Senate

Senate Republicans block heating aid bill. Yup - the Republicans again feel the poor should suffer. And it isn't a "block", it's a filibuster.

Republicans have filibustered another bill (though the media refuses to use the F word). This time it was a bill to block the decrease in Medicare payments. Just more evidence that the Republicans hate our senior citizens and want to see them all suffer. What monsters.

That's what the Senate Ethics Committee did to Larry Craig today. It seems like one serious problem they had was him showing his Senate card like some "get out of jail free" card.

Because Senate won't confirm all the people he wants. What this Washington Post article fails to mention is that a lot of them are held up because Bush wants one key person confirmed. There is a little mention of that person:

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) chastised Bush for sticking with nominees who have no chance of confirmation. One example is Steven G. Bradbury, whose nomination as assistant attorney general is opposed by many senators because he signed memos authorizing especially harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects.

Reid offered in December to confirm dozens of nominees if Bush would agree not to install Bradbury with a recess appointment, but the president refused. Reid cleared 84 confirmations anyway. "President Bush has instead pursued his my-way-or-the-highway, all-or-nothing approach," Reid said in a statement. "As a result, many of these nominations -- Democrat and Republican -- have stalled, putting a number of agencies in jeopardy."

Bradbury is an extremist - period. During his confirmation hearing he told Patrick Leahy; "The President is always right". Really? I guess that means they can't use Monica against Clinton, because "the President is always right". No he isn't, and this is the perfect example why this man should not be confirmed.

Don't be mislead by articles like this. It isn't Congress blocking the nominees, it's Bush blocking them because he wants one constitution hating extremist to be confirmed. Perhaps Reid should get really nasty and fight back saying he won't schedule any confirmation hearings and will keep Senate in session straight through to 1/20/09. Let's see how that goes.

So much compassion that they filibuster helping out our vets, elderly and poor:

Senate Republicans blocked a move by Democrats on Wednesday to add more than $40 billion in checks for the elderly, disabled veterans and the unemployed to a bill to stimulate the economy.

The 58-41 vote fell just short of the 60 required to break a GOP filibuster and bring the Senate version of the stimulus bill closer to a final vote. The Senate measure was backed by Democrats and a handful of Republicans but was strongly opposed by GOP leaders and President Bush, who objected to the costly add-ons.

What compassion!

All year we complained how Harry Reid let the Republicans get by with countless "silent" filibusters. Now he is actually making a filibuster actually take place. Sound good?

[I]f people think they are going to talk this to death, we are going to be in here all night. This is not something we are going to have a silent filibuster on. If someone wants to filibuster this bill, they are going to do it in the openness of the Senate.

The bill he is talking about? FISA. The person threatening the filibuster? Chris Dodd. Why does Harry hate the Democrats so much?

Glenn Greenwald has much more

Harry Reid has pulled the FISA bill until the first of the year. It was great to see Chris Dodd stand up for the rule of law today and put an end to this pampering George Bush has received under this Democratic Congress.

It's also worth mentioning that Chris Dodd was the only presidential candidate that chose to stay off the campaign trail today and fight for this. Biden, Clinton and Obama all chose their own campaigns over our nation as a whole. They should be reminded of that.

Chris Dodd is standing up for the rule of law today and is going to filibuster the bill giving telecom companies immunity in illegal wiretapping. He is looking for questions to address during his time on the floor, and you can help by going here and submitting some.

It's pretty sad that the Republicans don't actually have to filibuster bills they oppose - instead Harry Reid let's them die without a fight, but when a Democrat opposes a bill he has to go through the entire ordeal of a filibuster. I guess that shows which side of the aisle Harry Reid really sits with.

Republicans have screwed themselves. This is no secret. From their constant signs of hypocrisy, to their obstructionism in the Senate, to their lock step legislating with the worse President in American history, they are working on handing the Democrats another big sweep next year:

Democrats are positioned to bolster their Senate majority in next year's elections, which would give them more clout regardless who succeeds President George W. Bush in the White House.

With Republicans dogged by retirements, scandals and the Iraq war, there's an outside chance Democrats will gain as many as nine seats in the 100-member Senate in the November 2008 elections, which would give them a pivotal 60.

That is the number of votes needed to clear Republican procedural roadblocks, which have been used to thwart the Democrats' efforts to force a change in Bush's policy on the Iraq war, particularly plans to withdraw U.S. troops.

One question does come to mind in this analysis though - what about Lieberman? I think a lot will depend upon the numbers. If we get 60 seats, he will most likely remain as an Independent that caucuses with the Democrats so he can maybe retain a committee chair. There is also the chance that he ends up switching sides fully. Either way, he is a thorn in the side of Democrats. The leadership in the Senate must cut their losses and put a true Democrat in charge of the Homeland Security committee. With a more solid majority, Democrats will be in a better position to do this. Give Lieberman the true independent status and let him chair nothing. He hasn't earned the right.

And the latest asshole leaving Congress - Pete Domenici:

Veteran Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) is expected to announce tomorrow that he will retire from the Senate in 2008, according to several informed sources, a decision that further complicates an already difficult playing field for Republicans next November.

Domenici has struggled with health problems over the last several years and has been dogged by questions about the role he may have played in the firing of U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias in Albuquerque. As a result, he had been long been rumored as a potential retirement. Domenici's Senate office did not return a call this afternoon, but sources close to the senator say he will fly home to New Mexico tomorrow to make the announcement that he is retiring.

Josh wonders how much of Pete's involvement in the attorney purge has to do with this. I am also wondering that.

Will they do the same for Republican Congressman and Giuliani adviser Peter King?

A homeland security adviser to Rudy Giuliani came under fire Thursday for claiming there were "too many mosques" in the United States — and defended himself by saying his point was that not enough Muslim leaders cooperate with law enforcement.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and the top GOP member on the panel, said his comments to the Politico Web site were taken out of context. Democrats said Giuliani should drop him as a campaign adviser.

"I stand by everything I said other than the fact that the Politico totally took it out of context," King said Thursday.

So a member of the United States Congress insults an entire group of our population based upon religion. The Senate should take up a resolution immediately to condemn this statement since they have this new precedent now. Or is it that Petraeus is such a thin skinned individual that he is the only one who deserves such pampering?

And let them die in Iraq!

That should be the new slogan of the GOP. They did another filibuster on Boxer's resolution condemning any ad against military people (past or present), yet the measure condemning MoveOn's ad passed.

Considering the GOP blocks any measure that would help the troops as a whole, or even give them an end in sight, they have given another "fuck the troops". The only troops that they care about are ones who will bow down to their political belief. What is it we are fighting for again? It sure as hell isn't freedom!

I can understand the Democrats voting for this. Negative attack ads is what the Republicans do, and they sure will go after every Democrat that voted no. However, it is time for Harry Reid to grow some balls. Instead of allowing these "procedural" filibusters on Iraq, force the GOP to full filibusters. Yeah it will slow Senate down, but what the hell is getting done now? Let's have some multi-day filibusters go one to show all the American people that the Republicans care nothing about democracy. Why would they filibuster anyways? Bush would just veto it, then the Republicans can sit back and not look like obstructionists.

Stop being a pussy Harry!

Yesterday the Republicans filibustered the Webb amendment, which would have given our troops equal time home as in combat. This was a certain show that the Republicans do not support our troops. So today they are supporting the troop. Senate is getting ready to take up debate on a Republican resolution condemning Move On over the Petraeus ad.

A few things come to mind on this resolution.

First off, we saw numerous attacks against John Kerry in 2004 when the Swift Boaters went into action. The same thing happened to Max Cleland. Two Vietnam heroes had their service trashed by Republicans, who had the greed of power. Luckily Barbara Boxer is putting in a resolution to also condemn those ads.

One thing I don't think is being discussed is what this means. This resolution is the same thing as a censure resolution against Bush. Now when those resolutions get discussed, the Republicans take to the airwaves talking about what "a waste of time" they are. So just like the filibuster, the Republicans were against toothless resolutions before they were for them.

While speaking of condemning people, how about the American people condemning Senate? In the latest Reuters poll, that is exactly what has happened. Congress has an approval rating of 11%. Now the GOP will be quick to say "yeah - no one wants the Democrats in charge". Well nothing could be further from the truth. In all recent polling, America prefers the Democrats controlling Congress over Republicans. Considering that, one can safely say that the low approval rating is easily attributed to the obstructionist attitude of the Republicans. You get die-hard Republicans that will give a low approval rating because they aren't in charge. You also get Democrats that will give a low approval rating because of the action of Republicans.

This is very dangerous territory for the GOP. They have already written off 5 Senate races next year, and that number is very conservative. Of course that also puts the Democrats in danger. All signs are pointing to a Democratic controlled everything in 2008. Any sensible student of American politics know that is not the best thing. Having shared control sparks debate, which is how things get done in a democracy. Of course the current GOP attitude of "filibuster everything" stifles that debate (kind of a catch-22 there).

So we will are risking a constitutional crisis in this country. That might be a bad thing, but I don't think so. Self fulfilling politicians have come up with enough ways to shred the meaning of our democracy so they can serve their own interests. That occurs on both sides of the aisle. Maybe it is time to have a new constitutional convention and fix all the problems we see now.

What America needs most is fresh blood in D.C. Both parties need new blood. Then, perhaps, things could get done in America and people would enjoy the government our forefathers died for, instead of despising it.

Check out this headline from the AP:

So what is that? Could it be troop cuts or defunding the war? NO! This article is about the Republicans filibustering Jim Webb's amendment to give the troops as much time home as they are at war. Anti-war? Fuck you AP - this was a pro-troop bill. It was a pro-military bill, by providing our troops with the rest they need to counter any problem that might face our nation.

AND IT'S CALLED A FILIBUSTER!!!!

You pandering pussies that are destroying the fourth estate. When the Democrats talked of blocking John Roberts confirmation to the Supreme Court all we heard from you was "filibuster". The Republicans have been on a roll obstructing Senate, yet you never mention the word filibuster. Don't believe me? Well here is another example just today:

Senate Rejects Expanding Detainee Rights

Makes it sounds like both these measures failed by a straight up/down vote - don't it? I mean saying "senate rejects" implies that a majority of Senators voted against it. Do your fact checking ASSociated Press. Both these measures were blocked with a filibuster. A majority of Senators wanted to vote on the issues, but the Republicans don't think our troops our Habeas Corpus deserve an up/down vote. And apparently neither does the AP.

As all have probably heard by now, Russ Feingold said he is introducing resolutions to censure Bush and Cheney. That is a great move, even though it isn't impeachment. Still, let's see how the AP reports this:

Liberal Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold said Sunday he wants Congress to censure President Bush for his management of the Iraq war and his "assault" against the Constitution.

But Feingold's own party leader in the Senate showed little interest in the idea. An attempt in 2006 by Feingold to censure Bush over the warrantless spying program attracted only three co-sponsors.

Feingold, a prominent war critic, said he soon plans to offer two censure resolutions — measures that would amount to a formal condemnation of the Republican president.

Now I am not trying to say Liberal is a bad word, but I find it interesting how the AP decided to throw it in there. Of course there are Democrats who are against it, but they will be dealt with the next time they run for office. We need action out of the Senate now. What has been happening isn't cutting it.