Speaking of GOP nuttiness, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) to filibuster his own Iraq resolution. Along with the other 48 GOP Senators, of course.
Doesn’t that just take the cake?
So much for that.
Wonder whether the Broders of the world will condemn the GOP’s failure to work in a bipartisan manner, bewail their lack of comity, and all that. Or whether those rules just apply to Dems.
No, it’s not nutty at all. Did you read why he’s saying that? From your cite:
This is what happens to the majority party when they cut the minority party out of the process.
So Warner’s a Dem? News to me.
It’s all in the wording. Instead of Anti-surge, they should pass a resolution against escalation.
I didn’t say he was. As a member of the minority party he is protesting the actions of the majority party. Them’s the breaks.
Looks like there’s going to be a filibuster. No surprise there. The question is, will there be enough pro-resolution votes to break it?
And if it’s this much trouble just to get a nonbinding resolution to a floor vote – what will happen when they try to do something with teeth, like defunding the war or repealing the AUMF?
Then are you saying he was shut out of the action? I was under a distinctly contrary impression.
Probably not much more. I expect the word has come down from the White House to pull out all the stops on this - they don’t want to send a message to the terrorists (the people of America) that their government is encouraging them in their opposition to this President.
How many Republicans were involved in the decision to determine which proposals would be debated?
I would hope none. That’s the tradition after all. 
BTW, I don’t really have an opinion as to the wisdom of the Dems doing that. I was just pointing out that Warner’s actions might on the face of it look nutty, but once you look at why he said he’d do that then it’s not nutty at all. Well, not nutty as far as politics goes-- politics being generally pretty nutty all the time.
A Republican filibuster? Perhaps a change in the cloture rule would be in order.
Well played, sir. Well played.
Yeah, although I think he’d have served his party, and the country, better sticking with his ‘compromise’ deal. That was they best they’re going to get, and if it goes down now, the next round will be far nastier, and the republicans will be weaker for having ‘voted to support Bush’s escalation’.
They blocked it: Republicans block Senate debate on Iraq
It’s a proud moment for the party of the status quo. 
Because even a milquetoast non-binding resolution condemning Fearless Leader cannot be tolerated!
(And shame on Chuck Hagel for chickening out. Quit government work and go sell shoes, buddy…)
Eh. It’s hard for me to get worked up about a non-binding Senate resolution. I don’t think any of the proposals does much in terms of serving the country. Both parties seem to be using this effort more as a way of getting their opponents on the record as voting for or against something they can use against them politically.
If we were talking about a real bill with teeth in it, I’d agree with you. A filibuster in that case would be inappropriate.
There is this on E-Bay right now. I am a little impecunious right now, or else I would buy it and have it shipped to Hagel.
I sent him an email with the link.
And yet which party actually wants to end the debate? The Democrats. They don’t want a debate, they want a vote-- only on what’s politically favorable for them. The headline is laughable. This is all politics, and when the Senate is this closely divided this is what is going to happen… a lot.