Filibuster (0.00 / 0)

As I noted in a comment yesterday, the Majority Leader's office doesn't seem like they're ready to force a real filibuster on Iraq, although they did tell me that "everyone is gearing up for the Reed-Levin fight," possibly suggesting that it will be more than a one-day affair.

Matt, do any of your sources in the Senate have an explanation as to why the Dems aren't forcing a filibuster on this? Has there even been serious discussion about forcing extended, indefinite debate on Iraq?

---

by: AdyBarkan @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 18:22:00 PM UTC

hanging out with a friend (0.00 / 0)

From what I've heard, there are definitely internal discussions on forcing the Republicans to have long debates on Iraq.

In terms of the filibuster, it's questionable whether the media would cover the filibuster.  There's concern that it would simply be boring and hardly dramatic, and open up Democrats to criticism for wasting Senate time and not passing time.  Next week is the bill on SCHIP, for instance, and should we delay that or not have time for it?

These are the tradeoffs.  Health care for kids versus Iraq-related theatrics.  It's not a simple choice, but those are some of the concerns.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 21:11:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

mix (0.00 / 0)

That's a mix of my own readings and what I've been told.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 21:14:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tradeoffs (0.00 / 0)

These are the tradeoffs.  Health care for kids versus Iraq-related theatrics.  It's not a simple choice, but those are some of the concerns.

But it's not really a tradeoff, because the Pugs will obstruct healthcare for kids the same way they obstruct movement on Iraq.

---

by: I_M_bobo @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 22:28:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or veto it. (0.00 / 0)

As Bush has already threatened to do.

This is the same worry people have expressed about a number of things -- as well they should, because there's always some truth to it.

But none of the things that normally get done in exchange for not forcing filibusters (or any of the dozen other things we could be forcing) are getting done this time. They're all either being blocked, vetoed, or wiped out by signing statements.

---

by: Kagro X @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 23:22:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A hopeful future for the Democratic party (4.00 / 2)

It is people like Webb, people who refuse to be talked over, shouted down, intimidated and have the other person's words put into their mouths, who should be the face of the Democratic party. It is people like Webb who will restore to the the word "liberal" the meanings that should be associated with it in every American's mind: a liberal is informed, involved, compassionate and fair.

He is not a tough guy. He is much better than a tough guy. He is a leader.

And he doesn't beat around the bush calling the Republicans what they are: followers.

---

by: Michael Harold @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 18:33:58 PM UTC

Lindsey looked miserable. (0.00 / 0)

Did you see how he shut up when Jim Webb raised his voice? He  was utterly emasculated. More importantly, you could tell who was using bullshit talking points and who was speaking with convictions.

Jim Webb -- he should run for president. Now.

---

by: afterthought @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 19:48:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Graham is a drone, Webb has machismo (0.00 / 0)

Graham looked like such a drone, an old bore, compared to an animated man speaking with conviction.  I'm soooo happy he's a senator, and proud of all of us that we helped get him there. 

Onward!

end the occupation of Iraq

---

by: aip @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 23:55:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Webb kicked butt (4.00 / 1)

I agree.  Plus, Webb had a terrific refutation of the "micromanage" line that Bush and his followers in Congress and the media say: I was assistant secretary of defense (he should of said of President Reagan) and I know what micromanaging a war is, this is merely being fair to our troops.

The people like Webb and Clark we have out there (along with Hackett and other Iraq/Afghanistan Vets) who can call bullshit on these clowns with independent creditability the better.

Graham was a JAG officer, but did he ever serve in combat? I don't know.  But Webb's line about his family serving in the military from the Revolutionary War until Iraq was pretty awesome refutation of Graham's "Have you been to Iraq? I have been there 7 time and am going back in August." (Webb's talk about the dog and pony show was pretty great too) 

Truth over balance, progress over ideology

---

by: Oldenburg @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 19:51:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Webb did not kick butt (0.00 / 0)

Webb was inarticulate and did not make his point forcefully.  I have been truly disappointed in Webb.  I honor the fact that he cares about the troops on the ground.  However his political instincts are less than sharp.  He should have blown Lindsay out of the water.  This is the Webb that did not want to go negative on Allen.  It worked for his election, because others pursued the "macaca".  I don't really see leadership.

This was not great stuff.  Sorry.  Webb needs to get behind Feingold who is far better in a debate.  And Feingold has a better strategy.  Webb is trying to use the troop needs to get them out of Iraq and I would be thrilled if it worked, but it is a subtle and weak strategy.  You have to crush the Republicans in the verbal battle.  Webb did not do that.

Join other progressives at EENRblog

---

by: pioneer @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 20:43:59 PM UTC

You must be watching something else (4.00 / 1)

because Webb had command of that interview. I suppose he could have 'done better', but at the bare minimum, he was VERY GOOD.  I would, in fact, say that he 'crushed' Lindsey Graham. Just look at the way Lindsey shut up when Webb raised his voice. You could tell who held the authority.

That's a positive development.

---

by: afterthought @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 21:15:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Democrats lose on either side of a filibuster. (4.00 / 2)

Just how do we manage to be on the losing side, regardless of which side we're on??

When Democrats filibustered in the minority, Democrats feared media coverage as the great obstructionists.

But now if Republicans filibuster in the minority, Democrats fear media coverage as the great time wasters: "it's questionable whether the media would cover the filibuster.... and open up Democrats to criticism for wasting Senate time."

With strategic thinking like that, who needs opponents since they back themselves in the corner and give up the fight and can't figure out how to get control of the positioning?

---

by: wNeuhauser @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 21:42:03 PM UTC

Mr Dog and Pony Show (0.00 / 0)

Graham talks like a muppet of a mealy-mouthed worm.

He served his active military duty behind a desk. He was posted in Rhein Mein Air Force Base in Germany and McEntire Air National Guard Base in Columbia, SC.

His biography puts out the details of his service
http://lgraham.senat...

"His duties included briefing pilots on the law of armed conflict, preparing legal documents for deploying troops, and providing legal services for family members of the South Carolina Air National Guard."

What we see in this video is a Secretary of the Navy vs. a legal clerk.

---

by: T Maysle @ Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:00:39 AM UTC