filibuster

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.

I read the first paragraph of this AP article and my head started spinning:

Republicans dismissed as political theater a Democratic plan for an all-night session of the Senate to debate President Bush's military strategy in Iraq amid bipartisan proposals to redeploy U.S. troops.

So actually having a debate  on how to end a war that has killed 3,600 of our own soldiers is "political theater"? If that is political theater, then what do you call this?

We have lost over 3,400 soldiers since this act of "political theater".

How about a bunch of GOP senators arguing and fighting to give the "surge" time, only to say it isn't working a month later? These people are up for re-election and that makes it one very disgusting example of "political theater".

How about Mitch McConnell filibustering every piece of legislation that comes out of the Democrats? That isn't just "political theater", that is obstructionism - especially when the same McConnell complained about the Democrats threatening one filibuster on a judge.

If these Republicans don't want to do their job and debate, then they need to just leave the Senate. Debating the war isn't "political theater" to the soldiers over their fighting, nor their families. It isn't "political theater" to the loved ones of the 3,600+ soldiers that have fallen.

Why do they hate our seniors?

The Senate blocked legislation on Wednesday that would let the government negotiate Medicare drug prices. Democrats couldn't muster the 60 votes needed to bring the bill up for a vote.

Under the Medicare drug benefit, private insurance plans negotiate with drug makers over the price of medicine for their customers. About 22 million seniors and the disabled are enrolled in such plans. Some lawmakers, mostly Democrats, contend the government could use its leverage to drive a better bargain than individual insurers, which would lower the cost of the program for taxpayers and seniors.

But Republicans countered Wednesday that the program is costing much less than expected precisely because it's the private sector, not the secretary of Health and Human Services, conducting the negotiations. They successfully blocked a motion to proceed to the bill. The tally was 55-42, five short of the votes needed to move ahead

So we get to stick with the current program as is. Let's see how that works.

 A senior picks a program before January 1 because that program's formulary contains their prescription drugs. Come February, the program decides to change the formulary and drop this person's drugs. That person is now stuck with needed drugs not being covered for the rest of the year. They can not change programs again until first of the year.

I know people will say this is the extreme and to them I say you are flat out wrong. This happens on a daily basis. I know of countless seniors that had to stop taking drugs or weren't able to pay for other things such as electric because of this screwed up system.

The flack between Sharpton and Obama is nothing more than that - flack. Kos posted earlier about Sharpton's criticism of Obama and I have to agree. Obama is out talking about his anti-war stance, so why did he support Joe Lieberman? Lieberman has been out blasting Democrats for trying to stop the war and even voted with Republicans in the Senate to filibuster last month's legislation. In other words Sharpton is brining up an extremely valid point.

So why do we have the media placing such attention on this? McCain and Guiliani disagree on issues and it doesn't garner this amount of attention. Same thing can go with any two candidates - they have different views. If every one agreed on everything then we would not need primaries.

Now we have the media showing their racism. We have two African-American candidates who disagree on an issue, and it is the hot story. So what? Aren't African-American's allowed to disagree with other African-Americans? White people disagree with each other all the time, but the media is in shock because Sharpton and Obama aren't in lockstep? I don't know how we will ever get an African-American President in this country if our own media has such a race bias.

Lieberman swore up and down during his campaign that he would not switch parties. Now he isn't sounding so sure. Editor and Publisher has a preview of an article slated for tomorrow's Time magazine:

"Independent" Sen. Joe Liebeman receives a mini-profile titled "What Joe Wants," a key question since he is "the Senate's one-man tipping point." Republicans, the magazine says, are "courting him" and Lieberman "has been indulging in some fairly immodest political footsie."

Lieberman calls jumping to the Republican side, and tilting the Senate, "a remote possibility," which means there's at least a chance of that. Time seems to push Lieberman in this direction, as the article concludes: "Lieberman's GOP flirtation has its risks--and a time limit....The longer he waits to capitalize on his moment, the greater the danger that he'll be tagged as one of those politicians for whom having power is more important than using it."

You know what Joe, you two faced fuck - Go for it. The Senate is basically ineffective as it is. So the Democrats are in the minority, so what? They can filibuster. The Republicans proved that can still happen. But wait until 2008. There are a lot of Republican seats up for grabs and the possibility of the Democratic majority growing is very high. After that happens then what? Will you switch back to being a Democrat/Independent? I wouldn't doubt it because you have no morals. You are a scam that cares nothing about the people of Connecticut, or this country. You care only about yourself.

The AP just reported that Republican Senator Mitch McConnell is threatning to filibuster any attempts by the Democrats to block Bush's escalation plan. This is ironic, considering what McConnell was saying in his majority days of the filibuster:

Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell said yesterday that Republicans have enough votes to invoke the "nuclear option" to limit Democrats' ability to stall by filibuster consideration of President Bush's nominees for federal appeals courts.

"I never announce my whip count. But I'm telling you, there's no doubt in my mind -- and I'm a pretty good counter of votes -- that we have the votes we need," the Kentucky Republican said. "And that step will be taken sometime in the near future at the determination of the majority leader."

Or this little bit via Newshounds:

Last night, it was Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell on After Hours with Cal Thomas. He said, "It's to (Democrats') advantage, too, to get the senate back to the way it operated for 214 years without any great problems with regard to judicial nominees.... It was never filibustered in the history of the senate until two years ago."

So what if the Democrats come up with their own "nuclear option". I believe the Iraq war deserves an up or down vote by the U.S. Senate more so than federal judges. We are talking about the lives of our soldiers, as well as the Iraqis.

CNN has just reported that Bush accepted the resignation of John Bolton at the end of the year (when his recess appointment expires). That means the next ambassador to the U.N. will have to face a Democratic confirmation. I wonder if the Republicans will try to filibuster.

So the filibuster didn't fly. Even though Alito is on his way to the Supreme
Court, it is not a defeat by any means. Four days ago the talk on the hill was
there would not be any filibuster attempts. John Kerry sparked a movement and
the liberal blogosphere provided the fuel for that fire. By people tapping away
at their keyboards, it caused Senators to come back to voice mails full of
people asking to support the filibuster.

This is a perfect example of the strength the blogosphere is gaining on
politics. Unlike corporations, citizens can not afford the high dollars of
lobbyists to get through to their elected representatives. The blogosphere is
the new vehicle of getting a message heard and it has a wealth of power that is
just starting to get tapped.

We can not look at what happened as defeat, but rather as a learning
experience. We need to channel the energy that was felt this weekend into the
big picture. That will be this November's elections. Every seat we gain is a big
step forward. Right now polls prove that people are looking towards the
Democrats to be next year's leaders. We need to keep that momentum going and let
it carry us through the election cycle.

Alito can be an extremely valuable tool for us. The decisions he will help
make are ones that will affect the unlikely voter more than the voters. Those
unlikely voters are the ones who typically lean to the left. These are the
people we need at the polls. I am of course talking about the age group of
18-30. These will be the people more out to need an abortion or worry about
illegal searches. The message needs to be made clear to them that the only way
to prevent further justices getting appointed that will strip these rights is to
ensure a party is elected that stands up for the rights of this country.