RTFirefly:
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:
The distinction that I’m drawing, in case it’s still missable, is blocking cloture (on a bill itself, or on a procedural motion to get the bill to the floor, or whatever) as a way of publicly taking a stand, v. blocking cloture on a procedural motion to get a bill to the floor as a way of avoiding having to take a public stand on a major issue.
One is straightforward, the other is chickenshit.
Squink
February 8, 2007, 3:05pm
82
Oddly enough, even Robert Novak understands that:
Tuesday’s headlines indicated a public relations fiasco for Republicans: " GOP Stalls Debate on Troop Increase" (The Post), " In Senate, GOP Blocks a Debate Over Iraq Policy" (New York Times), " Vote on Iraq is blocked by GOP" (USA Today). Considering that outcome after a tactical victory, the Republicans might have been better off with a strategic defeat. It is unclear who won in the Senate this week.
Squink
February 8, 2007, 8:14pm
84
rjung:
Too little, too late.
Well sure, they’re all spineless flippyfloppers now, but the letter does presage a quick return to the Iraq debate by a now splintering GOP.
DanBlather:
Must be briefs.
No, no, boxers are non-binding.
Boxer can be annoying, but she does have a vote.