Democrats fight among themselves:
“I can’t control Speaker Pelosi,” [Sen. Reid] said on the chamber floor. “I hope everybody understands that. She is a strong, independent woman. She runs the House with an iron hand…
After Tuesday’s Senate Democratic leadership meeting, Reid dispatched deputies to inform Pelosi that the Senate would not stand for the latest offer to eliminate earmarks, as well as all war funds, from a year-end omnibus spending package.
And some much deserved rebuttal:
Asked about his decision on government funding, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) groused to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call: “I’ll tell you how soon I will make a decision when I know how soon the Senate sells us out.”
…House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) called it a “hold and fold” strategy: Senate Republicans put a “hold” on Democratic bills, and Senate Democratic leaders promptly fold their tents…
“If there’s going to be a filibuster, let’s hear the damn filibuster,” [Ways & Mean Chairman Charlie] Rangel fumed. “Let’s fight this damned thing out.”
The Senate complains and complains, but they cave and cave. You don’t like the rules, change the rules. You can’t pass anything except exactly what the president wants? Don’t pass anything.
You should be impeaching this administration, not protecting your earmarks.
We’re tired of the excuses.
Goddamn right. If these spineless clowns would actually pull their heads out (really, they’d have to be spineless to accomplish that in the first place) and figure out what the American people want them to do as our representatives (IMPEACH;GetOutofIraqNow), then they might stand a chance of being effective against the Republicans. The supposed ‘fact’ that the Senate won’t convict Bush of impeachment charges is a non-reason for not moving forward with hearings. If they dug up and exposed half the shit that this administration has done, you’d have a GOP defection in Congress and in the American public. Half the reason impeachment isn’t a front and center issue as Kucinich has tried to make it is that the American people are largely ignorant of BushCrime. Inform their discretion, said Jefferson.
Sincerely, and in Peace
Jason Call
http://www.Call4Democracy.org
Candidate, US Congress, New Mexico CD 1
Obviously Reid is not suited to his job. Was he really so stupid and unprofessional as to publicly call her a ‘strong woman’? Democrats can only be embarrassed, repugnants amused (‘WaaaPooo’, the new guffaw). So are we then to conclude that he’s a ‘weak man’? Anyway he’s obviously a very, very weak leader. Here we’re again moving in the shadows of Dick Cheney’s convoluted world of male bravado about ‘big sticks’. Grow up, ladies and gentlemen of Washington D.C.
We knew he was a weak leader when Alito was nominated for the Supreme Court (and I’m still disgusted by the idiots who called his behavior during that episode ‘brilliant’ and meant it)…
Reid is the King of the Dry Powder Status Quo.
Does anyone here have a handle on the Senate process for replacing a Majority Leader?
I’m curious if the Senate Dems could actually oust Reid if they wanted to – how many Dems would have to decide he’s a lousy leader to turn him out of his position.
(Sadly, I’m not sure there are many people in the Senate who have the vision, the leadership ability, and the support to actually be an effective Majority Leader on the Dem side. So even if he did get a critical mass of Senate Dems wanting to sideline him, I’m not sure they could actually find someone more effective anyway. But I am curious about the process.)
Does anyone here have a handle on the Senate process for replacing a Majority Leader?
I assume it would be a rerun of how we elected Dean chair of the DNC. We would all write our Dem senator, those of us who have Dem senators.
It is amazing how fast politicians can change ground when they see public opinion mobolized.
Also, if we get local committees to pass resolutions supporting Dodd for majority leader that would help.
Are you really serious? There is NO WAY that any Dem is gonna vote against Reid. In the first place, none of them would do any better. In the second place, if you try to kill the king, you had better succeed. If you even discuss killing the king, you are already in huge trouble. So, it is not gonna happen.
And I will cheerfully bet $100 on this statement.
impeach
impeach
man i’m getting tired of american politics. this last election and this year under the democrats has been incredibly disappointing. i guess i expected too much from these corporate neo-con-lite hacks. should’ve known better. what a bunch of sellouts. and to think i actually lived through all the watergate hearings and felt some pride back then in the political system in america and a faith that the treason and injustices of nixon et. al. could be caught and corrected. this time around, the crimes are at least 50 times worse and the democratic response is beyond tepid, beyond disheartening, it’s downright pathetic. they might as well adjurn congress for all of 2008.
i really wonder if this country is actually still a democracy, philosophically speaking, i don’t see how it is when it’s clearly an oligarchy run by monied and media interests and several hundred multi-millionaire/billionaire families and there’s no Bill of Rights in reality to guarantee liberty and justice and no checks and balances among the three branches that effectively works to the lower and middle classes’ benefits…….sorry to run on. i don’t know what to call it but america is no longer a democracy and it’s not a republic anymore either.
lord knows how much I despise reid but he did do one thing thathat I applauded him for and that was eliminating the ability to institue “Recess Appointments” during the Thanksgiving Recess!Now, I havent heard a thing regarding thue upcoming “Holiday” recess!
Via FDL, channelling (of all sites) red state:
To which I add: Yup.
See, it’s so plain that even a righty figured it out.
It took the neocons 40 years to get the place of power they enjoy today. I’m afraid this country does not have the luxury of another 40 years to wait for the pendelum to swing the other way.
Drastic action is needed. But there does not appear to be enough people currently in positions of power who will step up and save us.
The only one who can save us…………..is us.
Did you notice the link to Reid’s sinking numbers at home?
His constituents aren’t happy with his weakness either.
That fills my heart with joy. I would LOVE to see Harry Reid the loser sent home.
Heh, a prizefighter…….Yes indeed.
That is rich!
Glass Jaw is more like it, at least when it comes to Democratic priorities.
I’ve believed, for a LONG time, that Reid is a mole. Notice his hostility to fellow democrats, especially Dodd, who want to restore our civil rights.
Obviously you, BOo, know something that Reid does not know.
Exactly how are you going to change the rules? I don’t think you can at this point. Of course, you can enact the nuclear option:
This was going to work for the Repubs, because Cheney is the chair. It would not work for the Dems.
This kind of kvetching is so annoying. Exactly what is Reid supposed to do? And, then, if he does it, exactly what will the Republicans do? And finally what is our response?
I do not see the Dems having much leverage.
you’re awfully snotty for someone that doesn’t know what the fuck you are talking about. Dick Cheney is president of the senate, not the chair and not the parliamentarian. His role is limited to casting tie-breaking votes. The Democrats can ignore Dick Cheney.
I wouldn’t change the 60-vote threshold. But I’d change the rules so that the Republicans actually have to carry out their filibusters.
From wikipedia:
“A point of order is a parliamentary motion used to remind the body of its written rules and established precedents, usually when a particular rule or precedent is not being followed. When a senator raises a point of order, the presiding officer of the Senate immediately rules on the validity of the point of order, but this ruling may be appealed and reversed by the whole Senate. Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer governs Senate procedure. Similarly, it is possible to raise a point of order and state that the standard procedure of the Senate is actually different than the current rules and precedents suggest. If this point of order is sustained, a new precedent is established, and it controls Senate procedure thenceforth.
The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator’s point of order. “
As you were saying,…
the presiding officer of the senate is the vice-president when? How often?
It’s the senate pro tempore. And the only way Dick Cheney would matter is if the senate pro tempore was unwilling to rule with his own party.
As you were saying?
From wikipedia:
“The President pro tempore of the Senate is the second-highest-ranking official of the United States Senate and the highest-ranking senator. The Vice President of the United States is the President of the Senate ex officio, and thus is the highest-ranking official of the Senate; during his absence, the President pro tempore is the highest-ranking official in the Senate and may preside over its sessions. The President pro tempore is elected by the Senate; by custom, the President pro tempore is the most senior senator in the majority party. Normally, neither the Vice President of the United States nor the President pro tempore presides; instead, the mundane duty is generally delegated to junior senators of the majority party. The President pro tempore is third in the line of succession to the Presidency, after the Vice President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.”
Note that the president pro tempore governs the Senate in the absense of the VP. Thus, if the VP is gone, you are correct. If he is not, you are not correct.
So, what we must do is determine if the VP is in the chamber during the filibuster.
I would be willing to place a small wager that he would be present. My guess is that, as idiotic as he is, he is probably aware of this.
Up for the wager?
yeah, I am totally up for the wager. All they have to do is wait until Cheney is out of town.