Moments ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that in response to conservative obstructionism, he plans to force war supporters to physically remain in the Senate and filibuster Iraq withdrawal legislation.
Reid accused conservatives of “protecting the President rather than protecting our troops” by “denying us an up or down vote on the most important issue our country faces.” He said that if a vote on the Reed/Levin Iraq legislation is not allowed today or tomorrow, he will keep the Senate in session “straight through the night on Tuesday” and force a filibuster.
“I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down,” Reid said. “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.”
Can the GOP shop keep the talking points coming long enough for these empty suit jackasses to stand up there? We'll see.
5 comments:
Love the labels on this post.
Finally, Reid. Finally.
I'll bet Senate Republicans wish Kate O'Beirne and Tony Blankley were in their caucus. Both seem to have an endless supply of GOP talking points to share whenever they get in front of a camera.
OK, Mr. F, you're getting your wish. Maybe Reid follows your blog. In any case, this should be interesting.
Regular commenter Mike dampens the enthusiasm on the topic over at Toast's place:
"I doubt the Dems will do anything here. They can run more "effectively" in '08 by promising to oppose Gitmo/The War/whatever than by promising to maintain all the dramatic changes they rammed through.
Easier to get money by saying you will do something than by pointing to what you've already done.
You guys need to stop looking to these clowns, expecting them to do anything. They don't want to do anything . . . which is why, for the last six months, that's exactly what they've done: Nothing."
--
When it comes to the War, unfortunately you might be right, Mike. It is politically riskier to start meddling with things. If the Dems assert any control over the War it can (and likely will) backfire on them.
This thing is going to continue to be a fucking disaster almost no matter what, the prudent political move is to punt and leave it solely Bush's baby. Then it's still all on him and the GOP in 2008. If the Dems force a withdrawal or draw-down, things will still be a fucking nightmare over there, and the GOP can, and will, turn and blame the Dems.
That's why it can be hard to blame a cautious approach, but people are dying while politicians try to decide how hard to embrace the tar baby*.
I am all for the filibuster-busting because I think the debate needs to happen, and the vote needs to be taken. For this and many other important issues.
Also, I wouldn't say they've done nothing, they did pass a bunch of stuff early on and have provoked a veto (or two?) already. Progress is slower than I want, and some key issue have been tabled because of this faux-filibuster bullshit. My bet is if this actiually comes to a vote, some of the crossover support will evaporate, and the Dems might be left short of the 51. That's, in a sense, a political win for all sides, but a loser for the troops and Iraqis.
* Hate to channel Brer Tony Snow on this, but I cannot come up with another analogy...
It's wrong and a cheap shot to pile on Democrats, saying they've done nothing and don't want to do anything.
I put myself in the place of a Jack Murtha or John Kerry and realize it must me maddening to be in this "so near and yet so far" limbo. That's especially true after having gone for several years unable to do almost any thing about anything because of a hopeless lack of votes.
Just think, though, what you face if you're a mossback, stay-the-course hard liner now, like Graham and McCain. One really big, really bad setback like a whole lot of people being blown away in the Green Zone or a plane full of troops going down because of a shoulder-fired AA missile, and the public reaction is likely to get extremely ugly. The public is 4+ disgusted already.
So, the political risk and chance for backfiring isn't all on Democrats by any means.
Post a Comment