing to play the "if" game with American soldiers lives. War is suppose to have a purpose, defeat the enemy. We don't know WHO the enemy is. The enemy wears a uniform and in this case there is no uniform, so you can't tell friend from foe. Yesterday two soldiers were killed handing out candy to Iraqi children. That's two more families who's lives have been changed forever.
You trust Junior, you get on the next military plane to Iraq, no excuses please.
Of course, you completely avoided my question. Because you know that the Dems will benefit from a poor outcome. That gives them motivation for things to go poorly in Iraq.
Who is controlling our corse of action on the war?
Bush, the DOD, the generals? What difference does it make?
This argument is not whether or not the war is just, or whether it is "winnable", I am simply pointing out that the Dem's benefit from a poor outcome, and the Repub's benefit from a good outcome.
Wrong again -
The Repubs benefit from an ongoing conflict because then they can continue to STEAL $$$ through no-bid and cost-plus contracts to their contributors and cronies. The chaos also elevates the price of oil which benefits Repub donors and Arab sheiks (also Repub cronies, in a way).
Don't you realize that war has always been a racket with riches to be made?
Tell me this, DogTrack...even if we manage to kill enough Iraqis that their country is pacified...does that mean that Bush was "right" to invade? In a word...HELL NO. You can't unspend the Trillions we've wasted there; you can't resurrect the Iraqis killed in the war, or our soldiers who have died there. You can't regrow the limbs that thousands of our soldiers have lost. Maybe we can rebuild the international good will that Bush has pissed away, but it will take many years.
I should have known you could not answer my question. I'll try again. Do the Dems benefit politically if the war in Iraq gets worse under Bush?
I'll take a stab at this one -
Let's say the Dems do benefit politically. That would be due to the Repubs' failures.
So let's recap - the Repubs fail at manging the war, the Dems benefit from said failure. I think that's how the real world has always worked.
And that is exactly my point: that if everything were to go well from here on out, that would be bad for the Dems because they have said repeatedly that we can't win this way. That's what people mean when they say "invested in defeat."
No it would be a vote for ending the Republican policy of getting as many Americans killed as they possibly can.
I seem to remember a past discussion on not using extremist language to attack the other side.
Do you really think that the Republican's goal is to kill more American soldiers?
Lets just say I think its as likely as Democrats voting for a surrender date. You make YOUR crude and propagandistic mischaracterizations and I return mine. As for the language of extremism. Look to that redwood log in your own eye before you PRESUME to talk to me about the mote in mine.
Are you saying withdrawing troops from an incomplete mission is not giving up? Maybe it isn't the Dem's intent to give up on the Iraqis, but that would be the effect.
I'll admit that maybe my language was a bit stronger than I intended, but I think the substance is correct.
We would not have lost in Vietnam if we didn't have the political turmoil here. I don't want to see the mistake repeated. Whether you were for the Iraq war or not, I think one should hold out every last hope for winning before giving up.
We would not have lost in Vietnam if we didn't have the political turmoil here. I don't want to see the mistake repeated. Whether you were for the Iraq war or not, I think one should hold out every last hope for winning before giving up
I truly don't mean to be insulting but are you insane? We spent 10 years, lost 58,151 lives, 153,303 wounded and over 2400 missing and YOU think we should have stayed longer? How much longer? Do you know what percentage of the homeless are Vietnam veterans? How many more would have to die before we won and what the hell was winning? It's extremely simple to say we would have won when you can't even define what winning means. To you it's just a concept.
Vietnam was very possibly started for political reasons. I'm only stating that it once it was started, we would have won (i.e. dismantled the North's army and prevented the slaughter of millions of South Vietnamese) if the generals had been sufficiently supported. Once we spent all those lives, I think it was a waste to give up when victory was near.
You are flat out delusional. You mean we missed the opportunity to STILL be in Vietnam and have Americans dying there? There was no winning an OCCUPATION of a people that were NEVER going to stop. Only genocide would have won that war. Even Nixon and the Generals were saying this in NSC meetings. Your take is unadulterated BS propaganda.
Dogrun needs to read a history book.
Excuse me, braniac, but prior to our ten year intervention in Vietnam the French were fighting there since 1945. After 15+ years of that intervention the french got their @sses handed to them on a plate. And before that was the Japanese occupation. So when you contemplate that eventual victory, try recalling that it wasn't a 10 year stint, but a 25+ year stint involving several nations. So now you know, so tell me, knowing now that the vietnamese resolve was strong enough to outlive a world conflict and occupation by two world powers, what makes you think victory was just around the corner?
Of course you're right, Pearlene. To these regressive twits, winning means killing as many people as possible.
Withdrawing the troops doesn't mean we surrender. If done properly, with diplomacy and international support (under a new U.S. President), we could get out of Iraq and help forge a new democracy there. Just because we want to pull the majority of our combat troops out of Iraq doesn't mean we "give up" on Iraq. We're Americans; we're supposed to be better than this. There are other ways of achieving a favorable outcome in Iraq than using the military - losing more lives (American and Iraqi) and allowing people at home to profit from the war. It's dispicable. And again, I say, we're Americans. We know better than to act this way.
But hey, Preston Bush (GWB's grandpappy) profitted off of deals with the Third Reich prior to WWII. We should have seen it coming, imho.
"We would not have lost in Vietnam if we didn't have the political turmoil here. I don't want to see the mistake repeated. Whether you were for the Iraq war or not, I think one should hold out every last hope for winning before giving up."--dogrun
It never ceases to amaze me that conservatives are this dense. The mistake in Vietnam was fighting the war to begin with.
The entire nature of the war was misunderstood and misrepresented to the American public - especially in the early stages. The bigger lesson is to avoid fighting these sorts of protracted wars with no clear and easily definable victory criteria. I can't think of anything more vague than calling this a "War on terror".
The only conservative I have read that gets this is Colin Powell, but nobody listens to him apparently.
You arent saying anything. Vapid, inane talking points are not real policies. And no you are NOT correct. Your bizarre delusions have no connection with reality your dumb statement about Vietnam is indicitive of you inability to understand Iraq. There was no WINNING, in Vietnam because it was an occupation. We would have just had to killed virtually EVERYBODY. What kind of win is that? Or we would still have our soldiers DYING in Iraq which also doesnt register as any kind of WIN in my book. You are spouting simplistic talking points when you should be thinking about what ACTIONS we are talking about. There are no military solutions to the problems the Iraqis have to deal with. IF you are saying we just stay there playing whackamole for the next 10 or 20 years then I think I was substantially correct when I said you are invested in getting as many Americans killed as possible because THAT is the ACTION we are talking about and a WHOLE lot of deaths achieving nothing except you feeling good about being able to TALK in these inane talking points about not surrendering and trying to WIN like its a game of tiddlywinks instead of DEATHS LOTS AND LOTS OF DEATHS. You seem to be saying that if that is the cost its worth it so you can keep pretending this is a John Wayne movie.
Where do you get off rewriting the history of the War in Vietnam?
Political turmoil at home had nothing to do with the outcome of the war.
You've been listening to the nonsense being peddled by the bedwetting Chickenhawks who chose not to serve.
We lost because of the political turmoil in the Republic of Vietnam. End of story.
We tried to fight a guerilla war as occupiers of a country. Enough of the population wanted us out and were willing to fight to the last man, woman and child to see that we left.
There were many who supported our efforts, but it only takes a small percentage of the population to keep such a war going.
There was no way for us to win.
And if you want to blame someone for the results of that war, blame our government. The government that turned it's back on the millions of men who served. The government that to this day, denies needed benefits to those vets. And as Pearlene so eloquently said, many of our homeless are Veterans of the War in Vietnam.
For many, that war still rages. I have friends who are still dying from their experiences in Vietnam. Men who left as boys, and never really returned. Their bodies made it back, but not their souls.
You can apply all of the above to the current war with the exception of the percentage of the population willing to support Americans.
More Iraqi's are in favor of the insurgency that there were Vietnamese who supported the VC and NVA.
You talk about winning, and victory. Hollow words, from one who knows nothing about men at war.
DogRun,
Maybe it isn't the Dem's intent to give up on the Iraqis, but that would be the effect.
Being that roughly 80% of Iraqi's that have been polled want America OUT of their country....
55% think its ok to kill Americans as long as they are there on THEIR soil.....
73% of Americans want this stupid and very illegal occupation to end.....
only 24% of this country still think that Bush is doing a good job...... 9% for Cheney
It would seem to me that by leaving Iraq we'd be doing the bidding of the indigenous people of Iraq and America and the world!
Stop believing the right-wing talking points and of purposely being ignorant of the truth.
You only support obeying the polls when they agree with you.
You disregard polls that you don't agree with.
So what's the difference?
By the way, the poll to end all polls was Nov 2006 where not ONE incumbent Democrat lost a seat in congress. I think the statement that made was obvious.
Maybe its the Republicans intent to get as many Americans killed as they possibly can. The MISSION has already accomplished everything a military CAN accomplish. The military is a broadsword not a scalpel. It is fine for cutting things down fine surgery is not what it was made to do. All the problems left in Iraq are problems the military cannot help with. The political solutions necessary in Iraq are for the Iraqis we cannot help them solve them as long as we are occupiers and they view us suspiciously as trying to control them. Any government not demanding we leave as the vast majority of their population wants will be seen as collaborators and puppets. We havent the credibility to help the political situation in any way and wont until we leave.
I have to agree partly. The Democrats cannot match the Republicans in propaganda and lying. Until they can, they need not try to stand on principle...the GOP BIG LIE MACHINE will eat them alive.
I don't believe for a minute that the Pentagon couldn't find the money somewhere without laying people off. Of course, they might have to cancel a contract for a multi-billion dollar submarine that we don't need. But, hey...everybody has to sacrifice in time of war...right?
Nerzog, does it matter whether the Pentagon "has" to lay off staffers or not? It shouldn't if you believe what the Dems are doing is right.
As far as the new "nuckular" submarine goes, I would argue it's better to park one of those suckers off the coast of Iran, and let the Iranians know it, than saber-rattle with an already-strained marine regiment on the border. Just my opinion.
You have a point. The problem is that if they lay off Pentagon staffers, the GOP liars will beat Democrats over the head with "not supporting the military" and "not supporting the little guy"...yada yada yada. If we had an honest, impartial press, I'd say go for it.
As for the subs...I agree that they serve a purpose...but how many do we really need? I'd like to see the press do an investigation into how many Cold War weapons systems we're still wasting money on. Remember the public outrage over the $400 hammer back in the 70s? I'm guessing that the waste in Iraq makes the $400 hammer look like a Blue Light Special. We need that kind of investigative reporting again....but who am I kidding? It ain't gonna happen.
Nerzog,
I too would like to see an investigation like you suggest. I bet there are billions that could be saved.
I wouldn't stop with the military.
Nor would I. However, all of the Republicans' favorite budget bugaboos like Food Stamps and the NEA shrink to insignificance when compared to the Tax Dollar Bonfire that is Iraq.
I wouldn't stop with the military either.
But, those who profit illegally from the military in times of war, are committing treason.
I think we should start treating those who are found guilty of fraud at this time be publicly tried and the CEOs of the companies involved given stiff prison sentences.
It's way past time that we made examples of these thieves who profit from the blood of American soldiers.
But, those who profit illegally from the military in times of war, are committing treason. - Worrierking
King - I couldn't have said it better myself. If you're profitting off of the deaths of people, (no matter whether they are American soldiers or Iraqi citizens), you're a traitor to this nation. I say, put 'em in jail. That means both W and Cheney - and many more - their assets should be released to those off of whom the profits were made.
I actually LIKED Rumsfeld's idea of creating a quicker, lighter armed force and concentrating on supreme air & sea power; it wasn't what Iraq needed though. I'd like to see the day where we don't have bases all over the world, we pay soldiers $50k to start, and our army and navy is so well equipped at the micro and macro level that we don't need a sizable force at all (a lot of the $$$ we spend goes to maintenance rather than creation) in order to continue to own on the battlefield.
Rumsfeld's idea is actually what we need to fight the REAL war against terrorism. Unfortunately, the numbnuts in charge decided to invade and occupy a whole country, which requires a buttload of troops and equipment.
And the republicans aren't putting politics 1st? They are the ones fillibustering this instead of putting it to an up/down vote. Put it to the table, let's see how it rides out. But not the republicans, they are scared that some may defect and vote for the bill. What a bunch of cowards.
"The Democrats look like they are playing politics ahead of national interests."
I would say the republicans "are playing politics ahead of national interests". No one wants the continued occupation of Iraq except for some Neocons and their sycophants in the republican party. They're trying to save face while Americans and Iraqis die.
By tying up the budget in a time of war, the Dems are, imho, cutting off their collective nose to spite their face.
Again, this what the republicans are doing; not the Dems.
By taking this position they will be attacked by every conservative and moderate pundit for not 'supporting the military' because they are, in essence, refusing to pass funding "for the troops".
Why should the Dems change their position because a few conservatives will attack them? Those pundits can go f--k themselves.
It seems very tone def to me for the Democrats to do this especially with the violence in Iraq going down. It only feeds into the Republican playbook that the Democrats are invested in defeat.
It has nothing to do with the violence in Iraq at this juncture. Americans are fed up with this occupation and the Iraqis have wanted us to leave their country since forever now.
Demanding strings be tied to the funding will only hurt the Democrats especially if the General's comment prove true and the military has to start shutting down bases.
Stop worrying about the Dems and worry about the republicans.
I for one am getting fed up with this "in a time fo war" crap, AA. No one atacked us - no declaration of war was ever ratified. Bush's military action in Iraq is a violation on International Law, and he needs to be charged with war crimes against the Iraqi people.
"The Democrats look like they are playing politics ahead of national interests" AA
Except for the fact that Democrats have the will of the people behind them, that assertion would be true.
Democrats are acting on behalf of the national interest. Just face it. The Republicans are wrong, wrong, wrong on this; they scoff at We the People when they dismiss the call to end the occupation.
The radical minority is playing block and blame. They block legislation and blame the left for inaction. Truly cynical and sick when we consider that the occupation of Iraq has not decreased global terrorist activity or made the world safer. Crushing Iraq has had the opposite outcome.
The American people know who is holding thing ups in congress but it would be nice if the press was honest about it too.
That's why the group with lower approval ratings than W is congressional republicans.
Next November republicans will find out the light at the tunnel is an oncoming train.
I think you've identified a big part of the problem...the Press. Despite Republican mythology to the contrary, the Press is NOT biased in favor of Democrats. The corporate media have given Puddinhead George and his junta a pass since 9/11...and they weren't all that tough on him before that.
It's a moot point Nerzog...Repubs have polls up their pipe that show more journalists who vote, vote Dem.
I don't put much credence in those polls. Let's see the stats on managing editors and media owners...i.e. the decision makers.
Hmmm...you may have something there.
Years ago a reporter who had escaped Murdoch's Post to write for the Times described his mission at the Post as, "Search and Distort." Granted, he was a sportswriter so how much harm could he do? But all Murdoch outlets have shown a depraved indifference to journalistic integrity, across the board. Rupert himself has remarked on his successful push for war. That's a lot of harm.
Not only that some of those same polls are more detailed and those same jounalists say they see themselves as socially liberal and econnomically conservative, thus reflecting elite opinion. Also the way they VOTE isnt a finding of BIAS. In colleges Noam Chomskys institutional analysis Manufacturing Consent is often required reading. It shows a much better and detailed breakdown of the media. That it isnt monolithic, that there IS pressure to serve power, and that its overall bias breaks down as socially liberal and economically conservative. We see these polls all the time but what they really dont do is show REAL bias. Mostly the show something that can be INFERRED as showing there MIGHT be bias like how they vote.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Checking:
NYT:
Ever since Mr. Chávez held up a copy of a 301-page book by Noam Chomsky, the linguist and left-wing political commentator, during a speech at the United Nations on Wednesday, sales of the book have climbed best-seller lists at Amazon.com and BN.com, the online site for the book retailer Barnes & Noble, and booksellers around the country have noted a spike in sales.
----------------------------------------------
Noam Chomsky - is there any bigger America-hater? (OK, maybe Howard Zinn or Ahmadinejad ) Aside from doing some semi-interesting work in linguistics decades ago, Chomsky has been busy churning out one screed after another on topics upon which he has no expertise. His views on politics are about as interesting as my dry cleaners views on the price of gasoline.
If it wasn't for his venomous hatred of the USA I don't think that anyone of the left would actually try to slog through his worthless drivel.
Justice you are a flat out liar. I have at least 20 of his books and there isnt a bit of America hating in them. You are just bone ignorant. He has said in several of his books the US has almost unique political freedoms. He criticises our foriegn policy. Thats it. He does it with facts and insight. Lets see the NYTimes called him the most important intellectual alive. Foriegn Policy magazine voted him the same thing but to you he has no expertise? Been writing books on it for decades. You are just a liar and a fool. Criticise any policies an ignorant hiveminder likes and out comes the America hater stupidity. I guess that is because stupidity is all you have.
I am beginning to think your idiotic kneejerk responses are intentional and not meant to be read as sarcastic at all. Scary.
yeah, I remeber not to long ago i mentioned the republicans have become the obstructionists. That is the George W bush legacy of " dictating governmenbt ". Create a phony war, suspend the rule of law, the Constitution by enacting the support america sounding Patriot act and set the goons loose attacking the opposition.
"Defense Secretary Robert Gates says unless Congress passes war funding without conditions, it could mean the Army would have to shut down bases in this country by mid-February and lay off up to 100,000 civilian employees and contractors."
Just when I thought we couldn't have a worse Defense Secretary than Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Gates outdoes him by citing the financial well-being of government contractors as a reason for Congress to keep pouring borrowed money into a bottomless pit.
SHUT DOWN THE FOREIGN BASES FIRST. PROTECT AMERICA FIRST.
"the financial well-being of government contractors"
BINGO! Isn't that what this is all about? Halliburton and Blackwater are making out like bandits on this war, plus they're building a parallel private military. This should scare the hell out of the Libertarians.
I wonder, how many steps does it take for some of that money to find its way back into the Bush and Cheney piggy banks? I can't wait to see who pays their speaking fees and hires them to work on their boards of directors after they leave office.
Rumsfeld was shutting down bases in 2001 just before the hijackings happened.
I agree. The contractors have already made fortunes off the deaths of innocent people. Time for the gravy train to end.
When Democrats filibustered in a Republican controlled Senate, commentators couldn't open their mouths without "filibuster" being among the first few words. It was a swear word and an outrage. Democrats were impeding democracy for not allowing an "up or down" vote.
But after November 2006, the "liberal" media doesn't dare use the word "filibuster." They now say "blocked" or say the Democrats couldn't get the job done.
Ask yourselves, Republicans, why were you for "constitutional option" then when the GOP was in control but against it now?
skip,
I do not think the 'cloture vote' was intended for the 'advise and consent' of judges.
I personally do not have a problem if they got rid of that parlimentary procedure. Let the Dems win the votes and let the President veto them. From there they can let the chips fall where they may.
Fair enough AnotherAmerican. I only differ in that I think that the filibuster procedure should stay. It makes it harder for one party to dominate and disenfrachising the other almost completely by only having the presidency and a simple majority.
What I don't understand is why the Republicans are willing to filibuster as often as they have in the past 11 months when they were vilifying it only a year ago.
I like his question, it is direct and concise and the answer is Yes, they should delay any more bills until January of 08.
they have more than enough in th Pentagon budget because the bipartician votes to give an extra 90 billion two or three months ago should be more than sufficient.
What the hell kind of bullets are they shooting. Platinum or gold?
Bring the troops home and let Halliburton and KBR fund their own oil wars if they want to continue this bloodbath of a quagmire occupation.
Americans want no part of an illegal war for resources, killing innocent people for a resource that will surely kill off every man woman and child if we don't stop the use of oil pollutants in our air. Solar Solar Solar
Wind Wind Wind is FREE FREE FREEE!!