July 18, 2007

Republicans Call Reid's Bluff

Harry Reid kept the Senate in business all night long as a way to publicize the fact that Republicans won't allow cloture on an amendment for retreating from Iraq. For some reason, Reid apparently thought that this would somehow break the will of the Republicans in a manner that had escaped the Democratic effort to complain about the same cloture rules they used repeatedly to block legislation and presidential appointments when Reid was Minority Leader instead of Majority Leader.

In the end, not only didn't Reid move the Republicans, he took most of the night off himself:

So much for forcing Republicans to filibuster all night.

As the clock struck midnight and Tuesday became Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid loosened up a bit on his plans to teach members of the minority that Democrats set the schedule on the debate over Iraq. ...

Speaking of those mandatory attendance tallies, Reid changed his mind about how many, and when. He had originally planned holding one around 3 a.m. and another at 7 a.m. But that changed during the midnight vote when Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., made the case against senatorial sleep deprivation and impugned Reid to push the quorum call back.

Reid, who had his very own cot waiting for him in a quiet parlor off his office, agreed. Next live quorum call, he announced: 5 a.m. With a few cases of bed-head among them, senators rolled in and again passed the same motion to instruct. This time the motion passed 37-23, with dawn beginning to break by the time the tally was completed.

So what did this accomplish? Nothing. After midnight, most of the Senate disappeared. It turned into nothing more than a huge bluff, and Reid lost.

Here's what Reid wanted. He knew that he didn't have enough votes for a quorum; he only has 49 Democrats available, with Tim Johnson's disability. Reid counted on Republicans forcing an end to the session by having a single member present to challenge for a quorum. No votes could take place without one, including the instruction motion to the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest recalcitrant members and drag them back to the chamber. That would have allowed Reid and the Democrats to accuse Republicans of dodging the debate, calling them cowards to take the spotlight off of their insistence on retreat.

Many expected the Republicans to do just that, but it turns out that Mitch McConnell is a little smarter than Harry Reid. Instead of denying Reid a quorum, the Republicans showed up for the debate, perhaps charged up by John McCain's earlier speech on the floor. Once Reid figured out that the Republicans would not give him the satisfaction of walking out the door, he caved. In fact, Reid didn't even bother to attend his own No Snooze Until We Lose party after the first instruction motion, choosing to hit the sack instead while Republicans took the podium all night long.

The cloture vote has been scheduled for around 11 am this morning. The overnight session has done nothing except to annoy Republicans into a more unified caucus, and to make Harry Reid look like a fool. One might have expected a Senator from Nevada to recognize a busted flush when he saw it.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Republicans Call Reid's Bluff:

» The Filibuster Continues from Iowa Voice
The Senate is still in "filibuster" mode: Democrats rolled out cots and ordered pizzas as they… ... [Read More]

» Wild About Harry from Blue Crab Boulevard
Ed Morrisey points out that Harry Reid tried a bluff and it failed. So badly, in fact, that Harry took most of the "all night" debate off and slept through it. Mitch McConnell was a lot smarter than Harry and called the bluff. Reid ... [Read More]

» Stunt For Nothing from baldilocks
The "sleepover" yielded no success. The attempt to add a timetable amendment to the latest Defense Authorization bill fell short by eight votes (60 votes were needed to continue to debate the amendment). As a result, Senate Majority Leader Reid [Read More]

» USA Up All Night from Ed Driscoll.com
Fellow bleary-eyed fans of late night cable TV in the 1980s will remember the hilarious beat that show hostess Rhonda Shear put on that TV series' slogan. And after having been kept up all night by Harry Reid, Robert Byrd... [Read More]

Comments (52)

Posted by Continuum | July 18, 2007 6:42 AM

In another 18 months the Senate Republicans will be irrelevant.

They'll be so few that they'll be able to meet inside a closet. (Which I guess many of them now do anyway.)

In 18 months the American people will remember that the Dems tried to stop this Iraq disaster, but that the Repubs fully (or fooly) supported Bush in this Iraq klusterf*ck.

In 18 months, the neocon Repubs will be a small, regional party wondering where their next bribe is coming from.

Posted by stackja1945 [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 18, 2007 6:44 AM

"Harry Reid look like a fool."
Harry Reid fits the definition of a fool, somebody employed in the past to perform tricks.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | July 18, 2007 6:49 AM

M. Malkin liveblogged and noted the following from WaPo reporting:

The office of Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) dispatched interns to buy toothpaste, toothbrushes and deodorant for delivery to GOP leadership offices, with a note offering the "supplies for your sleepless night." It added: "Help us bring an end to this war."

Heh. Reid orders pizza and Durbin covers nightly hygiene by recruiting interns. Good grief. And these are the tough leaders providing guidance to our troops in the field? "Roughing it" seems to have a different meaning to different folks. These guys couldn't survive a Friday night at college!

Posted by rhombus | July 18, 2007 7:21 AM

This was primarily a Democrat fund-raiser. At least it pulled Republicans together.

Posted by NoDonkey | July 18, 2007 7:32 AM

"he only has 49 Democrats available, with Tim Johnson's disability."

You mean they couldn't have rolled him in for such a momentous vote? He could have borrowed Sen. Byrd's sheets in a gesture of solidarity.

"One might have expected a Senator from Nevada to recognize a busted flush when he saw it."

Skinny Harry would have had to call the Cosa Nostra Capo who pulls his strings, in order to recognize a busted flush. Skinny Harry is far too hepped up on uppers to play "go fish", much less poker.

Maybe Skinny Harry dropped his cellphone into the Senate toilet. He's not called "Senator Depends" just because he's indecisive.

Score another big win for the Judas Party and their Al Qaeda brothers in arms.

Posted by wolfwalker | July 18, 2007 7:33 AM

Completely irrelevant to the main topic, but that excerpt from the AP news story made me snicker viciously.

"...when Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., ... impugned Reid to push the quorum call back."

"Impugn" means something along the lines of "challenge" or "put down" or "question in an insulting way." The article-writer probably wanted "implored," but her professional newswriter's vocabulary wasn't up to the task.

Posted by Eugene Podrazik | July 18, 2007 7:35 AM

Like the anti-immigration debate, standing up as conservatives and standing down liberals will resonate well with the electorate in 2008.

The defeats of 2006 was not the failure of conservativism, but the failure of nerve, by the GOP, to stand for consertive principles of small government and a muscular foreign policy.

Anyone with any memory could have told you that Democratic "leadership" was going to produce fool like Reid and Pelosi. After 25 years of governance in the Reagan paradagm (more or less), people forgot just how bad Democrat leadership really was.

When voting for a "change" in 2006, most Americans forgot what it was like back in the Carter years. Remember double digit inflation and prime interest rates? Remember gas lines? Remember "bracket creep?" Remember when we cowered before our enemies as they made fools of us? Yes, it that bad. And, like Rip van Winkle, this leadership awakens as if the last 25 years never happened.

Posted by Dale Michaud aka TexasDude | July 18, 2007 7:42 AM

Democrats are just keeping up their long standing tradition of tearing the country apart (see Civil War).

Posted by howard lohmuller | July 18, 2007 7:49 AM

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reids slumber party did more than make him look like a fool. It debased the entire Senate and causes people to think that what once might have been considered the World's greatest deliberative body is really a a bunch of old Hollywood publicity hounds. The crown of gamesmanship sits atop the Democrat Party. Republicans gamely fought back with meaningful argument rather than succomb to foolish attempts by Democrats to paint the minority as obstructionists. History will remember this stunt but forget what it was about.

Posted by MarkD | July 18, 2007 7:59 AM

Any guess as to the Congressional approval rating after this stunt? Will they hit single digits?

Posted by NoDonkey | July 18, 2007 8:05 AM

"Any guess as to the Congressional approval rating after this stunt? Will they hit single digits?"

You mean they might go up?

Posted by John | July 18, 2007 8:21 AM

Ed, please, you are not that dumb. Reid never expected to convert any Republicans. This is all part of his strategy of tieing the war and Bush ever tighter to the GOP. Whether this is electorally wise I'll leave you to decide when two thirds of the country is against the war and Bush is in the high twenties. Most of the postings fall into the same silly trap. The low approval rates of congress are not disconnected with the fact that most Americans have some idea of what is going on there and that the Democratic majority is being blocked on such hugely unpopular issues as raising the minimum wage and stem cell research. Bush and the Republicans are just about to fight an expansion of healthcare for uninsured kids, sounds like another real vote getter to me. Unfortunately, the extremist voices on this site, as distinct from real moderate Republicans out in the real world, are as disconnected from reality as Bush is over Iraq. We'll pay a huge price next year.

Posted by PRE | July 18, 2007 8:26 AM

It's amazing to watch the Democratic pressure build for us to get out before we can win and they look like total idiots. Didn't we dance this tango just one month back? Suddenly we need a new effort to undermine our soldiers in the field just as progress is being reported?

It looks like the Left is willing to do anything to make sure that we cannot win in Iraq. I am so thankful to have a President who is willing to stand up for what he believes rather than cutting and running at the first sign that a hard job might actually be hard.

Posted by NoDonkey | July 18, 2007 8:36 AM

Gee John, thanks for slumming on down here and telling it like it is. To you and to all the other trolls, we owe a big "thank you".

So it's about Skinny Harry tying the war to Bush and the GOP? It's all political tricks right? Oh, it's OK then to depress the moral of the troops and to encourage Al Qaeda. It's just business, Sally.

The low approval rates of Congress are skewed towards the Democrats, as all polls are. The use of landlines, the oversampling of Democrats, etc.

And if you're Mr. Political Savvy, do you really think the Republicans are going to get any political credit if they join with the Democrats to cut and run?

Of course not. The second the Republicans sign onto that, the Democrats will do a 180 and blame them for all of the chaos that ensues.

Nothing good comes from agreeing with Democrats on anything.

Posted by Neo | July 18, 2007 8:48 AM


(a) Deadline for Commencement of Reduction.--The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Implementation of Reduction as Part of Comprehensive Strategy.--The reduction of forces required by this section shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq. As part of this effort, the President shall direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to seek the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, who has the authority of the international community to engage political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq in an inclusive political process.

(c) Limited Presence After Reduction and Transition.--After the conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions:

(1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure.

(2) Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces.

(3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations.

(d) Completion of Transition.--The Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described in subsection (c) by April 30, 2008.

The real rub here is section (b). Obviously, Congress is trying to tread on Executive branch territory.

Beyond that, Bush could simply send more troops to Iraq prior to the 120 day date and then pull them out before April 30, 2008 to comply, as sections (c), (1), (2) and (3) are pretty much what is going on now.

Posted by Dennis Clark | July 18, 2007 9:00 AM

The lack of historical knowledge, even very recent history, is amazing. It was not that long ago that the "great leader" was arguing everything required 60 votes because the voters in the minority had the right to their voice. He ranted on the tyranny of so slim a majority in the Senate – this is no mandate – who is pointing this out?

Harry always wanted a super majority to pass legislation in the Senate. He won! He is the majority leader. It is only proper that we adhere to his well documented rules. Everything should require a Super Majority. The less the Senate does the better the economy, the greater chance for victory when we are without incompetent senator interference.

Posted by Andy Freeman | July 18, 2007 9:02 AM

Did "Sheets" Byrd show up?

The last time he stayed late was to filibuster the Civil Rights Act in the mid 60s.

Posted by AST | July 18, 2007 9:03 AM

This is not a filibuster. It's a "phonybuster," since the Republicans were willing to vote on the issue, but not to give 60 votes to override a vetio.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | July 18, 2007 9:15 AM

Neo, it seems to me that the Legislative would be stepping on the Executive on (a), (b), and (c).

The President runs the military. Congress essentially funds it. Their oversight is to the financing and not operations of forces. They're free to end that funding at any time to impede the President (but are once again, under Democrat-led political scheming, too cowardly to exercise their valid authority).

That whole section looks like one giant Constitutional overreach where the President wins any showdown. I wonder if he would need to worry at all about any of it... excepting of course the political gamesmanship of it all and the public pressure, if any, of such a seemingly Unconstitutional contrivance.

Posted by Neo | July 18, 2007 9:18 AM

Of course, there would still be room to “mold” the public’s mind to what they would like this amendment to say, since nobody actually reads this stuff anyway.

Posted by Monkei | July 18, 2007 9:27 AM

The cloture vote has been scheduled for around 11 am this morning. The overnight session has done nothing except to annoy Republicans into a more unified caucus, and to make Harry Reid look like a fool. One might have expected a Senator from Nevada to recognize a busted flush when he saw it.

The sad thing that you don't realize Captain is that sooner or later the Senate will catch up to the public's opinion of this war. The public will realize that it is indeed the GOP who prolonged this referee status we have taken. The GOP senators (except for Lieberman) will change their votes to back the American public and especially when they vote to save their hides in the next election.

The main question they will have to answer is why X amount of American heros had to die because the GOP did not have the guts to back the American public instead of the GOP party.

The Iraq war and continued support of such will continue to lose seats in both houses for the GOP. The will of the American people will prevail, it always does.

Bush, he continues to be the best democrat I know.

Posted by Angry Dumbo | July 18, 2007 9:32 AM

Congress is trying to steal the glory and honor of our troops. We don't fight and die for the freedom we enjoy, that is the job of our all volunteer military. That is why they are so widely admired by the American people. Congress is kidding themselves if they think that their gum flapping, hand shaking, and back slapping (not to mention tooth paste and cots) does anything to bring AQ to room temperature.

This is the job our armed forces. One of the root causes of the instability in the Middle East is the toxic mix of politics and military. Politicians are elected to talk and military leaders are appointed by politicians to fight when talking fails.

Congress should stand down and let our military leaders lead until Americans provide the only set of poll results that matter in 2008.

Posted by Monkei | July 18, 2007 9:32 AM

Democrats are just keeping up their long standing tradition of tearing the country apart (see Civil War).

yeah, that damn Roosevelt and his new deal! and that darn Johnson and his darned old civil rights bills ... nothing but a bunch of anti americans tearing a country apart.

Dale, where do you get your info?

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | July 18, 2007 9:33 AM


True about the molding. Right now though, about the only thing this Democrat-led Congress could mold is bread. They're just that stale.

I was thinking along the lines of a Judicial tiebreaker assuming that Congress could even pass this legislation with a super-majority. The public could get nice and mad at the prodding of politicians and their media megaphones, but any Constitutional crisis on this point gives Bush the victory.

Posted by Old Dad | July 18, 2007 9:56 AM

We owe Dingy Harry a huge thank you. He kept Senator Kennedy out of the bar, Senator Vitter out of the cat houses, and all of our esteemed Senators from working on anything.

Posted by Angry Dumbo | July 18, 2007 9:57 AM

This was primarily a Democrat fund-raiser.

Rhombus gave us the best post of the thread. This from NRO's Corner:

From Congress Daily AM:

Besides joining a nighttime rally with an antiwar coalition that has run home-state ad campaigns targeting vulnerable Republicans, Democrats tapped their National Committee to wage a grassroots effort Tuesday urging party members to flood Senate offices with as many as 50,000 faxes in support of the Levin-Reed amendment. By Tuesday evening, the DNC Web site said its supporters had sent more than 20,000 faxes, with each Senate office receiving one or more of the messages.

And how can we forget the giddy words of that great patriot Harry Reid:

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."

April 12, 2007

Posted by Angry Dumbo | July 18, 2007 10:19 AM

In listening last night, i kept on hearing that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and that our troops should not be part of it.

Okay. Then who's side is AQ on?

The Dems might just get some traction, if they could only get their story right.

Regardless their only option is to de-fund, because Congressional micro-management in Vietnam gave rise to the political vacuum which resulted in Cambodia's killing fields.

Posted by Serge | July 18, 2007 10:27 AM

The Dems are trying to have the troops removed on President Bush's watch. They knwo that if they win in '08 and have to pull out like their base demands, they will be blamed for the carnage that results and will not be trusted with national security again for the next 20 years. IUndependents will flee the party and they will lose seats. If they don't pull out they lose the support of their base and will lose seats. That is why they need the troops to come home on President Bush's watch.

Posted by MarkJ | July 18, 2007 10:32 AM


In all cordiality, I'm beginning to think you're a masochist. I mean, anybody who gets beat up as much as you do for being consistently, and verifiably, wrong must be really into the "pain thing."

Pray allow me to ask: do your goofy posts, and the brutal ripostes you get in return, give meaning and enrichment to your life?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Ryan | July 18, 2007 10:35 AM

For those who want to talk about Bush's popularity rating. . .

WHy the hell does a popularity rating MATTER? Issues should be decided on whether they are right or wrong, not whether a bunch of uninformed people who might have trouble FINDING Iraq on a map think its possible to win. When an absurd proportion don't even _know who the secretary of defense is_ why does their opinion on if we can win Iraq mean a Damn thing? The worst thing to EVER happen to politics was the idiotic opinion polls which have taken the place of thinking or a spinal column as legislators just hold a finger up to the wind like the mealymouthed cowards they are.

Posted by dpkesling | July 18, 2007 10:47 AM

John's comment at 8:21 AM has a good deal of truth that other postings here miss. The question being asked now is: Why do the Republicans show so much allegiance to Bush... personally? Seems obvious that they care little for Democrats, or for the soldiers in the field, or even for the longterm survival of their own party (given the disastrous press this episode will generate). The time will come, and soon I hope, that these senators will return to mode of listening to their constituents rather than their party flaks. My own Mr. McConnell, based upon comments aired on local media, seems oblivious to the desires of the people of Kentucky.

Posted by sestamibi | July 18, 2007 10:58 AM


Actually, the AP writer got "implored" correct. Capt. Ed or one of his associates mis-transcribed it to this site as "impugned".

Posted by Lightwave | July 18, 2007 11:00 AM

I can 100% guarantee you that in January 09, you won't be hearing the words "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid" ever again. The Dems may dump him before the elections at this rate, considering he just singlehandedly redefined "political miscalculation."

While the Dems and their moonbat masters are screaming about the GOP blocking their legislation, the simple fact of the matter is A) The Dems did it for six years as the minority party as a matter of course and B) As Ed said, the Dems are doing everything and everything to distract the country from the fact they have surrendered to Al Qaeda.

And the result? The Amendment goes down in flames to a filibuster, 52-47. Democrats lose again, and they must continue to lose, or we all lose this war.

Posted by Captain Ed | July 18, 2007 11:02 AM

No, it was "impugned" in the original. The AP corrected it later. I just cut and pasted it from the web page.

Posted by cv | July 18, 2007 11:34 AM

This bill does nothing to end the mission in Iraq.

Posted by mark | July 18, 2007 11:42 AM

it is unfortunate that the republican party would block an up or down vote on something as important as ending the Bush war. Republicans must know that a majority of the country wants this disaster to end. Instead of fighting Al-Qaeda he went after Iraq. Now Republicans are saying Al-Qaeda is building in Iraq and we must now fight them there. We must remember that before U.S. presence in Iraq there was NO Al-Qaeda there. Since our presence in Iraq Al-Qaeda has started up in that country and has only grown stronger as the U.S presence has remained there. The Bush Republican folly. History will not judge Bush well nor the Republicans who followed him like lemmers into the ocean

Posted by David M | July 18, 2007 11:43 AM

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/18/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Posted by David M | July 18, 2007 11:46 AM

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/18/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | July 18, 2007 11:49 AM

Monkei sez:

"yeah, that damn Roosevelt and his new deal! and that darn Johnson and his darned old civil rights bills ... nothing but a bunch of anti americans tearing a country apart."

Brilliant satire, Chimpy. You forget that Roosevelt's new deal was one of the things that spawned the modern welfare state, and Lyndon's Great Society added to the problem, best illustrated by New Orleans.

And what's your excuse for FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans? And how can you defend Lyndon Johnson's being in bed with Halliburton for decades?

Posted by GOP08_DOA | July 18, 2007 12:05 PM

The shrill defense I'm hearing from the republicans this morning is a nervously gleeful: "Yay, we successfully blocked another bill that supports the troops!"

Way to capture votes guys.

Posted by MarkW | July 18, 2007 12:07 PM


You should look at all the polls, not just the ones that you can twist into favoring your position.

When asked if they want the US to cut and run, vast majorities say no.
Being upset with how the war has been run is not the equivalent to wanting to surrender.

Posted by MarkW | July 18, 2007 12:09 PM

I find it interesting that Monkei has to go back 40 and 60 years to find Democrats that he considers worthy of note.

And yes, the results of the New Deal and Great Society are tearing this country apart.

Posted by FedUp | July 18, 2007 12:40 PM

Children! Let's all agree that there are usually 2 sides to every story. Let's also agree that if one falls on one's face, one should be wary where one walks. Having said all that, the Democrats are guilty of trying to take over the world without a clue what to do with it, and the Republicans have an underdeveloped spine and are more afraid of losing elections than trying to service our Country AND our Servicemen and women. What happened to common sense?

Posted by Dan | July 18, 2007 1:22 PM

Minor factual error: the motion for a call of the house (to send the Sergeant-at-Arms out to go get the missing senators) does not require the presence of a quorum. Indeed, a motion for a call of the house is only in order when a quorum is *not* present. See Senate Rule VI: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule06.php

Posted by Bill Faith | July 18, 2007 1:46 PM

I heard a rumor that Reid didn't really get much sleep; he kept having nightmares about the surge succeeding. I linked.

Posted by Lightwave | July 18, 2007 1:53 PM

And now, not only has the GOP stopped another surrender amendment and embarrassed Harry Reid again, Reid is doubling down his stupidity by withdrawing the Defense Authorization Bill altogether.

Who is blocking this legislation now? Who is preventing an up-or-down vote now? Who is playing games with our troops' lives now for political gain?

Answer: Soon-to-be-Former Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Like a bunch of petulant whiny children, the Dems are taking their surrender bill and going home, rather than work with the GOP and put an end to this charade and get real legislation passed.

I call on Harry Reid to step down as Senate Majority Leader now. He will not be the leader in January 2009, I absolutely guarantee it.

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | July 18, 2007 2:16 PM

No wonder the poll numbers of the Democrat-controlled Congress are worse that President Bush's. However, I need someone from the Kool-Aid Krowd to explain again how this means that Democrats will sweep the 2008 elections.

After all, if their logic is correct, as soon as the Democrats' approval ratings hit single digits they will be unstoppable.

Posted by TheProudDuck [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 18, 2007 2:27 PM

"yeah, that damn Roosevelt and his new deal!"

Indeed. Between Roosevelt's class warfare, his wholesale vote-buying via massively expanded programs for every special interest he could think of, his Wilsonian disregard for the Constitution (and his attempt to end-run said document when the Supreme Court put the kibosh on his more egregiously command-and-control programs), and his economic illiteracy, Roosevelt sowed the seeds of divisions that persist until today, and in the bargain managed to prolong the Depression at least five years longer than it should have gone. (When Neville Chamberlain, of all people, beats you to the solution by half a decade, it's a bad sign.)

Roosevelt's one redeeming feature was his personality and his media savvy, which did go a long way towards convincing people that the Depression was not a permanent civilizational failure, could be endured. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. nailed it: "A third-class intellect -- but a first-class temperament." The problem was that his actual policies were directly responsible for their having to endure a lot more of it.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | July 18, 2007 8:56 PM

FedUp offered this bit of rich organic matter:

"the Republicans have an underdeveloped spine and are more afraid of losing elections than trying to service our Country AND our Servicemen and women. What happened to common sense?"

First of all...please cite your educational background AND your military experience, before you tell us what our military does and doesn't need. I'm from a military family myself, so expect to be fact-checked.

Harry Reid's all-nighter was solely to play to his nutjob base and raise money. The fact that his own party members bailed on him to go home and get some sleep proves it.

This is a guy who comes from a town in a state in the middle of nowhere (and I've driven thru the entire state of Nevada-it's Desert USA with a capital D. I once spent a week in Winnemucca, and it all happened in 12 hours)

Harry Reid comes from a town that has less than 700 people. Why are you hitching your wagon to his star?

If your Democrats truly "cared" about the military, they would authorize all bills giving them all the money they needed ("blank check").

But since they are only worried about being re-elected, they cannot do so.

Case closed.

My guess is that you're a faux-American who claims that they "support the troops" but don't "support the mission". That gives you away every time, as the two are one and the same.

Please rebut, but give me some time to make some popcorn!

Posted by Del Dolemonte | July 18, 2007 9:03 PM

GOP08_DOA said:

"The shrill defense I'm hearing from the republicans this morning is a nervously gleeful: "Yay, we successfully blocked another bill that supports the troops!"

Way to capture votes guys."

Hey Franken!

Care to tell us-with credible cites and URLs- where you get your "news" from?

Don't be afraid, we're all too ready to debunk them...

Posted by ERNurse | July 18, 2007 11:23 PM


Put DOWN the pipe and step AWAY from the meth lab. It must suck being so irretrievably stupid.

If you are representative of the people who support the Copperheads, no wonder the approval rating or YOUR beloved Democrat-controlled Congress is so abysmal.

Just goes to show that the American people are not idiots. I can't say as much for you, though. If stupidity was painful, you'd need a 5mg/minute Dilaudid pump.

Cheers, Rainbow queen.

Posted by davod | July 19, 2007 5:41 AM

I saw Senator Smith Rep (OR), on TV. He said that if it wasn't for the Dems stunt he could have gotton 12 more Republicans to cross the floor.