http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070206/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq The GOP does a few things really, really well. For starters, they can organize themselves to be an effective opposition party. Too bad the idiot is still in the White House, but let's face it, the GOP is at its best when they are NOT in power, but preventing stuff from happening. I strongly disagree with what they are doing, but I am impressed by their party discipline to protect their idiot leader and their stupid pointless war from public scrutiny.
Hold on. The Republicans insist that competing versions of the war resolutions get brought to the floor and THEY are the ones that have "blocked full debate?!" That's one of the most disingenuous political headlines I've ever read. Harry Reid is the one that's blocked "full" debate. He doesn't want multiple versions on the floor because he doesn't want to have members of his caucus taking tough votes on the Gregg and McCain-Lieberman resolutions. The Republicans are the ones insisting on "full" debate.
Are you talking about Reid's vote against cloture on Levin's bill (S.470)? It was a procedural move so he could bring it up again in the future.
No, I'm well aware the Maj. Leader always votes against clotures. I'm talking about Reid's unwillingness to allow the two other resolutions to even be brought to the floor.
Payback's a bitch, isn't it? After stifling debate on ANYTHING for the last six years, they want to play by the rules again? Pffft.
But I thought this congress was above partisan politics and were more interested in doing what's best for the American people
Right. Christ, maybe YOU don't know what "cloture" means, but most of us do. How long do you expect people to buy your act? http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012302.php Great explanation of the trickery here, so now we can go forward and discuss the issue in an informed manner. Thank God the Dems were too smart to fall for the Republican trick of the Gregg amendment. It's sad that MassRef still either is being disingenuous and trying to bluff people with his "status" into buying GOP spin, or he's actually in some kind of position of power but is a naive little child. And it's sad that because of his "status" people don't scrutinize his posts with the same care they would scrutinize a press release from a political campaign. Cuz, ya know, that's what his posts are, informal press releases from a partisan. Finally, I hope the Dems bring up the resolution over and over and over again. Put it onto spending bills. Make 'em vote against it 100 times.
I'm going to post a knee-jerk reaction before I read the news on the issue, so sue me if I sound uninformed. I thought up until yesterday/today there had been considerable back room negotiation over the exact wording of the resolution that would be brought to the floor. In all that pre-discussion the goal was to get one resolution that could attract enough votes to pass. I find it gallingly disingenuous for a Republican operative to be complaining about the failure to allow a whole bunch of other non-negotiated resolutions to also be thrown in to the mix. There was always going to be one resolution and now the Republicans have effectively blocked there being any. Complaining about the failure to considere a second, third or fourth resolution sounds to me like not only are you lying, but you're also hoping we're stupid. Now, off to read the news to see if my suspicions about your disingenuous outrage are correct. EDIT: I've read the stories now and am convinced I am correct. The resolution I was referring to was the bipartisan Warner-Levin resolution and the other two were the smokescreens that had very little purpose other than derailing the bipartisan resolution. Faux outrage.
That's bullshit. If there is so much concern for our soldiers then defund the Iraq war funds now. Any less is nothing short of posturing.
No, I'm pretty sure I understand what "cloture" is. The vote was to invoke cloture on S. 470, which is the Levin resolution. It would have ended debate and there would have been a vote on the Levin resolution. Show me where there would have been a vote on the other two resolutions. So which side is the one stopping debate? The ones voting for cloture, or the ones voting against it? You put forth a partisan commentary to rebut my statements and I'm the one that's spinning? "Joshua Micah Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo.com is an independent source? Where is the evidence that what he claims is what really happened? Show me where the other resolutions were brought to the floor for debate. You can't, because they weren't. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You're not a partisan!? The vast majority of people that post here, in a political forum, aren't "partisan?" You just don't like it that I'm here presenting a Republican argument on some issues and not allowing the Democrat version of events to go unchecked. Hate to break it to you, but I'm not the RNC Press Secretary For Bigsoccer.com, despite what you may think. All this has nothing to do with being "partisan"--it has to do with which side of the partisan divide I come down on. And you do realize that I'm currently working against most of the people that stand to benefit in the Senate on the GOP side from this debate if it went the way I wanted, right? I just think it's a disingenuous headline. The other competing Republican resolutions were not brought to the floor and Republicans objected. That's not "blocking full debate." That's the best idea you've ever had. Please, please, let the Senate Democrats do this.
Yeah, the thing that pisses me off about MassRef is NOT his disingenuousness, it's the insult that he thinks we can't see his bullshit for what it is. Bless his heart, he's just not a good enough bullshitter. Once you stop being blinded by his "status" he's a less interesting InTheNet.
I'm not going to go as far as SD on you MassRef, but I would like you to explain why the other two resolutions are anything other than an attempt to derail the original resolution. I think it would be fine if that was their purpose and it worked, because at least then we'd know where we stand. Trying to convince me that there was a noble goal involved just sounds silly. But I'm open-minded. Explain away.
This whole "but he's a political operative" thing is getting tiring. If I worked for Democrats or a liberal outlet, I wouldn't face the same thing. The fact is that I've now worked for a national party organization and a presidential campaign. I have much more important tasks than trying to convince the liberal masses on Bigsoccer.com's politics board. I come here to offer my personal take on issues--I'm not representing a campaign or party. In fact, I avoided most debate (other than some analyses) of House races while I was at the NRCC and I'm avoiding all discussion of GOP Presidential politics while I'm at my current job. I'm a registered Republican, so I'm going to take a Republican viewpoint on many issues. But I'm sure there are a lot of registered Democrats here who--gasp!--support Democrats on most issues. Who I work for isn't an issue for me and it shouldn't be for anyone else, because I'm not discussing the campaign. If being a Republican is an issue for people here, then let me know and I'll take my proverbial ball and go home. I really want to know how I'm lying. Senators had competing resolutions. Where is it written that all resolutions must be agreed upon behind closed doors before they come to the floor? You may not like the other resolutions. You may think they're pointless and just a political ploy. But people with differing opinions than you think the Levin amendment is pointless and is also just a political ploy. Republicans insisted that all resolutions come to the floor and the Democrats voted for cloture solely on the Levin amendment in an attempt to end debate. In that regard, the headline (both of this thread and the CNN article, which wasn't linked to) is disingenuous.
I guess if you can't make a logical point, or if you are totally refuted, it's better to go after a person instead. Great tactic. What really pisses you off about MR is his well thought-out posts that you can't refute other than by casting stones. And now for that bastion of the right rolleyes: ) and their view of what this debate is REALLY all about, I give you the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020501288.html
As far as what the issue REALLY is, I suppose that editorial is fine. But, to be clear, it has nothing to do with the discussion about procedural tactics on the Senate floor.
The Dem argument is that they are laying a predicate for later action. The notion is that if (if? when!) Bush escalates anyway, it'll be easier for Congress to cut him off later. I don't know how much I buy the argument. It is based on the assumption that if the escalation fails (and it will) that the Dems and enough GOPs will want to end the, ahem, fiasco and that they'll have a better chance of having a backbone with this resolution behind them. My take was, interesting if true. Of course, it's a moot point now, given that the negotiated resolution didn't pass. The sad thing is that given that even the GOPs that were in the negotiations caved and sided with McConnell, why in God's name would the Dems trust 'em? Why in God's name would the Dems do anything other than use the Iraq war as a sledgehammer to crush the GOPs? Cuz, you know, Reid & co. tried cooperation, and Lucy pulled away the football. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again. So the "let's try to make the country better" well has been poisoned, and it's been poisoned by Bush and his senatorial allies.