The Cowardly Senate "Democratic" _majority_.... where American democracy GOES TO DIE.
There is ONE reason why George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been able to push their thuggish agenda on the American people for the past 6 years: because the COWARDLY DEMOCRATS of the US Senate REFUSE to STAND UP to the Bush-Rove-Cheney propaganda machine, whether for FLORIDA VOTERS DISENFRANCHISED in 2000, Ohio voters DISENFRANCHISED in 2004, New Orleans residents prohibited from leaving their drowned city (vigilantes and police on the opposite side of the bridge) after Hurrican Katrina, or US military generals, officers, and men and women FORCED to follow the dictates of ATROCIOUS leadership coming from the Bush-Cheney White House, with the corrupt US occupation CREATING ENEMIES of Iraqi civilians and fueling the insurgency ("bring it on!") where at one point many Iraqis looked to the US to IMPROVE their lives from where they had been under Saddam's regime.
When Democrats were in the minority, the Rethuglicans MADE THE VERY PROSPECT of a Senate FILIBUSTER into a CRIME APPROACHING TREASON.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59877-2004Dec12?language=printer
The WHORE MEDIA went along with these Republican propaganda portrayals straight from Karl Rove's fax machine - portraying Democrat use of the FILIBUSTER power as TREACHEROUS and UNDERHANDED - calling the Democrats "OBSTRUCTIONIST" for even mentioning use of the filibuster - when in fact it was a typically treacherous Karl Rove smear operation that "OUTED" an entire undercover CIA operation to intimidate and discredit an administration critic - what former President Bush (Sr.) called "INSIDIOUS TREASON!" when he signed the bill making the "outing" of an undercover CIA operative into a high felony crime.
(Libby testimony points at Pres. Bush and VP Cheney in CIA disclosure leak from White House):
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020707A.shtml
Today, less than FOUR LOUSY WEEKS since the Democrats took over the House, the DAMN DEMOCRATS in the Senate are back to their cowering tricks - HANDING THE CONTROL of the senate agenda - the ability to even DISCUSS the the Iraq war! - OVER TO THE Rethglican MINORITY!
DAMN YOU, you COWARDLY DEMOCRATS!
Why don't you FIGHT BACK!
Tell the Damn Rethuglican administration hatchet-men, "WE WILL CLOSE DOWN THE SENATE UNTIL THIS WAR IS DEBATED in true American democratic ("small-d") fashion."
USE YOUR OWN FILIBUSTER POWERS, you *MAJORITY* WIMPS!
Ever since the STOLEN ELECTION of 2000, the Rethuglicans can SHUT DOWN THE SENATE with THEIR filibuster, but the WIMPY DEMOCRATS play COWARD, and REFUSE to use their FILIBUSTER POWER - EVEN when they are in the MAJORITY!
WHAT _ AN _ UNAMERICAN _ COWARDLY _ DISGRACE.
To think that these COWARDLY Senators are sending Americans men and women to Iraq to "FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY" - when they are TOO COWARDLY TO FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY on their own floor, using their vast senatorial powers, which should be ENHANCED with their pathetic _MAJORITY_!!
And here's a clue, you stupid, cowering Senators: IF the damn WHORE media won't give FAIR COVERAGE to an AMERICAN, DEMOCRATIC debate of UNLIMITED presidential wartime powers.... SUBPOENA THEIR ASSESS, GET THOSE DAMN MEDIA EXECS to testify UNDER OATH why they think they can get away with being CHRONIC LIARS on EVERYTHING related to presidential war powers.
ANY Senate Democrat who CAN'T MUSTER UP and LEAD a COUNTER-FILIBUSTER of the Rethuglican OBSTRUCTION CREW, is MEGA-UNWORTHY of ANY claim to presidential leadership - you wimps!
Our Democratic Senators are like the "BUBBLE PRESIDENT" - surrounded by so many underlings and sycophants (staff, consultants, advisors, and especially flattering, campaign fund donating lobbysists) that the BELIEVE 90% of the RUBBISH they hear, and think that their precious "SENATE CONGENIALITY" is MORE IMPORTANT than the LIVES OF _our_ TROOPS SENT OFF AS PAWNS to DIE and be traumatized in Bush's war of CORRUPTION and Napoleonic maniacal imperialism - America's attemp at a new, larger colonial empire enforced by guns, bombs and threat of nuclear weapons at the dawn of this new millenium.
And here's another clue: the president's claim to DEFENDING AMERICA is also a hollow shell of corruption mockery.
FAR more important to the administration than DEFENDING AMERICA is PROTECTING THEIR TURF of executive privilge, the ability to hand out huge CONTRACTS with little or no oversight - much less RESPONSIBILITY to American citizens who are victims of disaster or terror. Mr. Bush and his White House successfully OBSTRUCTED a meaningful 9-11 investigation UNTIL VICTIM's FAMILY MEMBERS (9-11 widows) DID THE HEAVY WORK of DEMANDING a public investigation - the 'Democrats' of the Senate playing ONLY A SUPPORTING ROLE in demanding an American investigation into the MASSIVE NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER that was Bush's August 2001 presidential ONE MONTH VACATION and the 9-11 attacks a short week or two later.
This week we learn that the Bush White House is REPEATING their "OBSTRUCT homeland NATIONAL SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS game - using Vice President Cheney's SON-in-LAW's office as the CHOKE-POINT of a Homeland Security investigation!
Can ANYONE in the Cowering Democratic Senate even IMAGINE a Democratic White House getting away with such - using the son-in-law of a President Gore or Kerry or Clinton to HOLD OF A GAO INVESTIGATION into a VITAL PART of America's National Security agencies - much less after the DEBACLES of 9-11, Katrina, and the Iraq war????
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/06/perry-homeland-security/
The Democrats of the Senate are LETTING Rove, Cheney, and Bush USE THE SAME corrupt PLAY OVER and OVER and OVER again, while they COWER IN FEAR from the Republican MINORITY use of the filibuster, and REFUSE TO EVEN INFORM the American public that the Republicans are USING THAT FILIBUSTER as a giant club to SQUELCH even DEBATE on the Iraq war!
The Senate Democrats DO NOT represent the SEVENTY PERCENT (70%) of American who believe that the Bush administration is heading in the WRONG DIRECTION in the Iraq war - they (the Senate Democrats) represent the SAME CORPORATIONS AND LOBBYISTS that the Bush White House gets it's marching orders from!
=============================================
Senate Republicans successfully BLOCK DEBATE on Iraq resolution -
[ by USING FILIBUSTER!!]
Michael Roston
Monday February 5, 2007
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Senate_Republicans_successfully_block_debate_on_0205.html
After being assailed by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for being "driven by a desire to provide political cover for President Bush," the Republican Leadership in the Senate succeeded in preventing debate on a resolution that criticized President George W. Bush's escalation plan for Iraq.
A vote of 49-47 failed to invoke cloture, after Democratic Senators were unable to persuade enough Republicans to cross the aisle and end a filibuster that blocked debate on the resolution, which was the result of a compromise between Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and ranking member John Warner (R-VA).
Reid addressed his Republican colleagues harshly.
"We’ve seen politics in this war before. Politics gave us the 'Mission Accomplished' banner. Politics gave us a Vice President who said the insurgency was in its 'last throes.' Politics gave us a Defense Secretary who promised America the enemy was just a few 'dead-enders' who would be stamped out in days.
"We’ve had enough politics. Four years into this war, what we need is a strategy that will succeed in Iraq," he said.
Reid had earlier remarked, "The President must hear from Congress, so he knows he stands in the wrong place, alone. A loud, bipartisan message from this Body will give him another opportunity to listen… to listen and change course to a plan to gives our troops the best chance for success."
Senator Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut Independent who caucuses with Senate Democrats, voted against cloture, and explained why he opposed allowing a full debate and vote on the resolution.
"There is a world beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is watching and listening," Lieberman said. "For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture."
A full roll call of the vote is not yet available.
At the conclusion of the vote, Reid sought a motion to reconsider the vote, which was granted. To close the filibuster of the bill, the Democrats will need 60 votes.
Also after the vote, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the Michigan Democrat who presided over the cloture debate, added to the criticism of the Republicans who blocked the vote.
"We are now in a situation where the minority has voted down the ability of us to go to a resolution, or multiple resolutions dealing with Iraq, which we are all so concerned with," she said.
"Open and honest debate about the execution of this war is not only what our soldiers expect, it is what they deserve," she added.
According to the Congressional Record, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, "Let me just say there are many members on my side who would argue that we shouldn't be having this debate this week at all."
===========================================
GOP May Target Use of Filibuster
[the HONEST headline hear would be:
"Republicans THREATEN TO KILL Filibuster power FOR ALL TIME"
the difference is the COWARDLY MEDIA WHORING of the Washington Post headline editors....]
Senate Democrats Want To Retain the Right to Block Judicial Nominees
By Helen Dewar and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, December 13, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59877-2004Dec12?language=printer
As speculation mounts that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will step down from the Supreme Court soon because of thyroid cancer, Senate Republican leaders are preparing for a showdown to keep Democrats from blocking President Bush's judicial nominations, including a replacement for Rehnquist.
Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the "nuclear option," to thwart such filibusters.
"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," he said in a speech to the Federalist Society last month, labeling the use of filibusters against judicial nominees a "formula for tyranny by the minority."
So far, at least, Democrats are refusing to forgo filibusters and say they will fight any effort by Frist to act unilaterally to end them for judicial nominations. They warn that it could poison the well for bipartisan cooperation on other issues in the upcoming Congress.
"If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it's not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back," incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said last week. "I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up."
Democrats, however, face several constraints. Democratic strategists said that some of the party's senators from states Bush carried in the presidential election could be reluctant to support a filibuster for fear of being portrayed as obstructionist -- a tactic the GOP used successfully in congressional elections this year and in 2002.
With a Supreme Court nomination, Democrats could be blamed for deadlocking the court at its current four conservatives and four liberals, making it impossible for the court to decide the toughest cases.
White House officials are willing to say little about their Supreme Court strategy and brush off questions by saying simply that Bush will choose the most qualified candidate. But several lawyers and former administration officials who have discussed the issue with West Wing aides said they see indications that Bush is headed toward nominating what one called a "strong ideological conservative" rather than accommodating Democrats with a choice who would be confirmed with little controversy.
One of those signs is that despite Bush's rhetoric about bipartisanship, Democrats say he has done little to reach out to them since his reelection. And some administration officials say they believe any goodwill that was established would quickly evaporate with the president's first Supreme Court nomination.
Several knowledgeable lawyers said the White House has discussed a strategy of explaining a conservative pick by saying that the nominee is of the same stripe as the justice being replaced. "Anybody except for a strong ideological conservative is a waste of a fight," one adviser said. "What they plan to say is that they would not be fundamentally changing the makeup of the court."
Several administration officials said Bush signaled this strategy last month when he nominated White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales to be attorney general, taking him out of the running for an immediate appointment to the high court. Gonzales would be more likely to be viewed as a centrist pick than some of the other lawyers under consideration. Administration officials said that although Gonzales is likely to be considered for a future seat, the first choice will be someone whom conservatives will embrace immediately.
Scholars agree that a bitter showdown could shatter the fragile comity that is essential for action in the Senate and set a precedent for further erosion of minority party rights in the chamber. "I think we're headed into uncharted waters in terms of the scope of the filibuster and the retaliatory moves that are being contemplated," said Sheldon Goldman of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, an expert on the judicial nomination process.
At issue is a seldom-used, complicated and highly controversial parliamentary maneuver in which Republicans could seek a ruling from the chamber's presiding officer, presumably Vice President Cheney, that filibusters against judicial nominees are unconstitutional. Under this procedure, it would take only a simple majority or 51 votes to uphold the ruling -- far easier for the 55-member GOP majority to get than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster or the 67 votes needed to change the rules under normal procedures.
It would then take only 51 votes to confirm a nominee, ensuring approval of most if not all of Bush's choices.
Senate GOP leaders say no final decision has been reached on whether to use this maneuver (which they prefer to call the "constitutional option") and, if so, when. But they have signaled they may do so next year, either shortly after the new Congress convenes in early January or -- more likely, some Republicans say -- after Democrats mount a filibuster against another judicial nominee.
Historically, lawmakers of both parties have engaged in filibusters -- a word derived from the Dutch name for pirates to describe a process of unlimited debate that has been enshrined in the Senate for two centuries -- mostly to block or delay final votes on legislation. But filibusters have also been used against judicial and other nominations, although never in such a systematic manner, Republicans said. In 1968, Republicans filibustered President Lyndon B. Johnson's choice of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice, but Johnson withdrew the nomination in the face of Fortas's likely rejection by the Senate.
During Bush's first term, Democrats successfully filibustered 10 of Bush's 52 nominees for appeals courts, while acceding to the confirmation of 35 others. The appeals court confirmation rate was low, but not as low as the rate for President Bill Clinton's second term, Democrats said.
Democrats contend the 10 filibustered judges are too far outside the legal mainstream to warrant lifetime appointments, describing them as the cutting edge of an effort by Bush to pack the courts with ideologically driven conservatives. They also argue that, during the Clinton administration, the GOP majority in the Senate blocked action on dozens of judicial nominations, without need for a filibuster because they could use their majority-party powers to bury nominations in committee or block them through anonymous "holds" on the Senate floor.
Republicans counter that, even though the number of filibustered nominations is small, the Democrats are trampling on the Constitution by denying a straight up-or-down vote for even a single nomination. The Constitution, they note, requires two-thirds majorities for treaties, constitutional amendments and other specific matters but calls for only the "advice and consent" of the Senate on judicial choices, with no reference to any super-majority for confirmation.
Democrats disagree, arguing that the Constitution empowers Congress to set its own rules of operation and does not specify the size of a majority needed for judicial confirmations because the issue was to be left to the Senate to decide. "What about all these people who say they want a literal reading of the Constitution?" asked Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Although frustrated Senate leaders have resorted in the past to tactics involving at least some aspects of the nuclear option, none of the confrontations approached the significance -- or political explosiveness -- of the current dispute, with implications stretching beyond the issue of judicial nominations.
Although it would not directly threaten filibusters on legislative issues, critics believe it could open the door to further erosion of the Senate's long tradition of unlimited debate as a last refuge for political minorities and a brake on precipitous action by presidents and legislative majorities. Although Bush would have an easier time getting the judges he wants, Democrats warn that he could run into trouble on Social Security, tax simplification and other major second-term initiatives that will probably require Democratic cooperation for passage.
Use of the nuclear option "would make the Senate look like a banana republic . . . and cause us to try to shut it down in every way," Schumer said. "Social Security and tax reform need Democratic support. If they use the nuclear option, in all likelihood they would not get Democratic support" for those and other initiatives, he added.
Republicans considered the nuclear option last year but backed off because they lacked the votes to prevail. Emboldened by a gain of four seats from the Nov. 2 elections, many of its most ardent supporters believe they now have the votes to win.
Staff writers Charles Babington and Charles Lane contributed to this report.
© 2004 The Washington Post
