I promised an analysis of the Iraq vote the other night, with every Republican, save two, voting not to allow debate on the non-binding resolution
1) In terms of politics, this could not be any better. A non-binding resolution achieves nothing. But with this vote, and not a single Dem voting to block debate over Iraq (thankfully we sent the dad on Alf packing in the Connecticut primary), this is the GOP's war to try and defend in 2008. Good luck guys. You just handed us the keys to an enduring majority (if we are smart enough to take 'em).
2) The obstructionism of Mitch McConnell - I worked against this man in 2002 and have written extensively on him here, here and here. He is an amoral loser, a guy who will pore over numbers the whole night, because he has no life and no compassion for the people his votes effect.
But this also makes him a master tactician. He has already blocked bills on lobbying reform, the minimum wage and Iraq (whether or not these bills were passed later in a different form doesn't matter, he initially blocked votes just to make things tougher on Dems). He is working on blocking a common-sense vote to make tobacco regulated by the FDA. This is what he is good at. Wrecking good legislation and counting votes.
3) John Sununu is an idiot. He is from New Hampshire. You know, that state that gave us control of both houses of the legislature, both Congressional seats and a Dem governor over 70% of the vote in 2006. Sununu has now voted to eliminate the minimum wage, not debate Iraq and he will have to defend himself over his party's role in a phone jamming scandal that helped elect him in 2002. Have fun pal.
4) Other swing-state Republicans are going to be in real trouble (save Norm Coleman and Susan Collins, who voted with Dems). Besides Sununu, Gordon Smith, Liddy Dole, Mitch McConnell, John Warner, and a few others should have fun explaining this one.
5) The Democrats were united. That, in itself, is a good sign that so called "moderate" Dems may have finally realized where they need to be on this issue.
There is much more at play here, and this is just cursory. So take it for what you will.
posted by Cliff Schecter @ 2:51 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Can someone here explain to me why we need to have 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done? I'm really fuzzy on the whole cloture thing and why we can't just have a simple majority vote.
Thanks in advance for your help!
gimmeabreak
I think cloture was originally introduced by President Woodrow Wilson in order to help stop a fillabuster by the majority in the Senate. I'm not sure of how many at the time were able to enact a cloture, I think it might have been a super majority of 65 or something, but in 1975 when the Democrats had a majority they reduced the number of the majority to three-fifths (60 out of 100).
I'm pretty sure that's correct...been a long time since I was in school.
Gimme- ME hit it on the head.
Whenever it's something divisive they have to have the super majority to keep it from bogging down in BS.
Everything I'm hearing though is consistent with this just shoving the war further up the R's butts.
C'mon '08!!
(And I personally swear to do all in my power to see Lieberman running an Arbys' franchise in '12. When the D's take over the majority in '08, they should kick his droopy ass to the curb.)
They should just frickin' vote - but they're cowards - the Dems and the Repugs. They're too afraid of how their vote will look on paper.
Actually I believe it was LBJ who changed it to 60 votes so he could pass civil rights legislation. I could be wrong but I believe that's who changed it which would put it in the mid 60's.
Post a Comment
<< Home