Harry Reid In Action


I really don't know what to say about this:

Harry Reid -- who has (a) done more than any other individual to ensure that Bush's demands for telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping powers will be met in full and (b) allowed the Republicans all year to block virtually every bill without having to bother to actually filibuster -- went to the Senate floor yesterday and, with the scripted assistance of Mitch McConnell and Pat Leahy, warned Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold and others that they would be selfishly wreaking havoc on the schedules of their fellow Senators (making them work over the weekend, ruining their planned "retreat," and even preventing them from going to Davos!) if they bothered everyone with their annoying, pointless little filibuster.

To do so, Reid announced that, unlike for the multiple filibusters from Republican colleagues, he would actually force Dodd and company to engage in a real filibuster.

Read the rest. It's really screwed up.


Sean-Paul Kelley January 23, 2008 - 9:41pm
( categories: Analysis | Liberties )

Update: Reid's staff e-mails to clarify that his challenge to Senators wishing to "talk this to death" was intended for Republicans who had been insisting on 60 vote majority on FISA votes. That is, Reid told the Republicans that if they want 60 vote threshold they will have to essentially filibuster to do so. Should the votes start tomorrow, I hope he holds that line.

FISA: Hold your horses Hotlist
by mcjoan

Tina January 23, 2008 - 9:57pm

As far as I know, Dodd and a few Dems are the only ones who want to "talk this to death." Reid's statement sounds completely disingenuous. The Doddsters are "enemy." The Davos Dems are the good guys, according to Reid.

LJ January 23, 2008 - 10:04pm

this to say:

Well you know, the way to not "step on the message" of bipartisan unity is also for the fucking Republicans to join them in voting for the criminal contempt citations, but everyone knows that's not going to happen. Because Republicans don't do that.

Can someone explain to me how "bipartisan" ever means anything but giving the wingnuts what they want so they don't pitch a bitch in the corner?

Ouch!!

LJ January 23, 2008 - 10:27pm

living room is criminality.

if you want to be "bipartisan" then you are complicit in hiding and abetting criminality. period.

any ethical Congress person knows crimes have been committed. but NO ONE but the impeach group, few and stalwart tho they be, have the guts to say it.

the best Congress money can buy.

the really patriotic Americans are idiots like us, who in the face of hypocrisy and blatant in your face criminality of epic proportions, do not disembark with cynicism as our battle cry/ mantra, but continue to participate, and hope that the republic can still be saved. God bless us everyone. heh.

bernadene January 24, 2008 - 11:03am

Of getting the right FISA bill up for a vote, he would have honored Senator Dodd's request to hold the legislation--just as he honors each and every GOP Senator's requests. He did not do this, and not only does he need to be replaced as Senate majority leader, but he needs to be replaced as senator for Nevada. Time and time again he has not forced the issue with GOP senators and allowed them to exercise faux filibusters--what's the count, over a hundred last year? And where are Hillary, Obama, and Edwards on this issue? I think I know where Edwards stands, but why aren't the other two in DC where they can put their money where their mouths are? This is important.

Jonathryn January 23, 2008 - 10:29pm

I don't think we really need him back anyway.

In fact, can they just keep all those assholes in Davos?

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

Charles Darwin

darwin January 23, 2008 - 11:28pm

Once he's bought, he stays bought.

Seriously, what did anyone expect? The telecoms own him. The fact that there isn't a large-scale rebellion in the Democratic party over this ought to say something about the party.

This is why I have no confidence in the party, setting aside the sunny rhetoric from particular senators about "unity" and all that nonsense.

Mr. Flibble January 24, 2008 - 8:24am

i'd say something witty, but i'm too disgusted and basically resigned to the fact that it will pass, probably will some extra shitty bells on.

we are the only people talking about this. the silence from the candidates is telling.

chicago dyke January 24, 2008 - 11:36am

It's us vs. them, but not Dem vs. Repub. No, that dog crawled in the corner and died 30+ years ago. This is the elite vs. commoners, or corporate interests vs. populist sentiment if you prefer. Dem, Repub, Ind, all these affiliations are meaningless in the face of money vs. the greater public good.

Whether this means we need a new party, or just need to bust the shit out of the current ones I don't know. But the days of Repub vs. Dem are over, waht the hell else can Reid and Rockefeller's comments and actions mean? We need to start re-aligning our thinking caps for this new reality - this is the true fight of our generation. Let us mark our enemy correctly and know its name.

They use the "partisan" crap to keep us divided and swinging at false enemies. The real way to end this would be to reach out to the conservative base of America and call a truce while we out the corporate swill from both parties. How we do that I don't know, but truly I think that's the best way to slay this beast.

zot23 January 24, 2008 - 1:13pm

I couldn't agree with you more...

scrat January 24, 2008 - 4:52pm

Not surprised.

Reid isn't a liberal. Never was.

Lesly January 24, 2008 - 1:17pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.