HOW did the MoveOn bill make it to the floor?

[redqueen]

I really didn't want to start another thread... but if anyone can explain to me how it even got that far, I'd really really really love to know.

Thanks.

[Sequoia]

1. Same here.

[Ian David]

Because it wasn't Harry Reid's turn to borrow the one testicle all the Democrats are sharing. n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. You mean Reid, I believe

The resolution was in the Senate; Pelosi is Speaker of the House. :hi:

[MNDemNY]

7. It's Gone, Sen Criag ate it.

[Pachamama]

36. Best explanation I've seen to date for the Dems response to so much...

:applause:

[Hydra]

2. Seconded(rec'ed too)

I'd like to know who thought it was a good idea to let this bill see the light of day

[TwilightGardener]

3. Maybe Reid wanted to let Dems have political cover and distance

themselves from the ad for the public record? It's not really a loss for Dems that the measure passed.

[LSparkle]

4. Dunno specifics but it also condemned Swift Boaters and anti-Cleland

It was an all-encompassing thing, addressing ads that have "crossed the line" -- didn't mention MoveOn specifically. The others I heard noted were the Swift Boat ads and those against Max Cleland, so 2 out of 3 cited were Rethug offenses.

On edit: Above is the Boxer amendment -- looks from other posts as if this was not approved and some other bill specifically condemning MoveOn got the nod. Now THAT sucks ...

[fasttense]

14. I see nothing about swift-boaters in this:

SEC. 1070. SENSE OF SENATE ON GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS.
(a) Findings.–The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) The Senate unanimously confirmed General David H. Petraeus as Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, by a vote of 81-0 on January 26, 2007.

(2) General Petraeus graduated first in his class at the United States Army Command and General Staff College.

(3) General Petraeus earned Masters of Public Administration and Doctoral degrees in international relations from Princeton University.

(4) General Petraeus has served multiple combat tours in Iraq, including command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) during combat operations throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which tours included both major combat operations and subsequent stability and support operations.

(5) General Petraeus supervised the development and crafting of the United States Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual based in large measure on his combat experience in Iraq, scholarly study, and other professional experiences.

(6) General Petraeus has taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

(7) During his 35-year career, General Petraeus has amassed a distinguished and unvarnished record of military service to the United States as recognized by his receipt of a Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two Distinguished Service Medals, two Defense Superior Service Medals, four Legions of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and other awards and medals.

(8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

(b) Sense of Senate.–It is the sense of the Senate–

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

[redqueen]

16. Thanks...

I was all :wtf: over that post... glad someone thought it was worth responding to.

:D

[LSparkle]

22. That's what I get for just dipping into C-Span coverage ...

See edit -- the Boxer amendment was all I heard this a.m., not the bill that ultimately passed.

Oops......

[redqueen]

23. I hear ya... if only!

If the FAIR (Boxer) amendment was the one that got in there we wouldn't be havin yet another crazy day around here.

:hi:

[AlCzervik]

5. because now the minority is controlling the debate, just like when they were in the majority.

[truebrit71]

8. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!!

...

[tom_paine]

9. Yep. I stopped asking "how can this be" a long time ago.

Though sometimes my mouth utters those words or my fingers type them out of sheer astonishment, even still.

[RangerRK]

10. DAMN GOOD QUESTION!

Thank you!
K&R

[L. Coyote]

11. It is not a bill. It was an amendment proposed by a R Senator.

[redqueen]

12. So how come our amendments were quickly done away with

while we were the minority... or there was always some excuse why such and such a thing couldn't be done... but...

:shrug:

[OwnedByFerrets]

13. Because the Dems are

the "Party of Propriety" and the Repugs are the "Git-R-Dun" Party.

[depakid]

18. That's the long and short of it

Democrats don't play to win (assuming that they really want to win) on policy matters.

[redqueen]

19. That's the thing that's most heartbreaking...

when it's dem bills and amendments... it's stuff like making sure troops have enough leave time with their families before they're shipped out to oversee that disastrous occupation...

when it's pukes' amendments... it's meaningless bullshit like THIS!

:banghead:

[Pachamama]

37. My explanation is that the Dems show up to the job wanting to play Chess...when its a friggin street

fight! The Dems are arguing over the rules and whether they have Checkmate, and meanwhile the Republicans show up with knifes and you name it, ready for an ultimate fighter street fight!!!

Until the day comes when Harry Reid stands up and says they are pulling out the "nuclear option" and changing the rules and that the filibuster is no more and that they start using the same tactics back on the sons of bitches, they will keep losing....and if they don't start soon, they will find that they no longer have the Majority title or that its too late....

[L. Coyote]

20. Amendments are voted up or down.

In the House, 50% plus one gets an amendment passed.

In the Senate, you need 60 votes to get anything done, due to their cloture rule, if someone is willing to filibuster.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm
cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

There were enough votes to pass the amendment. Democracy at work!

[redqueen]

21. So why does only ONE side seem to use the filibuster?

:banghead:

[L. Coyote]

24. Only when the head count is between 50 nd 60, and they draw a line in the sand

and think they are willing to spend time on the matter due to its importance,
such as when the matter will become a law they object to. If they have 41
who will stand in unity and who oppose a measure there is no way the 59 can close debate.

[redqueen]

25. *sigh*

Can we just start acting EVEN MORE like them and start stealing some elections then please?

WE NEED A GODDAMN SUPERMAJORITY!

:bounce:

:sarcasm:
but... *sigh*

[KurtNYC]

15. I traveled through the hole where their spines should be n/t

[RangerRK]

17. but...'we don't have time to Impeach'

sound familiar?

[DefenseLawyer]

26. Because these morans are so out of touch

they are still cowering in the corner with their consultants, frozen in fear of Karl Rove's "Against the War = Against the Troops" conventional wisdom. Of course if they bothered to talk to real people, even red states, they would see that only the most delusional of wingnuts would buy that argument now. That view is fading faster than an old yellow ribbon magnet on a minivan. As usual, rather than leading, our leaders are a good two or three years behind the public.

[redqueen]

27. Well there's LOADS of utterly delusional repukes down here.

But that's no excuse for anything, cause repukes don't vote for dems.

And I hope they stop blaming it on red state dems... cause I don't see how ANY dems would vote for a repuke... especially now! Anyone using that excuse might as well just admit they're courting republicans.

[John Kerry VonErich]

28. I don't there is anything to worry about.

Resolutions mean nothing.

[OnionPatch]

29. I'll tell you exactly how

Because we have about a dozen or more Republicans in our Senate who are disguised as Democrats. In reality, we do not have the majority in the Senate (or the Congress) because for all intents and purposes, these Senators are not Democrats. Regardless of what they call themselves. Those "Blue Dogs" must be replaced and/or many more liberal Democrats need to be elected to outnumber them. Simple as that.

[Blue_Tires]

30. +1

[LTR]

31. Because old crony Democratic politicians can't stand up to GOP wedge issues

The whole bill was the biggest steaming pile of bullshit ever brought to a vote. Just ridiculous.

Essentially, it pisses all over the First Amendment. MoveOn has every right to voice what they feel.

The Dems who voted to push this through are pussies who let the GOP walk all over them with ridiculous wedge issue bullshit.

[DUyellow]

32. because they have no balls... I was asking myself the same question all day today.

this is f*ing bullshit to the max.

[bigtree]

33. any Senator can offer an amendment to the bill as long as there's an open rule I believe

After that, the amendment needs the support of 60 or more to overcome any objection to its proceeding to a vote. Those that have that support advance, those without get blocked, unless there's a deal to let it through to a vote to accommodate a dual effort from the minority.

They can introduce bills with a closed rule - no amendments - but it would preclude ALL amendments from being offered. They can also bring a bill to the floor with only a certain amount of amendments, but those actions are also subject to filibuster in committee where these bills and rules are crafted before sending them to the floor for a vote.

All of that doesn't matter, I imagine, to folks who just want to vent.

(9 votes rec. hmm.)

[tyedyeto]

34. I've heard about anonymous 'locks' on bills within the Senate

several times within the past year or so.

Why was this even permitted to get as far as it did?

Why was discussion even allowed since we have the 'majority'? If the Repugs had the majority, there would have been NO discussion much less a vote.

Why can yjr Repugs block a bill anonymously with not a peep anywhere but now, this type of hype is allowed to continue when we are the majority party?

Cajones? Balls? Democrats, as a general rule, have NONE!

[paulk]

35. this wasn't a bill, it was an amendment to a bill

as has been explained repeatedly. The rules are different.

Google is your friend.