Since I’m sure this will end up in the pit, I’ll spare the mods the time.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/02/senate.iraq/index.html
There were similarly made comments about this whole ordeal.
Can some one tell me why this made such a big stink?
Because they took away the crybaby’s sandbox and forced him to do his damned job.
The actual act of going into closed session isn’t that big a deal. I beleve Frists’ panties got in a twist over the way the Democrats used the process to draw attention to the issue of bungled intelligence.
Reid and the Dems only have 44 votes. They can (and should) hammer the issue every day, but that only gets them so far. Reid’s manuever of calling the Senate into closed session, without first consulting with the body’s leadership (which isn’t required under Senate rules but is traditionally done), was seen as a violation of the trust, gentility, and good ol’ boy way the Senate operates.
As was pointed out by a blogger in todays WP, the Senators themselves will care much more about the stunt (and what a terrific stunt it was) than the average joe.
What exactly is the point of closing the doors if it’s on TV anyway? So nobody sees it live and in person. Big whoop.
The world would be a better place if CNN or Fox would offer this simple explanation to the masses. Makes perfect sense now.
I think Frist should go fuck himself with his hijacking the senate comment. His boys own the place, lock, stock, and key.
If he repeats enough times that it shouldn’t have been done, and that it is unfair, people will start believing it, and reject all proof to the contrary.
When has that tactic ever worked before? Other than Al Gore inventing the internet, John Kerry being a shirker in Vietnam, Bill Clinton making a shady profit on the White Water deal, Saddam “seeking to obtain” uranium in Africa, Iraq’s possession of unconventional weapons and inclination to give them to Osama. Other than those time when did it work?
Hell, they got more done in those two and a half hours than I think they’ve doen in a while.
Maybe Reid should call for a closed session more often.
It’s also a warning shot in the upcoming Alito confirmation battle. The Republicans keep making noises about the “Nuclear Option” – using technicalities in the Senate rules to thwart a Democritic filibuster. Reid’s action yesterday is basically him saying to Frist: “You wanna use loopholes in the rules to shut us down? Well, two can play that game.”
A lot of what keeps the Senate running smoothly is a gentlemen’s agreement between the two parties to cooperate in moving legislation through the pipeline. But over the last few years the Republicans have consistently violated the spirit of that agreement: holding votes open indefinitely to scare up additional support, blocking the Democrats from participating in committees, abruptly shutting down hearings, and so on. None of these things are explicitly against the rules of the Senate, but they go against the spirit of collegeality that is supposed to prevail in the Senate chambers.
Reid is reminding the Republicans that the minority party has the power to really screw over the majority party if the minority party feels like it’s being shut out of the process.
Again, what power? The power to kick out cameramen?
It just gave the Republicans another excuse to play the victim.
In a closed session, can they only talk about the one issue? If so, I can see how that would really be a power play.
For some reason my post got munched.
I was asking what the difference is between a closed an open session. Basically the Dems are saying we can make the Repubs lives miserable, so play nice. But kicking out the tourists and camera people every day doesn’t seem to be much for a power play does it? I guess what I’m saying is I don’t see a closed senate as more then an inconvinience.
Here’s what can (and can’t) happen during a closed session:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Standing_Rules_Senate.htm#21
Yeah…funny how this is so important when it’s THEIR collective tit in the wringer.
Iowa irony. Bitter, yet somehow…wholesome!
When the doors close they stay closed while the business at hand is discussed. Normally Senators and their staff can come and go during the legislative day and work on a variety of matters. Closing the doors forces the attention of the entire Senate onto a single topic. And since it doesn’t require a vote to close the doors, only a motion and a second, it only takes two senators to trigger.
Basically Reid shut down the Senate for several hours and forced it to debate the Bush Administration’s failures. According to the Senate rules he could do so every day if he thought it was appropriate. The only thing stopping him is the gentleman’s agreement between the two parties to play nice.
I think I’m getting it, but a few more questions.
Are the doors physically closed as in locked? Does it affect just the people who are in the room at the time, or do senators have to drop what they’re doing and head towards the chambers? Lastly, who decides when the doors are “unlocked”?
Short exposition on Rules on Closed Senate Sessions
The Senate Rules themselves (#'s 21, 29, 31 are relevant here)
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA… Oh. Ow. Really, Senator Frist. It hurts to laugh that hard.