The Dems host a sleep-over
The Republicans are well schooled in obstruction. Here’s a little snip from yesterday that will serve as example:
- Southwick May Stymie Senate — GOP Eyes Plan To Block Bills
Erin P. Billings, Roll Call
July 16, 2007
Barring an unlikely confirmation of Leslie Southwick to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by the Judiciary Committee this week, Senate GOP leaders have privately mapped out a retaliatory plan that involves blocking passage of Democratic legislation from now until the August recess.
The Pubs are now poised to filibuster the Levin-Reed redeployment bill — you remember filibuster, that loophole the Pubs were going to banish forever last year when the Dems thought to use it. Rarely reported, the Pubs have been filibustering everything in sight and holding up the legislative process — last week they filibustered Jim Webb’s bill requiring that the troops be combat ready, effectively killing it as they have many other decent bills brought by the Dems. The Congress is taking a direct hit in public polls, even lower numbers than Dubby, but the public forgets that the Blue holds the majority by one … they can set the agenda, but they can’t pass it through without cooperation. So — this time, to prove the Republican obstruction, the Senate will allow the long-winded their platform. Meanwhile, the Dems want an up or down vote … you remember up/down vote, that which the Pubs demanded on their Supreme candidates?
The Dem’s are calling their bluff this time — Harry Reid is, contrary to demeanor, a tough little guy, he saw his opening [pushed for by activists, I might add] and he took it. He asks for our support, below — let’s give it.
Looks like Congress will earn its nickle tonight.
First piece will clarify, second is Reid’s website and activist/op — other good articles here, including a video that reminds us the last time the Pubs actually took the bait and blew hard into the wee small hours, it was to stonewall the Civil Rights Act in 1964; the last piece, by Sirota, was before Reid declared a smack-down … I’m including it for the inside info.
Jude
Stand and Filibuster
The Progress Report
7/17/07
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced yesterday that the Senate will stay up all night tonight and force lawmakers to stand and debate a bill that provides a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops. If conservatives refuse to allow a majority vote on Iraq redeployment legislation, “we will work straight through the night on Tuesday,” Reid said. Last week, Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) introduced a measure to begin redeployment from Iraq within 120 days of its passage, with a target end date of April 30, 2008. Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl (AZ) yesterday “formally registered” an objection to having a simple majority vote on the bill’s passage, forcing the Senate majority to overcome a 60-vote hurdle in order to beat back a potential filibuster. Three Republicans — Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Gordon Smith (R-OR), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) — have indicated their public support for the Levin/Reed bill. Many of their colleagues on the right, while voicing support for withdrawal, have refused to turn their rhetoric into voting action. Reid said conservatives “are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops. They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces.”
HOW A FILIBUSTER WORKS: U.S. Senate rules provide an opportunity for lawmakers to engage in unlimited debate. “The term filibuster — from a Dutch word meaning ‘pirate’ — became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.” To end debate, a Senator can file a cloture petition. “Cloture refers to the only procedure by which the Senate can place a time limit on debate, thus overcoming a threatened filibuster, and get to clarity. Cloture can only be achieved if three-fifths of the members of the Senate, normally 60 of them, vote for it.” The late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), “armed with throat lozenges and malted milk tablets,” held the Senate floor for more than 24 consecutive hours in an attempt to stop the passage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act. John Nichols writes in The Nation, “Like the southern senators who filibustered against civil rights legislation in the 1950s,” those who choose to “rant on and on about how Congress cannot block the president’s war making will expose themselves…to the harsh light of day — and potentially to the harsh response of the voters in 2008″ if they filibuster the Levin/Reed bill. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) said, “I believe on critical issues like the war, it’s time to make the Republicans stand on their feet and go through a traditional filibuster, so that the rest of the nation will understand…what they’re doing, who is obfuscating, who is creating impediment to changing the course of the war.”
SOME RECENT TACTICS: Appearing on the Young Turks radio show last week, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) explained that a Republican senator had recently told him the conservative leadership had adopted a strategy designed to “prevent any accomplishment” by the Democratic-held Congress. In the 109th Congress, conservatives used the filibuster to block the passage of a minimum wage increase, ethics reforms, comprehensive immigration reform, funding for renewable energy, and funding for the intelligence community, among a host of other popular legislative priorities. Many of these measures enjoy strong majority support. Last week, for instance, conservatives held up a measure offered by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) that would have required members of the Armed Forces deployed overseas to be given more rest at home. Webb’s amendment received a strong 56 votes, but not enough to kill the minority’s stranglehold on the bill’s passage. When asked if the majority should start forcing the minority to stand and physically filibuster these bills, Conrad responded, “Yeah, I think there’s a growing consensus that we ought to do that.”
CONSERVATIVE HYPOCRISY: Conservatives who are now fully embracing the filibuster as a tool to thwart passage of Iraq redeployment bills are the very same lawmakers who were calling for the “nuclear option” in 2005. At the time, Republicans held 55 seats in the Senate and were constantly voicing anger over the “obstructionism” of Democrats, who objected to the confirmation of a few right-wing judicial nominees. In 2005, the majority called for upending the practice of filibustering judicial appointments. Now, those same senators — who are currently in the minority — have been constantly deploying the threat of a filibuster. Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) previously said the filibuster was “bad for the institution. It’s wrong. It’s not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I’m perfectly prepared to blow the place up. No problem.” Now, Lott, along with Kyl, are using the filibuster to provide political cover for President Bush and prevent passage of legislation that retains the majority support of Americans.
~ from Harry Reid
Republicans don’t have an agenda — only a strategy to stall the will of the American people.
Yesterday I brought the Levin-Reed Amendment to the floor of the Senate. This amendment requires the President to begin bringing our troops home in 120 days. Once again Republican leadership resorted to technical maneuvers to block efforts to end the war.
If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin-Reed today, I will keep the Senate in session straight through the night. The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up-or-down vote on this amendment to end it.
I need your help to send a clear message to Senate Republicans: Stop Obstructing. It’s time to change course in Iraq.
http://giveemhellharry.com/obstruction
Republicans are using a filibuster to prevent us from voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops and are denying us an up-or-down vote on the most important issue facing our country.
Plenty of Republicans are talking the right way on Iraq, expressing disapproval for the President’s policy.
But speeches won’t end the war, votes will.
Tell Republicans: Stop Obstructing. It’s time to change course in Iraq.
Harry Reid Finally Starts to Fight Smart
The key is for Reid to stop giving Republicans an easy out. When GOP leaders threaten to filibuster in favor of endless war, the majority leader must continually call their bluff.
John Nichols, The Nation via Alternet
July 17, 2007
Harry Reid is finally coming to the realization reached months ago by the American people: That Democrats in Congress have been played for suckers by the Bush White House and its Republican allies on Capitol Hill.
The Senate majority leader’s recognition of the realities of Washington in the Bush era — as evidenced by his decision Monday to set up a scenario that could clarify the role played by Republican senators in maintaining the president’s exceptionally unpopular approach to the Iraq War — holds out the prospect that the politics of the debate over ending the occupation could change radically in the weeks to come.
Make no mistake, such a shift is necessary.
Despite the clear mandate they received last November — a mandate that, in a time of war and against a fierce campaign by the sitting president, restored the opposition party to control of both the U.S. House and Senate for the first time since the “Republican revolution” of 1994 — Congressional Democrats have for the past six months behaved as powerless bystanders in George Bush’s Washington.
Instead of boldly challenging the most dysfunctional president in American history, using all the tools of the system of a checks and balances that was established to favor legislative oversight of the executive branch, Democrats have played the game by Bush’s rules. And they have lost at every turn.
With a quarter of the term of the current Congress now done, it is clear that the cooperative approach adopted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Senate Majority Leader Reid, D-Nevada, hasn’t worked. It is not just that approval ratings for Congress are now below those of a failed president that Democrats were elected to challenge and constrain. It is that the disastrous war in Iraq, the central crisis of this American moment, continues to claim the lives of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians at an alarming rate.
The circumstance requires that Congressional Democrats change course. And their new priority should be to clarify rather than muddy the debate over Iraq.
That is what Reid is doing, at least tentatively, with his decision to, as he puts it, “highlight Republican obstruction” of Democratic efforts to bring the troops home.
Reid plans to do that Tuesday by refusing to allow Republicans to quietly make procedural moves to block voting on an amendment sponsored by Michigan Senator Carl Levin and Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed that would establish a withdrawal timeline. Instead, he plans to force the president’s Senate allies to filibuster — at least for one night — in favor of continuing a war that even Republicans do not want to be associated with anymore.
“I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down,” Reid declared Monday afternoon. “If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday. The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.”
Unless Republicans agree to a simple-majority vote on Levin-Reed, Reid has indicated that he will keep the Senate in continuous session through Tuesday night and into Wednesday.
The point is to make it absolutely clear that Republican senators — even those who say they want to start bringing the troops home — are doing everything in their power to prevent a Senate vote that might embarrass of challenge Bush.
It is not likely that one night of filibustering complete the process of exposing the Republican shenanigans for what they are.
But Reid’s move is a step in the right direction.
Nothing highlighted the ineffectual nature of the Democratic opposition to Bush’s policies more than Reid’s willingness to politely allow Republicans to prevent votes on fundamental issues such as the war.
Again and again, Republicans threatened to filibuster — a move that involves endless speechifying and limitless debate — in order to prevent the passage of measures designed to being bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.
Again and again, the majority leader responded to the threats by seeking a cloture vote that, if successful, would trump the filibuster threat and allow a vote of the full Senate in favor of the anti-war position that the vast majority of Democrats and a reasonable number of Republicans say they favor. Cloture refers to the only procedure by which the Senate can place a time limit on debate, thus overcoming a threatened filibuster, and get to clarity.
Cloture can only be achieved if three-fifths of the members of the Senate, normally 60 of them, vote for it.
Unfortunately for Reid, the Democratic caucus has just 51 members — a few of whom, like Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman, are in the pocket of the Bush White House — and the majority leader has only a handful of Republican allies who are willing to break with the administration on cloture votes regarding Iraq.
Thus, when Reid has sought cloture, he has more often than not been thwarted by Republican leaders, who successfully hold enough of their members to prevent the limit on debate. Only when the White House has ordered Senate Republicans to back off and allow a vote, as happened on the supplemental funding measure that Bush would eventually veto, does Reid get the vote he wants.
Reid and his fellow Democrats have tried to portray the votes on cloture as true tests of the will of senators.
But the American people have not seen these procedural clashes as consequential. As a result, Republicans who wanted to play both sides of the Iraq debate — making vaguely anti-war statements that get big play in the media while quietly providing the behind-the-scenes votes the White House needs to maintain its policies — were able to do so.
There was no clarity. And more and more Americans came to see Reid and the Democrats as, at best, ineffective; and, at worst, in unspoken collaboration with Bush.
Reid appears finally to have recognized that problem — with a little prodding from Senate colleagues and grassroots activists.
North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, a principled Democrat from a rather red state who voted against authorizing Bush to go to war in Iraq and who “gets” the Senate as well as just about any member, raised the prospect of a new approach when he appeared last week on Air America’s “Young Turks” program. Conrad explained that a Republican senator had recently told him the GOP leadership had adopted a strategy designed to “prevent any accomplishment” by the Democratic Congress. A key component of the strategy is to repeatedly threaten filibusters that force cloture votes — on the theory that, try as Democrats might to portray those votes as meaningful, all that most Americans would know is that under Democratic leadership nothing was getting done.
Conrad suggested that it might be wise to put the procedural debates aside and let the American people see what is really happening.
“We have a narrow but clear majority in the United States Senate. We have a narrow but clear majority in the House of Representatives. And so we do have more of an ability to have our points of view heard than we did when we were in the minority. But it’s also the reality [that] he President has the biggest megaphone, and, you know, until Democrats have the White House, they’re always going to be at a disadvantage in terms of getting a message out,” explained Conrad. “With that said, with that said, I think that we could do a better job making our points, and one part of that is to let the American people see just how obstructionist this Republican minority is being.”
Asked if Democrats should abandon the polite approach of seeking cloture votes, losing them and then going on to other business, and instead begin forcing the Republicans to filibuster — thus displaying their true positions on ending the war — Conrad said, “Yeah, I think there’s a growing consensus that we ought to do that.”
Conrad’s statement inspired activists, including the folks at MoveOn.org, to begin a push to get Reid and the Democratic leadership of the Senate to call the bluff of the Republicans.
Reid has not quite done that. He is still playing the cloture game to some extent, and a single night of forcing Republicans to show their true colors may not be enough to scare wavering GOP senators into breaking with their president and their party’s Senate leadership.
But it is a start, potentially, of a new chapter in the war debate.
Reid is beginning to realize that Democrats have gotten nowhere by playing according to rules that favor the White House and its congressional allies.
He is moving toward a point of saying to Republicans: “It you want to filibuster in favor of continuing the failed occupation of Iraq, go for it. Show the American people exactly how determined you are to maintain George Bush’s war.”
By abandoning at least some of the inside-the-beltway politeness that gave Republicans an opening they have ably exploited, Reid is forcing members of the president’s party who like to hint that they are anti-war but never vote that way to publicly and officially take a side.
The more republicans engage in pro-war filibusters, the more they establish once and for all that — no matter what they say about their supposed discomfort with the president’s approach — they see it as their job to prevent Congress from checking and balancing the Bush White House.
Like the southern senators who filibustered against civil rights legislation in the 1950s, Republicans who choose to rant on and on about how Congress cannot block the president’s war making will expose themselves and their party to the harsh light of day — and potentially to the harsh response of the voters in 2008. And those Republicans who like to sound like critics of the war but who allow their party’s leadership to maintain the filibuster will be exposed as the hypocrites they are.
If particular Republican senators do not like this scenario, they can pull together enough votes to assure Reid will have the 60 supporters he needs to avert the filibuster threat and get a real debate and a real vote on whether to end the occupation. Then, instead of allowing Republicans to abuse the cloture process to obstruct the will of the people, Reid can use cloture to quickly and easily remove the obstruction.
The key is for Reid to stop giving Republicans an easy out. When GOP leaders threaten to filibuster in favor of endless war, the majority leader must continually call their bluff. That will give the president’s partisan allies in the Senate political ownership of his war — and it will give the American people a clear picture of who wants to bring the troops home and who wants to leave them mired in George Bush’s quagmire.
Reid’s Nine-Hour Protest Against Senate GOP In 2003
Bob Geiger
7/16/07
When I interviewed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in December, one of the things I was struck by is that, despite his understated way of speaking, you can tell that he is a legitimately tough guy who, when push comes to shove, will fight back and stand his ground.
We’re seldom totally satisfied with how the leaders on our side of the political aisle stand up to the people we hold in so much disdain, but legislative politics is about far more gray than black and white and just because we don’t always understand why Reid does what he does, doesn’t mean he lacks a strong spine.
And, while Reid’s surprise move to hold the Senate in session all night tonight if Republicans block yet another Iraq-redeployment bill certainly took the political world by storm yesterday, Senate watchers know that Reid is no stranger to holding the Senate open to take a stand and make a point.
On November 10, 2003, when Reid was Assistant Minority Leader to then Majority Leader Tom Daschle, the Nevada Senator single-handedly held the Senate floor for almost nine hours in a one-man protest over GOP leader Bill Frist’s scheme to have the Senate spend 30 consecutive hours that week on Bush administration judicial nominations that Democrats had blocked.
I don’t know if you recall that judicial Rogues Gallery of Estrada, Owen, Pickering, and Pryor, but they were the only four of 172 Bush judicial nominations that the Democrats objected to and, in Frist’s characteristically uncompromising way, he was prepared to hijack the entire Senate agenda to shove them through.
And Reid used the prerogative held by every Senator to take the floor for as long as desired, provided he followed Senate rules and did not sit down or stop talking except to field questions from colleagues.
Saying, “you can only be slapped around so many times,” Reid took very careful sips of water to avoid having to hit the men’s room, leaned on his desk from time to time, but remained standing and held the floor for over 8 1/2 hours, effectively controlling Senate business for the entire day.
“The Senate is a body where one person can throw a monkey wrench into it, and a monkey wrench is being thrown today by the senator from Nevada,” Reid said that November 10.
He then went on to talk about a host of issues including global warming, the minimum wage, the Bush economy and energy exploration. But he saved much of his bile for the spectacle of Republicans willing to hold the Senate hostage for the sake of four wealthy judges, while refusing time and time again to raise the minimum wage or deal with massive national job losses.
- “What a ridiculous thing to have 30 hours — a week before trying to get out of here — spent on the jobs of 4 people, when there are over 3 million people who have lost their jobs and more than that are unemployed. We are going to spend 30 hours on the lives of four judges. That just doesn’t seem right to me. If people are wondering why we are not moving along, you can do all the name calling you want, but I think the history books will reflect how the leadership has been — at least during the past few days when you interrupt the ending days of a session to spend 30 hours on a wasteful exercise.
“Why don’t we spend 30 hours talking about why we haven’t increased the minimum wage? That would help commerce in this country. That would work within the confines of this legislation. The minimum wage is now $5.15 an hour. Take that math and figure out how tough it is.
“Let’s spend 30 hours talking about people who are working two jobs at $5.15 an hour, who have no benefits, no medical benefits, no retirement benefits. We should spend a little time on them, on the minimum wage. I think that would be something that would be very beneficial.
“Mr. President, 7.5 million Americans worked two or more jobs in October, up from 7.3 million just a year ago. That is an increase of 200,000. The percentage of people for part-time jobs increased from 1.7 million to 1.8 million over the same course of the year.
“I want to look at where some more of these jobs have been lost.”
Reid then spent more time listing towns throughout America and the number of jobs they had lost under the reign of George W. Bush.
After hours talking about the irresponsibility of the Republican majority and how beholden they were to Bush and his judicial nominees, Reid changed course and read many chapters from the book he authored about his tiny hometown: “Searchlight: The Camp That Didn’t Fail.”
“I am a soldier with a mission,” Reid said with a smile to a near-empty Senate chamber. “That mission is to tell people around the world, C-SPAN and people within the breadth and width of my voice, about Searchlight and how it got its name.”
And so it went — except when Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire tried to interrupt Reid. Here’s the actual Congressional Record entry:
- Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. No. I will in half an hour or so.
Mr. GREGG. My question was going to be as to how much time the Senator is going to take?
Mr. REID. When the Senator was off the floor — and I will repeat — I indicated my great respect and admiration for someone with a record of accomplishment that certainly is significant — Governor, Member of the House of Representatives, Senator, and I indicated publicly, and I will say again, my speaking today for an extended period of time has nothing to do with my regard for the Senator from New Hampshire. I am going to talk for probably 4 or 5 hours today.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question? That is not a problem for myself. I would just like to know the approximate time.
Mr. REID. I have answered the Senator’s questions, and I would appreciate it if he would not interrupt.
And so Harry Reid does it again today and tonight and into tomorrow morning and my money is on him to outlast Bush’s boys on the other side of the aisle.
After all, The Democratic Leader has been there before
Bob Geiger
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Durbin: “How many sleepless nights have our soldiers and their families spent?”
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin of Illinois took to the floor of the Senate yesterday afternoon and gave a wonderful speech in which he went after the GOP leadership for how ridiculously difficult they’ve made it for Democrats to change course in Iraq as the American people have demanded.
Here’s Durbin talking about how Senate Republicans, by filibustering everything that comes before the body, have created their own reality of a 60-vote majority being required to pass anything, despite the fact that the Senate doesn’t actually conduct its business like that:
- “It’s unfortunate and it’s wrong. It is wrong to require 60 percent of this body to vote this way if traditionally on this war in Iraq we’ve required only a simple majority. I suppose it’s encouraging to us that more than 60 percent of the American people get it. They understand how failed this policy has been of the Bush Administration, the policy that’s being supported by the Minority Leader of the United States Senate.
“They understand it. They want us to do something about it. But the Senator from Kentucky has thrown this obstacle in our path. He has created this procedural roadblock. He has filibustered — starting a filibuster to stop the debate on the war in Iraq.”
And Durbin lashed the Republicans for calling the Democratic plan to shock the GOP back to reality a “stunt” rather than accepting the shame that should come from pushing the Senate to this point:
- “One of the critics of this recently called it a stunt, a stunt that we would stay in session. A stunt that we would have a sleepless night for Senators, a stunt that we would inconvenience senators and staff and press and those who follow the proceedings. I don’t think it’s a stunt. I think it reflects the reality of this war.
“How many sleepless nights have our soldiers and their families spent waiting to find out whether they’ll come home alive? How many sleepless nights have they spent praying that after the second and third redeployment that their soldier will still have the courage and strength to beat back the enemy and come home to his family? It’s about time for the Senate to spend at least one sleepless night. Maybe it’s only a symbol but it’s an important symbol for the soldiers and families.”
[open link to] Have a look at a video clip that has much of Durbin’s speech.
[…]
The Senate will convene at 10:00 a.m. and will be in a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the first half under the control of the Republicans and the second half under the control of the Majority.
Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1585, the Defense Authorization bill.
The Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow the weekly conference luncheons to meet.
Filibuster!!
Rick Perlstein, CommonSense
July 16, 2007
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) explains how history is being made tonight: [open link for video]
History buffs, and those with long memories, will recall the last time conservatives found something important enough to stand up and obstruct all night long: the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The one that outlawed discrimination in public accomodations.
Conscience of a conservative: here it is, for all to see.
On Iraq, It’s The Senate Country Club vs. The Country At Large
David Sirota, Working for Change
Monday, July 16, 2007
Almost exactly two months ago, I wrote that Democrats need a Mr. Smith - someone, anyone in the Senate to shut the institution down in order to force Congress to respect the will of the American people and start ending the war in Iraq. Now, Democrats don’t even need Mr. Smith-style bravery - they need only to force the Republicans to filibuster the effort to end the war.
Yes, that’s right - Democrats have the power to make the Republican Party stand up on the floor of the Senate, and shut the government down in order to continue the Iraq War, if that’s what the GOP wants to do. Miles Mogulescu at the Huffington Post explains:
- In recent decades, there has been a “gentleman’s agreement” that old-fashioned filibusters are no longer required: If 41 Senators block a vote, the Majority Leader just moves on to other business. Where once the filibuster was reserved for matters of national importance where a minority stood on principle, now the ease of filibustering has made it routine…Majority Leader Reid has the power, however, to ignore the “gentleman’s” agreement and force an old-fashioned filibuster. Republican Minority Leader Bill Frist did this in 2003, forcing the Democrats to stage a real filibuster against the nomination of right-wing judge Miguel Estrada.
So, folks, here we are again, asking whether Democrats are going to use the power the public gave them in the 2006 election specifically to fulfill their election promises to end the war. The country is tired of Democrats’ Innocent Bystander Fable (see the video above for what I mean). Nobody outside of Washington, D.C. believes - nor should they believe - that Democrats don’t have the power to end the war, or must have 60 votes in order to end the war. Nobody believes those excuses because they are as dishonest and destructive as President Bush telling us Iraq had WMD.
It’s time for Senate Democrats to stop respecting the supposed “rules” and etiquette of the Senate Country Club more than they respect the will of the country at large. As Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) recently told the Young Turks radio show, it’s time to force the Republicans to publicly block the will of the American people.
Nobody - other than, perhaps, some U.S. Senators - cares about “gentlemen’s agreements” with our troops being killed and maimed in a Middle Eastern civil war. Nobody - other than, perhaps, the David Broders of the world - cares about Democratic politicians hugging Republican politicians inside the U.S. Capitol, when our national security continues to be eroded by a misguided war. And nobody - other than a few weak-kneed career politicians - believes that the toothless half-measures being proposed by so-called “centrists” (read: politicians totally out of touch with the 70 percent of Americans who oppose the war) are anything but deliberate shams designed to give Washington lawmakers cover and perpetuate the war indefinitely.
“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. amature homemade movies xxxmovies boneproneteen free movies girls8 pee moviessex preteen moviesvibrator machine sex moviesmaker 3d moviehome amatuer movies Map
Add comment July 17th, 2007