The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[CBStew]

One of my favorite character actors is Austin Pendleton.  He plays a wimpy, whiney nebbish.  Next time you hear Joe Lieberman speaking close your eyes and you will hear Austin Pendleton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Pendleton

I always thought Joe Lieberman sounds like the Dad on Alf.
Max Wright

Who is the guy to the left of Lieberman in that picture?  Wait.  Everyone is to the left of Lieberman.

[Tony]

One of my favorite character actors is Austin Pendleton.  He plays a wimpy, whiney nebbish.  Next time you hear Joe Lieberman speaking close your eyes and you will hear Austin Pendleton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Pendleton

I always thought Joe Lieberman sounds like the Dad on Alf.
Max Wright

Willie is bisexual? Thats....well that's not surprising at all.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

One of my favorite character actors is Austin Pendleton.  He plays a wimpy, whiney nebbish.  Next time you hear Joe Lieberman speaking close your eyes and you will hear Austin Pendleton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Pendleton

I always thought Joe Lieberman sounds like the Dad on Alf.
Max Wright

Willie is bisexual? Thats....well that's not surprising at all.

[Gil Gunderson]

Joe Lieberman is a penis.

It's starting to seem like it may just be better for Dems to try to make a deal with Olympia Snowe, kick Joe Lieberman out of the party and be done with it. The leadership in the senate thought that Lieberman was on board with the latest compromise. But in an appearance on Face the Nation and later in a sit-down with Sen. Reid, Lieberman said he'd join the Republican filibuster if the Medicare buy-in remained in the bill.

What's most telling about Lieberman isn't his positions, which are not that much different from Sen. Nelson's and perhaps Sen. Lincoln's. It's more that he seems to keep upping the ante just when the rest of the caucus thinks they've got a deal.

If it happened once, a misunderstanding might be a credible explanation. But it's happened too many times. Sen. Nelson has driven Dems to distraction on this bill. But his demands have been fairly consistent over time. Lieberman just doesn't seem to be negotiating in good faith. He keeps pulling his caucus to some new compromise, waiting a few days and then saying he can't agree to that either.

It's coming to a breaking point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/81-of-dems-want-lieberman_n_390797.html

More than 80 percent of Democrats say they believe Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn) should be stripped of his powerful chairmanship in the Senate if he ends up supporting a Republican filibuster of health care reform, according to a new poll.

...

Eighty-one percent of Democrats said they would like to see the senator's chairmanship -- which he was allowed to keep despite campaigning for Sen. John McCain in 2008 -- taken away should he sustain a filibuster. Only 10 percent of Democrats said there should be no punishment. Even fewer (nine percent) said they had yet to make up their minds...

...

Lieberman, on Sunday, informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he would, in fact, be filibustering health care reform in its current incarnation. But leadership aides have remained mum about what kind of punishment such a vote would provoke.

It is entirely possible that a heated internal drama will play out within the Democratic caucus should the Connecticut independent prove to be the one-vote obstacle to getting legislation passed. The polling numbers certainly show where the heart of the party lies.

That there's even any question about this says everything that needs saying about systemic Democratic political incompetence.

He's not a Democrat. He campaigned against the Dems' Presidentical candidate last year. He's acting to obstruct their top policy priority this year because... well, mostly just because, apparently.

I don't care if his filibuster threat is 100% Droopy bluster and no follow through. I don't see what the Democrats have to gain from continuing to be magnanimous to this eminently self-regarding numbnuts.

Time to speed him on his way to his 2012 irrelevancy. Maybe give him a chance to get a head start on drafting his RNC speech.

Let Lieberman and the rest of the GOP filibuster.  I would let the American public see who is holding up this from happening.  Do filibusters still work like that, wherein said senator needs to actually talk, or do they have some sort of new trick now?

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Let Lieberman and the rest of the GOP filibuster.  I would let the American public see who is holding up this from happening.  Do filibusters still work like that, wherein said senator needs to actually talk, or do they have some sort of new trick now?

I'm pretty sure it's at the discretion of the Majority Leader. He can set aside a filibustered bill, or he can force the minority to make a legit filibuster of it and effectively shut down the Senate.

If it comes down to it, Reid has to force their hand.

[Gil Gunderson]

Let Lieberman and the rest of the GOP filibuster.  I would let the American public see who is holding up this from happening.  Do filibusters still work like that, wherein said senator needs to actually talk, or do they have some sort of new trick now?

I'm pretty sure it's at the discretion of the Majority Leader. He can set aside a filibustered bill, or he can force the minority to make a legit filibuster of it and effectively shut down the Senate.

If it comes down to it, Reid has to force their hand.

Seriously.  If all legislative business grinds to a halt because of the filibuster, do it.  It will force someone from the GOP to vote for cloture, especially since Congress needs to finish the FY2010 Defense budget with a debt limit increase.  The GOP, nor Lieberman I presume, would be so stupid as to play politics with the debt ceiling.

Get some balls, Harry.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Let Lieberman and the rest of the GOP filibuster.  I would let the American public see who is holding up this from happening.  Do filibusters still work like that, wherein said senator needs to actually talk, or do they have some sort of new trick now?

I'm pretty sure it's at the discretion of the Majority Leader. He can set aside a filibustered bill, or he can force the minority to make a legit filibuster of it and effectively shut down the Senate.

If it comes down to it, Reid has to force their hand.

Seriously.  If all legislative business grinds to a halt because of the filibuster, do it.  It will force someone from the GOP to vote for cloture, especially since Congress needs to finish the FY2010 Defense budget with a debt limit increase.  The GOP, nor Lieberman I presume, would be so stupid as to play politics with the debt ceiling.

Get some balls, Harry.

Of course, given Reid's precarious re-election straits, he'll probably be at least a little bit afraid of the GOP blaming such a shutdown on him.

As we all know, far-left wacko Harry Reid loves socialism as much as he hates than the troops.

[R-V]

Let Lieberman and the rest of the GOP filibuster.  I would let the American public see who is holding up this from happening.  Do filibusters still work like that, wherein said senator needs to actually talk, or do they have some sort of new trick now?

I'm pretty sure it's at the discretion of the Majority Leader. He can set aside a filibustered bill, or he can force the minority to make a legit filibuster of it and effectively shut down the Senate.

If it comes down to it, Reid has to force their hand.

Seriously.  If all legislative business grinds to a halt because of the filibuster, do it.  It will force someone from the GOP to vote for cloture, especially since Congress needs to finish the FY2010 Defense budget with a debt limit increase.  The GOP, nor Lieberman I presume, would be so stupid as to play politics with the debt ceiling.

Get some balls, Harry.

Here's an attempt to answer some filibuster questions:

Why don't the Democrats just break out the cots and let the Republicans filibuster?

There's a reason the Senate stopped doing this. Democrats are not going to want to sit around all day and be in the chamber listening to Republicans talk. They don't want to give up fundraisers. They don't want to give up trips. They'd have to give Republicans as much time as they wanted.

How would it work if they tried, though?

If you're serious about attrition, you make the opponents do all the talking. Any time there is a gap in the speaking, you begin your voting. Part of the problem is that I don't think any modern senator really understands how this works. When you see senators pretend to do this in the recent past, it's play-acting. In 2003, when the Republicans ran a reverse filibuster, if you tuned into C-SPAN 2 -- and I did -- you saw Republicans talking, which they shouldn't be doing! If it's the middle of the night and there's no Democrat there, that's when you bring up your amendment!

[Gil Gunderson]

Let Lieberman and the rest of the GOP filibuster.  I would let the American public see who is holding up this from happening.  Do filibusters still work like that, wherein said senator needs to actually talk, or do they have some sort of new trick now?

I'm pretty sure it's at the discretion of the Majority Leader. He can set aside a filibustered bill, or he can force the minority to make a legit filibuster of it and effectively shut down the Senate.

If it comes down to it, Reid has to force their hand.

Seriously.  If all legislative business grinds to a halt because of the filibuster, do it.  It will force someone from the GOP to vote for cloture, especially since Congress needs to finish the FY2010 Defense budget with a debt limit increase.  The GOP, nor Lieberman I presume, would be so stupid as to play politics with the debt ceiling.

Get some balls, Harry.

Of course, given Reid's precarious re-election straits, he'll probably be at least a little bit afraid of the GOP blaming such a shutdown on him.

As we all know, far-left wacko Harry Reid loves socialism as much as he hates than the troops.

It worked for Clinton, but Reid is Reid.

In a way, I feel sorry for him, because this seems like a really tough job, but another part of me thinks he is probably the worst majority leader in a long time.

Oh LBJ...

[Gil Gunderson]

DPD, but I would be in support of Sen. Harkin's proposal to eliminate the filibuster.  I recognize the necessity for oversight on legislation, but to have 59 Senators blocked by 41 is sheer lunancy.  What government body can continue if this is the rule?

Too bad that you'd need 67 votes to change the rules though.

Imagine if the House hadn't changed its rules in 1847.  God bless America, indeed.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Imagine if the House hadn't changed its rules in 1847.  God bless America, indeed.

Yeah.  If you'd needed 2/3rds of both houses, we'd have a lot less shitty laws on the books.

[R-V]

Imagine if the House hadn't changed its rules in 1847.  God bless America, indeed.

Yeah.  If you'd needed 2/3rds of both houses, we'd have a lot less shitty laws on the books.

Indeed. America would be in great shape, just like California.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Imagine if the House hadn't changed its rules in 1847.  God bless America, indeed.

Yeah.  If you'd needed 2/3rds of both houses, we'd have a lot less shitty laws on the books.

Indeed. America would be in great shape, just like California.

If we had the fillibuster in the House, California wouldn't be a state.  Neither would Texas.  That means we'd never have had a Bush or LBJ or a Reagan as president.

[Gil Gunderson]

Imagine if the House hadn't changed its rules in 1847.  God bless America, indeed.

Yeah.  If you'd needed 2/3rds of both houses, we'd have a lot less shitty laws on the books.

Indeed. America would be in great shape, just like California.

Because the federal government has a crazy property tax law and referda on fiscal decision making?

[Gil Gunderson]

Imagine if the House hadn't changed its rules in 1847.  God bless America, indeed.

Yeah.  If you'd needed 2/3rds of both houses, we'd have a lot less shitty laws on the books.

I'm not necessarily arguing against the constitutional structure.  I, of course, like to see one good bill be defeated if it means that ten shitty bills are defeated as well.  But the problem is that we have these requirements and shitty bills still become shitty laws.  The PATRIOT Act is just one of many.

What I'd be in favor of is exactly what Harkin introduced, that is, a sliding backwards scale of votes needed to invoke cloture.

Also, bear in mind that this would do nothing to restrict the use of the veto, nor the strenous requirements needed to overcome it.