while I'd agree with you that the media is mischaracterizing what is going on, I'm more bothered by the amount of time and energy being devoted to a really futile and stupid gesture.

It's a non-binding resolution that they're arguing about, for goodness sakes. Who cares? Bush is going to do what he wants to do, period, end of sentence.

I'm not sure who is more idiotic: the democrats who think a non-binding resolution amounts to a hill of beans or the republicans who think they're scoring points by refusing to allow a vote (notwithstanding their hypocritical sudden love for the filibuster).

Let the democrats have their vote. Are you all so delusional to think that anyone outside the beltway (and in particular, outside America) really pays attention to non-binding resolutions? Yeah, I can imagine some insurgent being gunned down by one of the newly arriving military and, as he lay dying, thinking "but didn't the democrats vote against the surge?".....

I don't think the issue of this being cloture, not-cloture, limiting debate, keeping debate open, etc resounds with the average Joe of the electorate. It is of interest to political devotees, but not to anybody else.

It would be great to see the Senate devote this much time and energy to really important issues instead of wrangleing over non-binding resolutions. They have vastly more important things to do.

Seems to me that the morons in congress could have better spent their time trying to solve some of the problems, that they were screaming about before the elections.

I remember when Frist et all wanted to do away with this...the "nuclear" (as Bush would say) option? remember "the gang of thirteen"? ...
It is critical to our democracy that minority parties maintain some power...
I have no problem with the minority Republicans taking a stand with our President. Our President has declared himself "The War President"...the Republicans have declared themselves "The War Party"...
Support for this War could not be higher among the voters...It is getting better...the surge will work..The Dems are looking like fools for opposing the vision and optimism of Bush/Cheney.
Watch for a major jump in polls supporting our President...
...I will add it is time to put up or shut up for Dems..if they are not willing to tie funding with real progress by the Iraqi govt then their dance is not different than Republicans...only more hypocritical.
At least Obama put up today with his resolution supported in the House by a Nam vet and the only elected vet of this war..

The resolution would do this
"The binding legislation ends President Bush's escalation by capping the number of troops at January 10, 2007 levels, puts forward specific benchmarks for success in Iraq and establishes a timeline to redeploy our troops. Redeployment, according to the bill, would begin no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of all combat brigades redeployed by March 31, 2008 - a date consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Troops would be sent either home to their families in the U.S., to Afghanistan where more troops are needed to fight the war on terror or would remain in the region to train Iraqis, protect against more violence and perform counterterrorist activities. The Iraq War De-Escalation Act will refocus the efforts of American armed forces on Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden and urges the president to send, within 60 days, a Special Envoy to Iraq to begin the important work of diplomacy with key nations in the region.

In addition, if the Iraqi government meets certain political, diplomatic and reconstruction benchmarks outlined by the Administration, the plan allows for the temporary suspension (for no more than 90 days) of troops redeployments, however only with congressional approval."

Actually, this is the most reasonable plan I have seen yet..

As usual, Reid outplays the Repub. The Pubs can't win on this one. Either they are obstructing the "will" of the people, or they allow a vote, and put their approval for the disaster that is the surge on record (good luck in '08).

Meanwhile, a convicted terrorist (1983 US embassy bombing) is part of he ruling body in Iraq, and intelligence believe that he is an Iranian agent, yet Bush does nothing but ask for another quarter billion dollars to keep this terrorists in power.

Nogo, just what part of non-binding do you not understand?

I thought the Republicans' vote yesterday blocked debate on that specific resolution.

I think the interpretation that it is blocking debate on the issue is just conservatives having their heads on backwards, and not having the benefit of a decent education -- or maybe it's the benefit of the thinking "gene"...?

Maybe if an adult read the newspaper to you and explained the words it would be easier?

If it quack likes a duck, and waddles like a duck...

Lee
Did you even read the post? It is the Dems and MSM that claim the non-cloture vote is blocking debate not the Reps.

Nogo

As has been stated in many previous posts, the Reps were talking to end the Filibuster options on judicial nominees not general legislations. The GOP would probably agree to that rule change today. Personally I like to throw in cabinet positions to get an up or down vote within a reasonable amount of time as well.

Can we count on your support Nogo for that rule change?

Lee conveniently ignores the fact that Lieberman argued the Republican side on the cloture vote.

At least one Dem has a shred of intellectual honesty.

Lee, you are blinded by your own zealotry. But that's OK, no one takes you seriously anyway.

Correction (again):

Lieberman is not a Democrat.

"The AP is, well, lying. Voting for cloture doesn't encourage "full-fledged" debate; it limits the debate by forcing a final vote."

Cloture ends the fillibuster and permits debate to continue - typically limiting it to 30 hours. Read this and ignore the quacking ducks.

Either they are obstructing the "will" of the people, or they allow a vote, Posted by: BarneyG2000 at February 6, 2007 05:18 PM

If you think this exercise in futility is the "will of the people" you're delusional.

The "people" want action not political grandstanding bu a bunch of hot air balloons masquerading as public servants.

But Marc - they're doing what they're best at.

Making noises in front of microphones to please their constituency enough so they'll stay elected.

Do you really expect anything else? I mean, if they go off-track and actually DO something, they might be responsible somewhere down the road! And what if what they're responsible for doesn't work out? Then they'll be on record as the responsible parties!

That's why a non-binding, effectively powerless resolution is so TERRIBLY important! They can take a stand without fear of any repercussion!

Kim

Why don't you address your BS story about Pelosi and the military aircraft?

Where is your retraction?

Better question,

Why do you think you can control debate and or content here?

Why don't you get a free blog and you can control everything.

Well almost everything. You would have no control over your lack of readership.

Marc's response is typical. Once we liberals have exposed the lies and hypocrisy, and shot down all of the strawman arguments and waded through the links to lies, then we're told we should go some place else. I guess Marc is happiest unchallenged in his warm cocoon of bullshit and make-up crap spoon fed to him by the conservative bloggers. Conservative bloggers who's desperate lies are increasing daily.

But this isn't about controlling free speech, Marc, it's only a debate. Just because we libbies win more often than we lose is no reason to tell us to leave!

Wayne...I support the tradition that allows the minority party the right to halt the majority.

Congratulations, Kim!

Your debunked BS story "Nancy Pelosi is Drunk with Power" even got a link back to Wizbang...

Didn't you do two on the topic?

No update? No correction?

FACT CHECK: Washington Times Publishes False Report On Pelosi's Use Of Military Aircraft On February 1, the Washington Times published a story titled "Speaker pursues military flights," which claimed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had been "pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district." Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) also used military aircraft to travel to his district. However, the Times reported, Pelosi is "demanding permanent access to a large military jet for herself, her staff, other Members and supporters."

The story was disseminated widely through right-wing talk radio and blogs, spurring posts like, "First Class Pelosi," "Air Force Becomes Pelosi Air," "Nancy Pelosi is Drunk With Power," "The Imperial Speakership," "Pelosi: Fly Me Awayyyyy," "Pelosi wants military airlift," and "Nancy Pelosi's Private Military Plane."

Kim

Cat got your tongue, Kim.

We're eagerly awaiting your takeback on "Drunk with Power."

Maybe you should sign your posts: "DRUNK W/ DECEIT."

John...ya got to quit posting facts...this blog exists so some may continue to suckle the teat of fantasy...after all it is better to drink the milk we know as opposed to the milk we don't know....
Remember...our cut and ran from Viet Nam was the direct result of Americans losing faith in the vision of victory set by Nixon/Kissinger ...it is the progeny of these that is determined to undermine the Bush/Cheney/McCain vision of victory in Iraq...
Get real....

Kim

At the beginning of your post you write: "The media and the left are deliberately and completely mischaracterizing what happened with the anti-surge resolution in order to hurt the Republicans and help the Democrats, and it's really underhanded and dishonest"

As Jo might write, "Bwahahahahaha."

In light of the phoney hatchet job you did a couple of days ago based on that Wash Times Republican slime job on Pelosi, you got one colassal nerve to write what is quoted above.

You, who have "deliberately and completely" mischaracterized your Pelosi story and then failed to print a retraction, have no integrity or honesty in your joirnalism, only the most rapacious partisanship.

Liberals are such wussies they have the big ole media to cover their asses for them.

And they STILL lose most of the elections. And when they win, they BARELY win.

Bwahahahahahahahah......

Sweeeet.

Maybe you should sign your posts: "DRUNK W/ DECEIT."

You forgot "slattern"...or is it "harlot", or "trollop"? Did you misplace your Roget's?

You know what, except for the politcal wonks, no one is really paying attention to this whole thing. "Non-binding", "cloture", etc...unless it has something to do with "American Idol", it's pretty meaningless in the eyes of most.

Once we liberals have exposed the lies and hypocrisy, and shot down all of the strawman arguments and waded through the links to lies, then we're told we should go some place else.

You cannot shoot down "strawmen" with other "strawmen", and frankly, you should be happy this website doesn't run like Daily Kos, or DemoUnderground, where little or no straying from the party line is allowed. You, aRepub, and rest frankly should be thanking the rest of us for listening to your dubious meanderings with some sort of patience.

Thank you.

Trollop!

I am not surprised that the liberals miss the shamelessness of the Dems. They were trying to pass a resolution against the surge. Yet they didn't want to debate or shoot down Patreus, the "surge" general.

Again, no surprise here. Just the usual stuff from the sewage of the liberal left. Just point out that the liberals on this thread is just another example of that sewage.

BTW, we should expect that liberal MSM to lie, distort, and propagandize on behalf of the liberal dems and the enemies of America.

Once in a while I am surprised when the liberal MSM tells the truth.

I thought the demos where in control. Did I miss somewhere that they had a majority?

"pukeface" why don't you go and drown yourself.

But this isn't about controlling free speech, Marc, it's only a debate. Just because we libbies win more often than we lose is no reason to tell us to leave! Posted by: Lee

As is the norm Lee you read/understand not what is written but what you decide is the bet interpretation to suit your immediate needs.

And more often than not those needs are a driving ambition to slam any and everything with a opposite point of view.

Now nitwit just where in my post you were referring to was any mention of suggestion anyone should go leave be banned or shut up?

The reality is, (a foreign concept I know) my post was in direct response to yet another psuedo Wizbang editor-in-chief who acts like this blog is a publicly run corporation and they are the majority stock holder and can demand not only what is posted but when.

All the while having zero concept what civil discourse is.

What was posted was s simple suggestion to puke and the rest that strangely came out of the woodwork after Nov 7th if the desire is so strong to be an editor-in-chief they could get their own FREE blog.

And I have to say Lee, it takes one set of balls to claim someone is "happiest unchallenged in his warm cocoon of bullshit" when 1. you wallow in your own bullshit like an arrested astronaut and 2. you were given every chance to post your own blog post here in Dec and you ran like a scalded cat or a dog with turpintine on its ass.

NITWIT.

SO, Lee - Riddle me this - HOw would allowing votes on more proposals than just the ONE that Reid wants be inimical to free speech? How does not invoking Cloture PREVENT further debate? Just because INvoking cloture ALLOWS for thirty hours more of debate it does not mean that PREVENTING cloture PREVENTS further debate - indeed, it allows for MORE than thirty hours of further debate.

So explain how limiting the options to be voted upon and limiting the number of hours of debate increases debate?
|

ANd let me add this, Lee - its irrelevenat even if you were right(You aren't) Either the media was redifining the term for the democrats to make their actions be seen in a more positive light, and reverted to the normal use of the ter with republicans. .or was using the normal use of the term with the demorats and redefined it for the republicans to make them look worse. NEither version is flattering to the stool pigeons of the democratic party in the media.

Because mostr consistantly, when republicans were voting for Cloture on ANY fillibuster of the Democrats it was described as "Voting to cut off debate" and suddenly, here, the Republicans fillibustering are "Voting to cut off debate"

Aaaaand. .the fillibuster that was objected to, specifically, was the fillibuster of judicial appointments. And not just the fillibuster at all, but the BLATANT abuse of it to try to prevent a vote from happening _at all_ not just to extend debate. WHich is not the same as "We insist that you ALSO bring floor votes on "X, Y, Z"

But this isn't about controlling free speech, Marc, it's only a debate. Just because we libbies win more often than we lose is no reason to tell us to leave!

Lee, you really ... REALLY need to look up the meaning of the word "debate". It certainly doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

First of all, to debate an issue, you have to RESPOND to the issue under discussion. Responding with your typical pre-Neanderthal anti-woman rant against the author in question, isn't debate - it's a personal attack. If you actually responded to the discussion, those of us on the right would be thrilled to engage you in a discussion. However, as previously noted, you seem to run from the opportunity to actually go on record with an opinion on an issue.

Which makes your reaction even stranger - no one "wins" an internet debate. Oh, sure, you can declare yourself "King of Scotland" and say that you have won, but it doesn't actually make you the "King of Scotland" - except in your own mind.

So - calm down. It is nothing to get so hyper about. People aren't telling you to go away - they are simply pointing out the incredible obvious. You continually demand that the owners of this establishment follow your orders in terms of what and how they discuss an issue. There is, of course, no reason for them to do so ... especially when you could simply do yourself (by starting a blog) what you demand of them - if you had the guts to do so.

"How does not invoking Cloture PREVENT further debate? Just because INvoking cloture ALLOWS for thirty hours more of debate it does not mean that PREVENTING cloture PREVENTS further debate - indeed, it allows for MORE than thirty hours of further debate."

No, it doesn't allow for any debate on this measure.

When a filibuster is under way the measure is stalled - no debate on it, no vote.

Voting for cloture breaks the filibuster, and allows the measure to move forward for debate and a vote.

Preventing cloture (which the Republicans did) kills the measure, it cannot continue to debate and a vote. It takes 60 votes in favor of cloture to break a filibuster and allow the measure to continue. Republicans refused to vote in favor of cloture, and therefore there was no debate or vote on the measure.

I realize how counter-intuitive this is, and that's why I linked to the Congressional document above which explains cloture and filibuster.

The rest of you quacking ducks need to get a life.

Lee, you confuse "filibuster" with debate.

From your link: "Filibustering includes any use of dilatory or obstructive tactics to block a measure by preventing it from coming to a vote."

Cloture was established as a means of ending this tactic that was designed to PREVENT A VOTE from taking place. Notorious examples include reading a phone book.

I don't think it is a fair charatcterization that the Senate Republicans are trying to "prevent a vote" on the resolution. They are attempting to broaden the debate (over a NON-BINDING RESOLUTION, for pete's sake) to include alternative statements of the sense of the Senate. And they have a perfectly legitimate reason for doing so (whether you agree with it or not).