If Only Rand Paul Would Use His Filibuster Powers For Good Instead Of Evil

This week Kentucky Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul decided to have a thirteen hour, one-man circle jerk filibuster on the Senate floor in opposition of the nomination of John Brennan as the next CIA director until he got assurances from the White House that drones would not be used to target US citizens on US soil, you know because it's happening almost daily on our streets already.

This all stems from the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born expatriate who repeatedly called for jihad against the United States, had ties to three of the 9/11 hijackers, Fort Hood shooter Nadal Malik Hasan, underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and was elevated to regional commader in Al-Qaeda. Yes, the same Al-Qaeda which we are supposedly involved in a war against. Not what I would call a model US citizen, that al-Awlaki. Yet all these politicians are getting the vapors over this particular drone strike targeting someone that clearly was an enemy of the US, but since he was a US citizen the logical conclusion is that clearly it can happen here on American soil, even though it's never happened. And why would that be? Enter Rand Paul.

Paul sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder to ask if the Obama Administration thought it was legal to use drones against American citizens on American soil. Holder responded with the following:

"As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.” 

“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” 

“For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.”

So, the answer: It's never happened, we have no intention of making it happen but hypothetically under the most extreme circumstances, it's possible. And the only thing Rand Paul focused on (as well as a lot of the media - you know, because controversy du jour) is the "it's possible" part to begin his fist shaking (and fundraising opportunity) outrage.

As David von Ebers writes, no one was worried about "the possibility" of military strikes on US soil under extreme circumstances when we were under attack.

"...the fact that the Bush Administration sent military aircraft – both armed and unarmed – into the skies on September 11 surprised exactly no one. As events were unfolding, and before anyone knew exactly who was responsible for the attacks, the President and the military were prepared to use lethal force to stop planes from hitting additional targets, even if it meant killing innocent American passengers, and regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the hijackers. 

If you paid any attention to the news coverage at the time, you knew this. And I suspect, like me, you didn’t object to it in the least. As much as I abhor nearly everything George W. Bush did as president, I can’t fault him or his military leaders for making that awful decision. What other choice did they have? If they’d had the opportunity to shoot down even one of those planes, they might have saved the lives of thousands of other innocent people. It’s an awful choice to have to make, but we expect presidents to make extraordinarily difficult choices in extraordinarily difficult circumstances... 

...Atty. Gen. Holder told Sen. Paul that the Obama Administration would do exactly what the Bush Administration attempted to do on September 11, 2001, in identical circumstances. Now I’m old and my memory is imperfect (although I did remember, quite clearly, that the Bush Administration scrambled fighter jets on 9/11), but try as I might to wrack my middle-aged brain, I recall exactly no controversy – as in none, zip, zero, nada – absolutely no controversy whatsoever following the Bush Administration’s attempt to use lethal military force that day. 

So you can understand my confusion. This is not a case where the Bush Administration expanded the powers of the presidency and the Obama Administration followed suit; instead, this is a situation where Pres. Bush’s actions were met with no controversy at the time because they were not controversial. What Pres. Bush did on 9/11 – ordering fighter pilots to take to the air, to shoot down hijacked airliners if necessary – appeared to everyone at the time to be right in the presidential wheelhouse, legally and constitutionally. Awful, yes. Illegal? Of course not."

Now, don't misunderstand. I think the usage of drones and who orders them and where are important issues. I think that their usage puts the US' moral creditability on the line (if we have any left to begin with). But it makes absolutely no difference to me whether the target is a US citizen or not. 

All these politicians wetting their diapers over the drone debate have framed the issue as a hypothetical attack on an American citizen, and the hypocrisy is astounding. What about those brown people we've been vaporizing "over there" with the drone program that we all knew about? Fuck them, what do we care about killing innocent civilians in a foreign land? Collateral damage. Wrong place, wrong time. Besides, they're probably jihad loving mooslims anyway, right?

Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen and therefore and deserved a fair trial? But those 160 guys imprisoned in Guantanamo for years without benefit of trial - fuck those guys. And so says the rest of the Senate with their continual votes not to fund the closing of Gitmo. The only thing for which Rand Paul should be given credit is for actually using the filibuster as it was intended (instead of placing a cowardly, anonymous hold on a vote) even though all it amounted to was free publicity and some campaign cash as intended.

So Rand Paul, and Tea Party wingnut Ted Cruz and Poland Spring spokesman Marco Rubio who took the opportunity to ride Paul's coattails in the latest search for the 2016 spotlight, please spare me the crocodile tears of Constitutional rights on one drone terrorist target who also happened to be an American citizen. Until Congress sets trials for everyone in detention centers like Gitmo, they should just shut their cake holes.

Senate GOP Filibusters DISCLOSE Act

If there's any question left at all where the Republicans stand on campaign finance reform or transparency, think no more.

Last night, Senate Republicans led by Minority Leader and resident Galapagos tortoise Mitch McConnell, voted against bringing a bill to the floor requiring disclosure of anyone who donates to independent groups that spent more than $10,000 on campaign ads.

Once the supposed leaders in campaign finance disclosure (remember John McCain?), not one, single Republican voted in favor of the ‘Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012’ or 'DISCLOSE' Act. Not even John McCain.

And what is wrong with wrong with disclosing who is behind the the financing of specific independent ads on either side of the political spectrum? According to a McConnell op-ed, he considers it "un-American." He believes it "punishes political enemies." How so if the bill is equally enforced towards ads supporting both parties? McConnell also says it's a First Amendment infringement on free speech. Well, if what you are financing is something you believe in, something you stand for, why would you be ashamed of attaching your name to it?

The truth of the matter is it has nothing to do with protecting free speech or punishing political enemies. Republicans are blocking a vote on this bill because the majority of anonymous money is funding anti-Obama ads. And for the last three years, the GOP has made it clear that their number one priority above all else is to make President Obama a one term president. If the roles were reversed and it were Romney who was in the crosshairs of most of the superPACS, I would posit that there would have been no such filibuster.

The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court overturned McCain-Feingold except for the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending. But how are we to know where the money is actually coming from to fund the superPACS when the donations are anonymous? This loophole could possibly allow foreign entities to play a role in our albeit fractured political campaign finance system. Whether or not this is the most important reason for disclosure is a conversation for another day (I think it should be a major reason), but I digress.

The fact remains that Republicans would rather have millions upon hundreds of millions of dollars pumped into the political process without any care as to where it came from. It's dangerous. It should stop. And maybe one day it will when it's the Republicans who are on the short end of the stick.

Sanders Filibustering Tax Cuts Compromise - UPDATED

Senator Bernie Sanders is currently in his fifth hour of speaking on the Senate floor filibustering the tax cuts compromised brokered by President Obama and GOP leaders. Whether you agree with the compromise or not, it's pretty amazing thing to watch. He started at 10:25am EST.

You can catch it on C-SPAN.

Of course, Bernie is completely right on every issue he's brought up. But it's a gamble with the proposals that help the middle class in the compromise, and if the Democrats opposed to this legislation are successful in blocking or defeating it, I hope they're right. I really hope they can do better.

ADDING... It's not technically a "filibuster" because there's no actual legislation the floor to block, but really, isn't he holding everything up anyway?

(H/T Bob Cesca)

UPDATE: As of 7:52pm EST, Senator Sanders is still going. I haven't seen anyone go this long in the Senate since I watched Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.

Sanders to Fight Tax Cuts Compromise

Yesterday on MSNBC's The Ed Show, Senator Bernie Sanders said he would do all he could to prevent the tax cuts compromise bill brokered by President Obama from passing, but didn't use the word "filibuster" when asked.

"I think it is an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people,” Sanders told Schultz, adding that Democrats opposed to the deal “are right. We're talking about social justice. They're talking about more tax breaks for billionaires who don't need it.”

While Sanders did not explicitly say he would filibuster the bill, he made his intention clear, saying, “I've got to tell you, I will do whatever I can to see that 60 votes are not acquired to pass this piece of legislation.”

While I agree with President Obama's position that he cannot play with the lives of 2 million people whose unemployment benefits would expire at the end of the year like the Republicans are doing, someone has to draw the line somewhere.

 My only disagreement in the President's statement yesterday was his assumption that after two more years of Bush taxs cuts for the wealthy, the public would come to realize that they are unsustainable and want them expired.

 Two points: 1 - He's assuming that the general population is intelligent and pays attention to these sorts of matters, and 2 - the public is already aware that keeping the tax cuts in place for those making over $250,000 yearly would add $70 billion a year to the deficit and the latest poll shows that 67% of those polled think the tax cuts should expire for those making over $250,000 or expire altogether.

Maverick!

HuffPost: ...When asked how far he would go to prevent an attempt to repeal the controversial [DOn't Ask, Don't Tell] policy from being approved in the upper congressional chamber, [Sen. John] McCain responded by saying, "Absolutely I will filibuster or stop it from being brought up until we have a thorough and complete study on the effect of morale and battle effectiveness."

The longtime senator said that it doesn't matter to him that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen have both voiced support for stopping the enforcement of the ban on gay troops.

However, back in 2006 McCain communicated a distinctly different stance on the issue when he said, "The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it."

Of course, John "It's not the policy" McCain continues to deliberately ignore the fact that the repeal of DADT would happen after the study on the effect of the repeal is completed.

Pathetic.

President Obama's Weekly Address - June 12, 2010

Fair Pay for Doctors

Republicans Protect Wall Street As Expected

Senate Republicans followed through on their threat today to block debate on a financial regulatory reform bill authored by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)...

The move ratchets up a political food fight between Democrats and Republicans, with Dems on the offense, charging that the GOP's decision to block progress on the legislation puts them on the side of Wall Street.

...Speaking on the Senate floor hours before the vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid said the vote "reveal[s] who believes we need to strengthen oversight of Wall Street, and who does not [and] force[s] each Senator to publicly proclaim whether party unity is more important than economic security."

So how do you think Tea Party members are feeling about their hero, populist Scott Brown, right about now siding with the big banks? And what is Olympia Snowe's excuse? She insisted that Reid include Senator Blanche Lincoln's amendment into the bill - which he did - and then voted against it anyway. And there's Ben Nelson being all dickish again.  Maybe the weight of his Fred Flintstone haircut is affecting his brain.  Or perhaps he wants his "Cornhusker Kickback" returned. The one that he says he never asked for.

Now let's see if all this Tea Party mania and rhetoric is actually about what they say it's about. Or if it's about a black man in the White House. I mean, hey, when you have David Duke on your side...

UPDATE (8pm): Why did Nelson vote with the GOP? Maybe this is the answer.

So Much For The "Do Nothing" Congress

A great point was made this morning by Bob Cesca about the unprecedented amount of obstructionism that has occurred since Democrats took over the majority in Congress in 2007 and the "dig your heels into the ground" GOP mentality since President Obama took office. And yet, the President's success rate in Congress on roll call votes is higher than any in presidential history since the stat has been taken, while facing the highest obstruction in history.

The new CQ study gives Obama a higher mark than any other president since it began scoring presidential success rates in Congress more than five decades ago. And that was in a year where Obama tackled how to deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, an expanding terrorist threat, the economic crisis and battles over health care.

...A major reason for Obama's record high score this year: Democrats took away a significant number of seats from Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections, resulting in big majorities in the House and Senate for the president's party.

But Sarah Binder, a congressional analyst at the Brookings Institution, says there's another key reason he scored so well. She says he only took an official position on issues that were really important to him — those that he knew he had a very good chance of winning.[*] He picked his battles carefully.

"He can do that because he's been in the Senate, his staff has been in the House and he understands the process here. They are consummate congressional insiders in understanding how this works," Binder says.

Now that's not to say I believe that the President shouldn't push harder for what he wants and hold his hand out in the interest of "bipartisanship" less, but just to point out that the mainstream media meme claiming the President can't close the deal (which started while campaigning against Hillary Clinton) or wingnuts who claim "we need more than a charismatic guy with a teleprompter" is just plain bullshit.

Also, when looking at overall job approval ratings for President Obama, which currently stands at 53%, there's been an uptick in February since he started fighting back and being more vocal about what he wants and calling out Republicans who are blocking every move with filibusters, holds and in most cases, just flat out stupidity.  So when you hear "the American people have spoken" and they don't want this or that as proven by polls, I think the more telling sign is the frustration with the President not because the don't believe in his policies, but because the think he should fight back harder for his agenda.

*Sarah Binder contradicts herself - does Obama take sides when he knows it's an easy win or when it's an important piece of legislation? I personally believe it's the latter.

Adding... My point here wasn't to suggest that the Congress is doing a bang up job (clearly they can be doing much better) but only to point out the Democrats are not doing as horribly as we're led to believe by most reports. There has been some major, positive legislation passed in President Obama's first year in office, despite the Party of No.

Every Vote Is Important...

...not just Joe Lieberman's, or Ben Nelson's, or Olympia Snowe's. And while these Senators are wielding their power because of an elusive 60th vote and making health care legislation exponentially weaker in the process, the White House assumes that the liberal votes will be there in the end. They shouldn't be so quick to count on those votes if they keep stepping on the throats of liberals and progressives instead of the extortionists they've been trying to appease for the last three months.

Now that the Senate Democratic leadership has stripped the last vestige of the public option — the Medicare buy-in provision — from its bill, progressives are feeling doubly betrayed.

“It’s time for the president to get his hands dirty,” Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, said in a statement this week. “Some of us have compromised our compromised compromise. We need the president to stand up for the values our party shares.”

...“I don’t sleep well,” [Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie] Sanders said. “I am struggling with this issue very hard, trying to sort out what is positive in this bill, what is negative in the bill, what it means for our country if there is no health insurance legislation, when we will come back to it.”

This in combination with Ben Nelson's new movement of the goalposts for his vote is having everyone walking a fine, thread-bare tightrope.

Although I still think this whole thing may backfire, as I believe not passing anything would be a more devastating blow to the Democratic party and the progressive agenda than passing a weak bill, I really do want to see liberals and progressives push back hard and let it be known that they can't be taken for granted. Their votes count just as much.

Healthcare Killers

If years from now, you're wondering what went wrong, remember this.

Two key senators criticized the most recent healthcare compromise Sunday, saying the policies replacing the public option are still unacceptable. Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) both said a Medicare “buy-in” option for those aged 55-64 was a deal breaker.

“I’m concerned that it’s the forerunner of single payer, the ultimate single-payer plan, maybe even more directly than the public option,” Nelson said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Lieberman said Democrats should stop looking for a public option “compromise” and simply scrap the idea altogether.

Yeah, yeah, I know, but Obama this, Obama that. Someone explain me how threatening these shameless motherfuckers with stripping them of their chairmanships would have done any good if they have the fucking balls to go on the Sunday talk shows and basically go on the record saying that anything even remotely close to helping citizens with any form of a public option is a deal breaker.

And Lieberman takes offense at being called the "Senator from Aetna"?! FUCK YOU!!!

Time For a Senate Steel Cage Match

This is what I want to see: an elected representative so passionate about his convictions that he or she will don tights and wrestle in a steel cage match to the death with another Senator who disagrees with him.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure (and by "pleasure" I mean the same type of joy you get by cutting) of listening to an NPR interview with Joe "You Know What? I'm Happy..." Lieberman who was appalled at the ad hominem attacks of those calling him the Senator from Aetna because of his filibuster threat that would derail health care if the public option were included in the bill. Joe has no clue why people are so upset and assume he's in the pocket of the insurance industry because, after all, he voted for the Patients Bill of Rights and he supports the anti-trust legislation.

So I want Lieberman to get into Ben Nelson's face, who for some reason is protecting the insurance companies' rights to fix prices and fuck their customers in the ass.

Given what is riding on the [health care] vote, party leaders have been busy talking to holdouts, negotiating deals in an effort to get them on board as wavering lawmakers exert their leverage at a critical moment. In response to demands from Nelson, for instance, the leadership appears willing to drop plans to use the legislation to strip health insurance companies of their antitrust exemption.

Who is Ben Nelson representing? Is he worried about the nearly 30% of his Nebraskan constituents who don't have health insurance or the $2 million and counting he's received from insurance and health care interests in his three campaigns for federal office?

First up in the steel cage, "Holy Joe" Lieberman, who wants to filibuster health care reform if there's a public option inclusion, and Ben "The Helmet Head" Nelson, who is against health insurance anti-trust legislation.  What a couple of gems, huh?  Maybe during the match Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin will sneak into the cage and pound these assholes over the head with folding chairs.

Obama Fights Back - Washington Post Editorial

This is something we're not used to seeing from Presidents. I can't remember if President Bush wrote anything, speeches, editorials, a book report on "My Pet Goat"?

President Barack Obama took his pen to paper and wrote an editorial regarding the economic struggle that we find ourselves in and the urgency of passing the Economic Recovery Bill currently in the Senate in the Washington Post today.

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

Now, some will say that this is beneath the President. Why is he writing editorials in the Washington Post? The answer is because he can. I don't know if it's my perception or if the media is following Obama with a fine tooth comb, but I don't ever recall any President having or maybe wanting this much media access to bring his message directly to the American people. There he was on all the nightly newscasts answering for the Daschle withdrawal. Have you ever seen anything like it? With this President the words, "The buck stops here," isn't just a funny little catchphrase. He actually means it.

Some will suggest that the editorial sounds like fearmongering. I vehemently disagree. The President's editorial isn't fearmongering if there is truth to it. There are no false qualifiers here, no deception, no lies to persuade. We are in deep, deep trouble and every day we wait it gets worse. There is no falsehood to that. There's a difference between laying out the dire circumstances for all to see and fearmonging to scare up votes by saying something like, "...if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." See the difference?

I also disagree with those who think that President Obama didn't have to send this message. So far, this recovery bill has been based on the framing of the argument. The Republicans have framed the debate on this bill as "pork laden." Rush Limbaugh calls it "porkulus" in front of 14 million weekly listeners. (And he certainly know something about porkulus.) The GOP has capitalized and zeroed in on a fraction of one percent of the recovery bill for their political advantage and framed the entire bill it as a pork laden wish list. They public thinks it looks like pork because the Democrats are sitting back while the Republicans, with the blatant or inadvertent help of the media, are framing it as wasteful spending. And if the public gets that perception, then that's what they'll believe because the media is never wrong. Where is the rebuttal from Democratic leaders explaining why these measures are in the bill?

$200 million for Medicaid on contraception will save $60 billion in government medical costs in the future. Sounds like a good investment. $21 million for the National Mall will put arguably thousands to work to repair the crumbling foundations of our national monuments. But the GOP calls this "$21 million for grass." The list goes on and on, and instead of the Democratic leaders rebutting these ridiculous pork notions, they are either nervously wringing their hands in silence or aren't getting the air time to rebut. The only Congressman I saw defending contraception was Robert Wexler (D-FL), who explained it rationally and logically on Hardball with Chris Matthews. And when he was done, he still got a "I don't understand what you're talking about," from an obtuse Phil Gingrey, the same Congressman who's apologized to Rush Limbaugh for his brief moment of clarity.

Maybe the President did make one mistake. In the interest of bipartisanship, President Obama compromised too much; he backed off to a fault with initial GOP resistance and it was perceived as a validation of Republican complaints. But what happened? After he accommodated them, House Republicans rejected the bill anyway. And the more it went on, the more we saw the political endgame that they would have rejected it no matter what the President did just to send a message.

Well, now it's the President's turn to send a message. It's the Democratic leaders' turn to send a message and make the obstructionists decide that if they really want to fight this thing, they're going to have to filibuster for it. No pansy ass cloture votes. Make them filibuster.

The only mistake the President made regarding the Washington Post editorial was not going far enough. This was a statement that needed to be made on prime time television in front of a national audience.

The Leon Panetta Thing (The post where I tell Diane Feinstein and Harry Reid to shut the fuck up.) - UPDATED

It seems that Senator Diane Feinstein (D[INO]-CA) must have been travelling to a different country to get some kind of stem cell procedure done in order to grow the spine she was missing these last few years. Why else would she say something like this about Obama's choice of Leon Panetta to head the CIA?

"My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

Really, Senator Feinstein? Then why say this back in 2004 after George W. Bush nominated Porter Goss for the same position?

"I believe the President should have the prerogative to appoint who he wants to be the DCI..."

Oh, right. It's because the President was a Republican, wasn't it? And we all know that Democrats in Congress are so used to bending over and taking it in the ass that it was only natural that you say something like that.

And you dared let your ego get the better of you and have a hissy fit. When Bush nominated Porter Goss for the same position you thought Goss' credentials were fine. Then Goss himself said he wasn't qualified for the position. (Why he accepted is another story.) So why should you really be kept in the loop as to who is nominated? You've proven that sometimes credentials don't make someone good at their job.

Jay McDonough: Both Senators Feinstein and Rockefeller had ranking positions on the Senate Intelligence Committee and were completely ineffectual at stemming the abuses of the Bush Administration and, in fact, in most cases sided with the Administration on key policy issues. It was just a week ago that Vice President Cheney confided they had shared information about the Administration's illegal surveillance programs with key Democrats (this, most certainly, included Sen. Rockefeller) and those Democrats advised Mr. Cheney the programs should continue and the Congress needn't be involved.

Well, I'm weally sorry you got your wittle feewings hurt by not being informed initially, but get the fuck over it. Take your hurt feelings, and your Donna Reed motherfuckin' hairdo and your fucking FISA vote and get the fuck outta here. You too Jay Rockefeller, you fat fuck.

We've all been worried about obstructionist Republicans, but it looks like the real problem might actually be Democrats who feel they can't be pushed around anymore... by a new Democratic president who has vowed for more transparency than ever before. Does this make any fucking sense?!

Now Majority Capitulater Harry Reid is all of a sudden become Captain Opposite Man, insisting that there was no way in hell he was going to seat Roland Burris to Obama's vacant Senate seat... unless of course Reid copped out and would seat him if he had the proper credentials; and he didn't bother trying to seat Al Franken for fear of a Republican block. And yet, he says this about his relationship with the President-elect:

Reid stated, "I don't believe in the executive power trumping everything... I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government."
"If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. ... I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him," he said.

'Atta boy, Harry. Good thing you followed you own rules for the last two years when you blocked every move Bush made and called him out when overstepping his bounds; stopped him in his tracks when he thought he was above the law with all those signing statements and.... oh, wait. Nevermind. You didn't do any of that did you? You caved, didn't you? And now we can expect six more years of caving to the Republican minority... well, a minority at least until the Democrats blow it again and Republicans regain control of Congress.

Fuck cloture votes. Until Reid makes the Republicans actually filibuster something they're opposed to and not pee in his pants with just the threat of a filibuster, I'll apologize and take it all back. Until then, Harry Reid can shut the fuck up too, that worthless shit.


UPDATE (1/8/09 10:25am):

Politico: The Majority Leader thinks former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens shouldn't face jail time for his seven-count federal conviction last year, telling our Manu Raju, who was also in the room, "My personal feeling, you guys, I don't know what good that [would do]... He was a real war hero too, you know. He's been punished enough."

Punished enough? Please explain the punishment, Senator Reid. Please explain how Stevens didn't understand the procedure when he was recorded saying that the worst that can happen to him is a fine and a little jail time. Please explain how he didn't understand the rules changes. He's a goddamn Senator, for fuck's sake! If he doesn't know the rules, then he shouldn't fucking be there. I was always taught that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I guess that is unless you're a member of the US Congress, of course.

And by the way, I think that it's a pretty big fuck up to get your home renovated for free. He didn't know there was something wrong with that? And what a fucking disgrace that the US Senate thought it appropriate to give a convicted felon a standing ovation on his last day there. That was a goddamn embarrassment.

Yeah, like I said, Reid needs to SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.

(H/T Bob Cesca)

Kyl Threatens Filibuster

It's been eight days since Senator Barack Obama officially became President-elect Obama and already the freakazoid Republicans in the Senate are threatening filibusters on possible Supreme Court appointments that haven't happened yet.

Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal.

..."He believes in justices that have empathy," said Kyl, speaking at a Federalist Society meeting in Phoenix. The attorneys group promotes conservative legal principles.

Kyl said if Obama goes with empathetic judges who do not base their decisions on the rule of law and legal precedents but instead the factors in each case, he would try to block those picks via filibuster.

Give me a fucking break. Obama is 10 weeks away from taking over and already these obstructionist motherfuckers are threatening to block confirmation of an appointment to a position that doesn't exist. This from the same fuck-o who threatened the nuclear option when it was Bush's stellar appointments that were in danger of rejection.

You know what? Give it your best shot, Kyl. But you'd better get your orthopedic shoes on because it ain't gonna be a bullshit, pansy ass filibuster. You're going to have to - how does Sarah Palin put it? - "walk the walk" and stand up there as long as your feeble ass can take it. We'll wait until you kick the bucket from exhaustion and then confirm the appointment anyway, whenever that should take place.

So in short, go fuck yourself, Kyl. This is a new ballgame. Game on, brohim.

(H/T Crooks and Liars)

Dodd and Feingold To The Rescue?

Shhh... don't tell anyone, but it looks like Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold are going to filibuster the FISA compromise bill. But they're not using that word. Must be bad juju.

Initially there were reports that Feingold would not filibuster the bill. But in an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, Feingold explained procedure:

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Feingold, will you filibuster this bill?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: We are going to resist this bill. We are going to make sure that the procedural votes are gone through. In other words, a filibuster is requiring sixty votes to proceed to the bill, sixty votes to get cloture on the legislation. We will also—Senator Dodd and I and others will be taking some time to talk about this on the floor. We’re not just going to let it be rubberstamped.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you filibuster, though?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: That’s what I just described.

A joint statement released by Dodd and Feingold explains that "they will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans."

Hmmm... so basically, they're going to filibuster without using the word "filibuster"... maybe it's bad luck to use the word "filibuster" on the Senate floor. Sort of like using the word "Macbeth" in a theatre.

Shhh... don't tell anyone, but it looks like Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold are going to "Scottish play" the FISA compromise bill!

WTF, Harry Reid?!

(Updated below)

Listed among Senator Harry Reid's accomplishments is his boxing past when he was a young man. Well, it looks like any fight Reid had left in him remained in the boxing ring all those years ago because he has done nothing but capitulate and kowtow to the Republican minority since becoming Senate Majority "Leader."

The latest insult comes in the form of Reid's insistance that the current FISA bill up for consideration including telecom immunity of the illegal wiretapping that was done on the behalf of the Bush administration, be finished this week, and threatening that filibustering the bill would be a true filibuster. Not like when he licks the boots of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell whenever he threatens a 60 vote majority or filibuster to almost every single bill to which the Republicans are opposed. If that's the case, then Reid just whines and moans and gives in anyway.

Glenn Greenwald: That is what Democrats have been urging Reid to do to the filibustering Republicans all year -- in order to dramatize their obstructionism -- but he has refused to make them actually filibuster anything, generously agreeing instead that every bill requires 60 votes. Instead, he reserves such punishment only for the members of his own caucus trying to take a stand for the rule of law and the Constitution, those who are trying finally to bring some accountability to this administration.

This bill more than any other in recent history puts the country at a Constitutional crossroads. If the telecom industries receive retroactive immunity for illegal eavesdropping at the behest of George W. Bush, it will destroy any chance of investigation and accountability of this corrupt White House and deny any US citizen their fourth amendment rights.

While on the Senate floor, Reid warned against filibustering the bill on the false argument that the current bill will expire on February 1st (there's no chance of the new bill passing so quickly) and due to scheduling, Congress is going to recess again and no one wants to miss their retreats.

Aww, poor Congressional leaders...

Hopefully Chris Dodd will ignore the warnings and come to the rescue again. We'll soon find out.

UPDATE (1/23): C&L - Sen. Chris Dodd is coming out to demand that the retroactive immunity be stripped from the FISA bill, no thanks to Harry Reid. It’s a little confusing, but from what I gather this is NOT the filibuster but will lead up to the filibuster tomorrow.

Meanwhile Reid stated that the true filibuster threat he made was directed at Republicans over a 60 vote majority, not to his Democratic allies, which seems unlikely. He probably received tons of emails and calls saying, "Senator Reid, with all dur respect, What The Fuck?!

UPDATE III (1/24): Kos - Dodd will filibuster if necessary - " If after debate, the Senate appears ready to pass legislation granting telecom providers retroactive immunity I will use any and all legislative tools at my disposal, including a filibuster, to prevent this deeply flawed bill from becoming law. More and more, Americans are rejecting the false choice that has come to define this administration: security or liberty, but never, ever both. For all those who have stood with me throughout this fight, I pledge, once more, to stand up for you."

Dodd Delays Telcom Amnesty FISA Bill

Finally, a politician with the balls to do what's right and follow through on what he promised.

From ChrisDodd.com: Majority Leader Harry Reid has just pulled the FISA bill from consideration in this session. It will be brought up at some point next month.
Without Senator Dodd's leadership today, it is safe to assume that retroactive immunity would have passed.
This is a great victory for the American people. His outspoken opposition to retroactive immunity and the Intelligence Committee's FISA bill made it impossible to move forward now. From a process standpoint, that took the persistent shadow of a Dodd filibuster on this legislative process, a "hold" against any legislation that included retroactive immunity, and today, a refusal to grant unanimous consent to rules of debate that would have made it harder to strip retroactive immunity from the Intel Committee's bill through the Dodd-Feingold Amendment. He brought along some of the Senate's most passionate voices -- Senator's Feingold, Kennedy, Boxer, Wyden, Brown and Bill Nelson joined him to stand up to the President today.

Clinton, Obama and Biden, all of whom said they supported Chris Dodd and his filibuster, did not take the time to return to DC from the campaign trail in Iowa to help Dodd in his fight against giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies that aided and abetted in the illegal wiretapping of American citizens by the Bush administration.

Here's Dodd's FISA speech on the Senate floor today.

Senator Kennedy: "Voting for amnesty would be a vote for silence, secrecy, and illegality... The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA, but he has also said that he will VETO any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. No immunity? No FISA bill.

So if we take the President at his word he is willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies!"

GOP = Grand Obstructionist Party

Ever wonder why Congress is supposedly getting nothing done?

With the president warning repeatedly that he will veto any budget package he dislikes and the Democrats short of the 60 votes they need in the Senate, the Republican minority is in an unusually strong bargaining position — and not just in the budget negotiations that are the top priority in Congress these days.

Mr. McConnell and his fellow Republicans are playing such tight defense, blocking nearly every bill proposed by the slim Democratic majority that they are increasingly able to dictate what they want, much to the dismay of the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, and frustrated Democrats in the House.

In fact, the Senate Republicans are so accustomed to blocking measures that when the Democrats finally agreed last week to their demands on a bill to repair the alternative minimum tax, the Republicans still objected, briefly blocking the version of the bill that they wanted before scrambling to approve it later.

By the way, this 110th Democratic led Congress has done more work in its first year than the Republican led 109th Congress did in its previous two years.

Mr. McConnell, of course, said it was up to the Democrats to work things out, whether on spending or any other measure, in a way that Republicans would accept. “They are in the majority,” he said. “But in the Senate, to do most things, it requires 60..."

Fuck you, McConnell. It didn't take 60 votes to approve anything while the Rethuglicans were in control, and now the abuse of the filibuster is at an all time high. I can't wait for this putz to be thrown into the street on his ear come next election.

You Want A Filibuster? You Got A Filibuster!

From BobGeiger.com:

Forcing his Republican colleagues to put up or shut up on the notion of an up-or-down vote, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) just moments ago announced that he will immediately file a cloture motion on the Reed-Levin troop redeployment bill and, if Republicans follow through with a filibuster, will place the Senate in a prolonged all-night session Tuesday to force a true continuation of debate.

Senator Dick Durbin bitchslapped Minority Senate Leader Mitch "Jowls" McConnell on the Senate floor today regarding his obfuscation and defense of Bush's failed policy in Iraq. Bring in the steel cage! There's a filibuster in the Senate!

Here's New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez explaining the situation:

UPDATE: Bob Geiger: Reid's Nine-Hour Protest Against Senate GOP In 2003

"...Reid's surprise move to hold the Senate in session all night tonight if Republicans block yet another Iraq-redeployment bill certainly took the political world by storm yesterday, [but] Senate watchers know that Reid is no stranger to holding the Senate open to take a stand and make a point."

Read more.