Keystone File

Not to necessarily read:


Keystone XL pipeline bill fails in the Senate (Vox),
Mother Jones, Crooks and Liars ?


C-Labels...
[Keystone XL, Filibuster, NFRY]


The point is that it is hard to gauge references to filibusters such as they are engaged these days*. 
*how long and counting ?

[update: When is a thing, not a thing?  When it is constitutional[!]]
[Keystone cops?]

"Tag"...

your knot !

You can't judge a book by its cover, but you might have a hint from its heading.

Filibuster Bluster*

Belated call.
Senate to debate gun control, sort of.
Not to Maddow** it.

*68-31
** (FP!)***

a, b, c, d ... ? ! ?
[a long way to fine men]

4-12-13 So neither of us have to.[!] ?  Knot !
*** Footnotes Page inserted
(Follow Up ? [!]) That's the ticket. Who's serious!
Not to have completed a ribble.

4-13-13 Note: Bane or Fineman (under 4-12-13) Stay tuned [?] !
4-15-13 Of similar note ? Thatcher Notes ?

Republicans Filibuster Economy

There, no more misledership!
Durbin Calls for Change to Filibuster Rule

Content from Legislation not Politics!(post asterisk *)
[Sorting it out: It was Eric Cantor who accused the President of politics over legislating. That is a ridiculous line of argument. As someone said about the market operating on society, like Siamese Twins performing brain surgery on themselves. But taking it to the bank or kitchen or pulpit,(the ridiculous line that is), the answer is in one word. VOTE! Up or down, package or separately, limit the filibuster, use reconciliation, WHATEVER! A vote is taking a stand. Take it and run on it, not from it. BUT THEN WE HAVE THE MESSAGE TO GET THROUGH THE MESS AGE OF THE MEDIA, not even punning on ledership. The American Jobs Act did not get voted down, it failed a cloture vote(50-49). That means that even if three more Democrats had voted with the rest, it would have been 53-46, but it takes 60 votes people!]

(*) post-asterisk at link, go there for more links, but I have rearranged two in this content: If Republicans want to walk the talk, of Where are the Jobs?* Then vote on every last one of these, as well as the American Jobs Act[*], and see who will be left on the ship of fools.

NOW MORE CONTEXT... later (Well maybe)
[just posted from draft]

Give 'em Heck Harry

I just heard on the Thom Hartmann show that Senator Lieberman has second thoughts* about a filibuster. I called Senator Reid,(the Majority Leader's office) to commend him for whatever influence he may have had in correcting the matter. I also noted my support for a strong public option, even though I side with the administration's position that it not be a sticking point for progress.

i.e. there are three particulars that sort out the choices which I will not go into great detail: medicare like, exchange like, what Congress has. Not to mention state options, single payers or opt-outs

[*(All links anachronisically inserted**) the reports of second thoughts may have been greatly exaggerated: does that make them third thoughts or just under reported?]

** the proper disorder is TPM, The Hill and National Review. Oh, now I get it.

On the Flip-Flop.

Update: from "my friends" humor indicates authenticity
And Satire class action?
"mental depression" no joke...
neither is Schizophrenia (nfry)(nor planning to)
But on the flip-flop of McCain(or FOX)and Friends David Sirota is spotting the gymnasts, while I would suggest a filibuster.
How do I get there? The Democrats should hold a filibuster in honor of the Republicans flip-flop on the filibuster and set their record straight and place a moratorium on "do nothing" Republicans.

[7-23-08: Gergen suggestion ]

Attention Fine Print Readers!

I don't want to throw anyone under the bus...
except maybe my keyboard.

[UPDATE 9-28-07: As Passed some improvements have been made. But the tactic of terminology on "terrorist organizations" (see Webb) in the context of continued stonewalling of investigations into the administrations tactics: "use of intelligence", "use of funds", "use of politics", not to mention any one's sovereignty.]

But I have read this on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and only found this on the evidence against.

Earlier I read this on Pelosi/centrist/Iraq
and only glanced at this on congress, foreign policy and our allies.

This about "feed and forage" and the war powers represents and requires a little more "hard work" and I don't know if it matters. I agree with the bottom line:

What is clear is that all this legal tap dancing gets us nowhere. To end the war, the Congress can do one of two things, or preferably both: it can repeal the Iraq AUMF, and/or it can refuse to fund the war. This sophistry from Democrats, politicians and legal scholars, does neither us nor our principles credit.

But to the Progressive Majority, or what ever number there are, it should be put in black and white:

THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT AUTHORIZATION FOR WAR PERIOD,
Let alone AS A FOREIGN POLICY

Unless there is something that makes this perfectly clear, this is a political football with a hair trigger, playing out on the world field, while making it clear would likely make it pointless. I hope that someone can sort out these play signals, but Do not punt congressional responsibility, and hopefully there will be 41 votes to take this ball away.

[TALKING POINTS MEMO Takes a little steam out of this but not necessarily my concern that there is something that can be read between the lines without having real dots to connect.]

[NEXT DAY UPDATE: The best spin on this? It was not a vote for war. but further reading is needed. ]

[10-9-07: "Kyle-Lieberman amendment passed" these words have now been spell checked and corrected]

To Democrats in the Senate:

CAP THE FILIBUSTER!

First I would like to support the filibuster as one of the best protections for the rights of the minority. But here are a few questions I pose:

Why are Republicans not required to hold the floor if they are filibustering?

I would suggest that a cap be put first on cloture votes and keep them talking to show who is stalling.

What is the number of cloture votes taken versus successful legislation passed? (1 in 6 as of July.)
It would seem that things are already mucked up quite a bit, with cloture vote on top of cloture vote, just how would they carry on all this filibustering at the same time?

It seems difficult to right this course, and the Democrats are at the helm.

The Democrats had a period of success and "hard work" at the start of the session, I think it is time they put their foot down, and start forcing filibusters. There are only so many hours to congress. Is there not a time limit for each and are there enough hours left?

The only thing that seems to come from this is the understanding that progress is so hard to make. "Compromise" was a key word in the defense of the Republican's expecting some from the Democrats, but if voters will look at the bills presented, they must ask who and what is already compromised.

The answer to the first question may be: Because the Democrats want to get things done.

If there is any validity to the claim that Democrats are "do nothing"(which is a strategy the Republicans promote), how can that hold water, when the minority Republicans won't allow votes to be held, even when they would be vetoed. Not to mention the power a minority of Progressive Democrats are not using, to make sure nothing gets done when it is warranted.

May the Republicans long hold the Right of the minority. It should be clear the the Democrats are making compromises, not necessarily good or bad or getting anywhere. But sometimes they are holding together. That is another number to watch.

Democrats choose not to filibuster

[On the filibuster, bipartisanship and third party involvement.]

(02-02-01) {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.}
The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. It, like the Electoral College, is rarely used for the good they were intended. However, the vote for Ashcroft does help support it as a tool to define bipartisan, if anything can. The interesting thing is that both sides claim bipartisanship. The Republicans with the idea that it was a bipartisan vote since 8 Democrats were on the side of the nominee. The Democrats with the idea that they split votes and did not vote in a block. I would like a little more on why the Republicans can make this claim though.
It really seems that the Dems have three points on their side. One, the Democrats that voted for Ashcroft, were the ones that made that decision. Two, the Republicans were unified in their support. And three, the Democrats had enough to block a cloture if they had stuck together, but chose not to waste the country's time and offered another olive branch to a white flag.
I do feel that enough white flags(whoops)olive branches were offered with the earlier Senate confirmations, and if this was not important enough to filibuster, what would be?
However there are also three important political motives for the olive branches, and one is to define the terms that Bush uses. If they are surrounded by olive branches, the Republicans will be caught up in their own words, before they can get out.
The second political motive is that it only takes one to start a filibuster, but reality is, that not enough would choose to continue it because they are not being as partisan as the other side and its nominee. Third, they will have established this record and try to use it in the next election.
More important though, is that abolishing the filibuster will do too much to drive us to majority rule. That is a bigger point you saved for last. Decisions on the process, let alone legislation, should not be made based on the convenience of those with power. But wait till a third party tries to use it. Whoops. Maybe it would be worth having a third party, if it could contribute to the proper use of a dictionary without the shifting sands of political power.

Ashcroft Confirmed

[On bi-partisanship.]
(2-01-01)The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes to support a filibuster so why start one. There were enough votes that opposed Ashcroft to show that a filibuster was possible if the Democrats had been partisan. But a filibuster would have only drawn ire from the middle. Hopefully this is as Sen. Russell Feingold says, "an olive branch, not a white flag." Also I hope that when more important matters arise, that they will not fail to stand up for principles. Ashcroft has made some amazing statements contrary to previous actions so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.

I like MoveOn.org [a little history]

I like MoveOn.org

[This is a posting that I was unable to edit at the time they were made.
So the above now stands corrected: 2-10-07 ]
[And times have not changed as I can now add this link as well:
http://pol.moveon.org/filibusterad ]