McConnell Filibuster of Bi-Partisan Senate Stimulus Package Set to Hold


Reid expects all attempts to improve the Stimulus Package to fail.

McConnell is a guy who at dawn can tell you to look forward to the stars coming out in a few minutes: while filibustering, he tells the press that the majority in the Senate shouldn't obstruct things.

Reid however is going to make the Republicans put their votes on record to gut heating assistance, food stamps and unemployment benefits, and hang those provisions around the necks of northern Republicans up for reƫlection next year.


Stirling Newberry January 31, 2008 - 6:05pm
( categories: Miscellany )

inspires less faith than a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest. Republicans haven't had to filibuster a single damn bill yet, but have threatened to do so many more times than any other congressional minority in history. Why? Because Reid never makes the dicks actually stand there and filibuster: the war, torture, Teleco amenesty, food stamps, or anything else.

I just have absolutely no hope Harry Reid will do a damn thing as majority leader. He'll take this perectly good lemonade and figure out how to make sour lemons out of it.

zot23 January 31, 2008 - 8:21pm

Glenn Greenwald explains what bipartisan(bend over) means to the democrats and shows the votes to prove it

Tina January 31, 2008 - 8:25pm

I say complicit. Get the money out of politics, and all this will evaporate.

tjfxh January 31, 2008 - 9:54pm

the blame lies in the House, which was unable to stand firm and cut a better deal with Bush.

Stirling Newberry January 31, 2008 - 10:48pm

How do we make running for office cost less? Shorter campaigns is the only answer I can come up with.

Many politicians hate being whores. Really! If they didn't need a cash register on their backs it would come right off.

Forget it, Jake - it's AmnesiaTown

Tonsure Wimple February 1, 2008 - 2:49am

The airwaves are public. The licenses should include a requirement that candidates for office must receive free airtime. A mechanism like advertising vouchers seems good -- the candidate could blow lots on a 30-second Super Bowl spot, or use it to purchase a 30-minute address to the nation, as the candidate wished. Remember Edwards' buying two minutes to respond to Bush's Iraq address back in September? That's an important public policy issue in a democratic election. He should not have had to raise money privately to do it. Currently, the networks can actually raise rates on political candidates over commercial ads because the candidates don't have much timing option (you need to run them before the election). That's shameful for use of public airwaves in a democracy!

Another thing to keep in mind is that the elites are working to impose differential costs on use of the internet, to reduce its use by the non-moneyed and so to impose tighter corporate and government control. We have to keep protecting net neutrality.

nihil obstet February 1, 2008 - 12:35pm

With an decent set of balls Harry Reid could have derailed this entire process.

Had he gone with the version not containing immunity he could have let the Repubs filibuster the hell out of it, then let the PAA law sunset and blamed it on those "damn obstructionist Republicans" for not getting the law renewed. I doubt the public really gives two damns whether Telecos received immunity or not. Then, the next time this sort of game occurs, they would at least know he is willing to hit the wall if that is what it takes.

Right now, I don't see how they can see him as anything other than a battered wife. Smack her around and there she is the next day doing the dishes again. Why would you respect someone like that if you're a bully?

zot23 February 1, 2008 - 1:46pm

McConnell is a guy who at dawn can tell you to look forward to the stars coming out in a few minutes: while filibustering, he tells the press that the majority in the Senate shouldn't obstruct things.

And Bush, of course, would call the stimulus plan "yet another earmark." Not that it matters anymore. Money now grows on tress, so why not make it a $210 billion plan? Or even $300 billion? If money is worthless, you might as well be generous with it!

Mr. Flibble February 1, 2008 - 12:17am

...if you were generous to the less-than-rich. Fiscally irresponsible. A betrayal of the Conservative Cause. Just ask Joe Scarborough.

Gordon February 1, 2008 - 12:21am

according to preliminary numbers, and the J number looks to indicate a hiring recession for this year.

Of course extending UI benefits is out of the question.

Stirling Newberry February 1, 2008 - 11:38am

I think everyone agrees that the stimulus package is not going to do much although, you know, if the government wants to give me money ... Seriously, a stimulus package that spent money on infrastructure that also mitigates some of the big challenges like CO2 emissions and renewable energy programs would make more sense than giving people money to buy Chinese made goods at Walmart.

Joaquin February 1, 2008 - 3:14pm

Comment viewing options

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