The GOP clearly doesn’t have that problem.
Actually, keeping a debate open for a long time is what a filibuster is. You remember filibusters, they were a bad thing when the Republics were in charge. The dems wanted a vote of cloture so they could proceed to a vote.
Let’s see:
- You have to end the debate to have a vote.
- The whole point of debate in a legislative body is to debate questions that you’re likely to vote on.
- There’s no indication that the Dems don’t want the debate. They also want the vote, to be sure, which is why they were willing to sign on to Warner’s compromise. (In answer to your earlier question, at least 11 Republicans - to get cloture, knowing they wouldn’t be able to count on Loserman.) A successful cloture vote, btw, doesn’t immediately end debate; it just limits the remaining debate to no more than 30 hours, if I’m reading Senate Rule 22 correctly.
Let’s see:
Which party voted to end the debate and which party voted to keep the debate going? It’s that simple. The headline said “Republicans block Senate debate on Iraq”. If it had said “block Senate vote” it would’ve been correct. Like I said… the Dems only want to debate their own proposal. They’re the ones limitting the debate.
Nobody voted to do either one on the actual issue of the Iraq surge/escalation/whatever.
It’s that simple.
The vote the other day to end debate, or keep it going, was on a procedural motion.
The vote, had it been held, would have allowed the debate on the issue to commence.
That’s what being in the majority does. You get to decide what bills come to the floor for debate. That’s been the way it’s always worked. For the past four years, the Dems have had to debate the issues that the GOP has brought to the floor, and haven’t been able to bring their own bills to the floor, because they haven’t had a majority of Senators in favor of those bills. That’s just life in the big city. I didn’t hear you complaining about this last year.
The Pubbies are simply trying to avoid having to go “on record”. If, by some miracle beyond the ken of mortals, the troop glurge actually works, they will rush to point out that they stood firmly behind The Leader and Our Heroes, bravely standing against the Dems efforts to destroy their morale, etc.
If it doesn’t, as it almost surely won’t, they don’t have any words they have to eat. “Well, sure, I would have voted against it, if it had come to a vote, but the Dems wouldn’t let me!”
Classic double-weaslethink.
That’s exactly my point. The Dems are pouting because they didn’t get their way as the majority party. Too freakin’ bad. You can’t run the Senate without getting at least some of the minority party to join in your cause. There was an easy way for them to do that, but it wasn’t politically expedient for them to do so, and they chose not to. Them’s the breaks.
Right. And I’m not “complaining” about it this year either! The Republicans screwed up plenty of times in the Senate by trying to stifle debate and having that backfire on them because the minority party refused to go along. That was too bad then, and it’s too bad now that the Dems are in charge. Both parties need to grow up and learn how to govern instead of posturing for political reasons.
Hey, what else can they argue about that won’t matter? How about the color of the carpet in the Senate chamber? How about whether Coke or Pepsi should be served in Capitol vending machines? Oh, I know, how about the official underwear of Congress: Boxers or Briefs?
I don’t get why this is such a big deal in any case. It’s NON-binding. It’s like arguing over the orientation of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
They did. They merged their anti-surge resolution with Warner’s.
Give me just one for-instance in the last Congress when the Dems pulled this stunt.
I note with droll scorn the description of a Pubbie offering as being “bi-partisan” because “Fightin’ Joe” Lieberman is on board.
To be specific, give me one for-instance of an instance in the 109th Congress when the Dems blocked cloture on a procedural motion to get a bill to the floor for some reason other than quite openly to block the bill or resolution from passing, rather than claiming (or even actually having) some other bullshit reason.
If the GOP wants to go on record that that’s the reason for their filibuster of the motion to proceed - that they were in effect voting against the anti-surge resolution itself - then the point is moot. But I don’t see them doing that.
Oh, please. There are plenty of parliamentary tricks to pull to block things in the Senate, and there’s nothing unique about this one. The Dems blocked cloture a number of times as any google search will tell you.
The fact that you can’t see that both parties are largely playing political games just says you can’t remove your partisan blinders in this case. Harry Reid explicitly said last week that he was going to force Republicans to go on record about the surge and that they’d better worry about the implications of that for the next election. The Republicans are scared shitless to let this go for a vote and the Dems want to vote against the surge without actually having to vote against it.
We need a “You are wrong but your partisan blinders won’t permit you to see the blazing truth of my opinion” smiley, save the hamsters some work.
[hijack]
Is that the way it should work, I wonder? Maybe we need some reform in both houses’ rules, to make it easier to get minority proposals to a floor vote, regardless of whether they make it out of committee.
[/hijack]
Is there any republic or democracy in the world where the leading political parties are any more mature than ours, by that standard?
I’m genuinely curious on that point. I mean, the U.S. is the oldest republic in existence (even Britain was a de facto oligarchy until well into the 20th Century). If our pols can’t grow up after 200+ years at it . . .
Senate Dems to try again on the ‘surge’
Speaking of cracks: Seven Republican Senators Blast McConnell & Reid Over Iraq War Resolution Debate Fiasco
Must be briefs. 
.According to the WaPo, the seventh signer was Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
Impressive bit of flipflopping by these guys; hope they’ve finally decided which side they’re on.
Yup. That was in my link too, but I missed it because her name was bolded :smack:
You apparently didn’t read my post. I’m quite aware that they blocked cloture quite a few times, in order to defeat the actual measure in question.
If the GOP wants to own up to the same thing here, then I apologize and will shut up. But as you indicate, that’s exactly the opposite of the truth:
Well, yeah. That’s what politics is all about, in its purest, most honest form, in a democratic republic: legislators vote for or against on the big issues of the day, and from that, the voters can decide whether or not they want to vote for or against the legislators at the next opportunity.
That’s how it’s supposed to work. That’s democracy. But feel free to call it ‘playing politics’ if you want.