How come Reid can say that we must heed the results of the 2006 elections...

"We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people," said Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Yet Mr. Reid led a minority who tried to stop the will of the people in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

Why was he in favor of obstruction for six years (was he speaking against the people then) yet now he's saying the will of the people must be done?

Revisionism at it's best.

From nearly EVERY Democratic member and senator has changed their minds on so many different occasions the bandwidth to produce a website on their change of positions doesn't exist... nor could the Library of Congress figure it out.

Anyone surprised? Anyone?

Matt:

So let's just have an up and down vote, shall we?

Oh, that only applied when Democrats filibuster.

It did not take long for Republican hypocrisy to make an appearance on this one.

Wade

I wonder if the dems realized that their "scorched earth policies" of the past few years were essentially writing the rule book that they would have to play by when the situation was reversed.

Add in the ever present threat of a presidential veto and queen pelosireid may start to wish they had been a little easier to get along with in the recent past.

Im one of the folks that was screaming for the nuklear option not so long ago, Im kinda glad that it didnt happen that way.

Even if the nuclear option went through the Filibuster would still be here for standard floor usage. Just not for judicial nominees.

I'm still in favor of EVERY Executive Nomination, whether for an executive appoinment or a judicial nomination should have an up or down vote.

The Committee of jurisdiction should have hearings, vote for a favorable rating, no opinion, or a non-favorable rating, and then move this onto the full Senate.

There shouldn't be filibusters involving positions of responsibility and authority by the United States Senate, regardless of who is the President or who is in the Minority.

I do believe some good republican should drag out the democrats 'Minority Bill of Rights', frame it and then hang it on the wall right behind Pelosi's chair.

Also, lets take a vote: how many dems regret turning their back on Liebermann? The guy is now a kingmaker.

Democratic disagreement with this particular use of the filibuster does not make them hypocrites. The difference is that Republicans are hypocritically clinging to a procedure that they had railed against as a concept. Have the Democrats suddenly talked about exercising the "nuclear option" and getting rid of the filibuster? No, then stop getting your panties all bunched up...The rights of the minority party are secure.

Gar Wood

Gar... Pay attention. The Nuclear option was NEVER about the filibuster outside of judicial nominees.

Man you guys don't pay attention... it's just soundbyte knowledge that you and your liberal buddies have isn't it.

By the theory of our Government majorities rule, but this right is not an arbitrary or unlimited one. It is a right to be exercised in subordination to the Constitution and in conformity to it. One great object of the Constitution was to restrain majorities from oppressing minorities or encroaching upon their just rights. Minorities have a right to appeal to the Constitution as a shield against such oppression.

James Knox Polk (1795 - 1849)

Wawillyo,

Right, so how have Democrats trampled on the rights of the minority party? Complaining about the specific use of the filibuster is distinct from complaining about the filibuster in principal.

Gar Wood

Isnt it FUN being the party in power? Boy howdy, you wanted it and now you got it while the other side gets to make your life difficult.

No more sniping, no more whining that your minority 'rights' arent being respected, no more complaining; you have the power but are too afraid to use it. Sooner or later the repubs are going to offer up a few proposals that will force the dems hand on war support and/or funding...and that will seal their doom.

Of course you seem, as is usual, miss the point that Harry Reid's panties are all in a bind because the minority party in the Senate is doing EXACTLY what his party did for six years... and that's obstruct.

That's why it's funny Gar... something you simply cannot understand, that you railed against the Majority trampling the minority, but now your side is in the majority you're all in favor of the majority's will being done.

Can't you see how silly it actually is. Why was it not okay for a Republican Majority Leader to say the majority's will must be done against the "rights" of the Minority, but now that it's the Republican Minority Leader, it's WAY okay for the majority's will be done.

Man... the Founders were smart. Even though, you only think that when you're getting what you want.

The republi would probably still be in the majority if they had done a smidgen of oversight.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said on Tuesday.

Bills weighing a total of 363 tons were loaded onto military aircraft in the largest cash shipments ever made by the Federal Reserve....

It is exactly because of this lack of work ethic that precipitated the loss of control of both houses and will probably curse the party for decades.

Yikes - 33 Tons of CASH, my cash, your cash, our cash. For What? What did this buy us?

WTF over

Out of curiosity Joe... what exactly is OVERSIGHT.

Explain to me what oversight is? Nearly EVERYTHING our government does is done in the sunshine, and what isn't, nearly 90% of that information is available to those in Congress.

So why didn't these people find out what they wanted to know? I have a good idea, and it had nothing to do with pallettes of cash, unless those pallettes were headed to campaign headquarters.

Hum, I find it interesting that those on the right kept saying "if you want the agenda in Congress, win the election; until then don't get in the way of legislating".

And now that the Democrats did win the majority the GOP is suddenly all about minority party rights. Pelosi's Minority BoR was laughed out of the chambers by the Republicans and now they cut and pasted her words once they realized how it feels to be ignored.

I'm not defending the Democrats acting like Republicans 04-06, but none of you should be taking offense to it either. If you defended the majority's right to act like a majority then, you must do it now.

And last time I looked, +3000 US citizens haven't died over filibustered executive nominations.

How quickly you all have forgotten the days of Delay's unceremoniously extending/cutting vote-time procedures in the House to fit the Republican agenda indeed...

The fact is that the last Congress was in session the least number of days in history. The first thing the new Democratic majority did was extend the work week. It takes more than a Tuesday through Thursday week to oversee the most important ideological struggle of our generation, don't ya think?

From Oxford

oversight | noun
1 an unintentional failure to notice or do something : he said his failure to pay for the tickets was an oversight | was the mistake due to oversight?
2 the action of overseeing something : effective oversight of the financial reporting process.

So Joe...
Explain to me why members of Congress were prohibited to do such?

That was the whole point man. It's the job of Congress...regardless of Party. And they all know they have more important things to do like fundraising than to perform oversight.

Once again let's go to the Oxford and define "Prohibit", as used in your opening sentence.

prohibit |pr??hibit; pr?-| verb ( -hibited , -hibiting ) [ trans. ] formally forbid (something) by law, rule, or other authority : laws prohibiting cruelty to animals. • ( prohibit someone/something from doing something) formally forbid a person or group from doing something : he is prohibited from being a director. • (of a fact or situation) prevent (something); make impossible : the budget agreement had prohibited any tax cuts.

The republi had the power and lost it, as these types of events unfold even more than 70% of America will be against you and that goes to my initial point.

You had it - lost it and probably won't get it back again in your lifetime.

Gar... Pay attention. The Nuclear option was NEVER about the filibuster outside of judicial nominees.

"The filibuster must be elminated for all Senate business in order to take away the last vestige of power from the Democrats" - Mark Noonan, Blogs for Bush

Yeah, so you were saying?

I see that very few of the conservative commenters actually read the article that was linked.

There was no outrage, there was only a call for debate. Thats not outrage, people, thats called "work" for the Senate. Doing what they are supposed to.

All those foreign words must be difficult for most of you, right? "Work" and "Reading" are so difficult to understand.

Ummm Joe... seeing as the only place you seem to go to try and prove a point is the dictionary...

go to that Oxford again and try and find a definition that would fit for your use of the word "republi."

And trust me dude... I'm probably a hell of a lot younger than you are. And I'm quite happy to know that the only Democratic President since I've been alive has been Bill Clinton... and if he's your example of the leadership qualities you get a chub over, than I'm quite content knowing that I haven't known Carter.

How fascinating that there is a post about Reid crying about the Republicans doing what the Democrats when they were in the Minority, and all the liberals can do is bring in the House or this or that to prove a point that isn't related to what we were talking about.

Democrats can complain about Republicans slowing up the process or stopping it... I have no problem with that. My problem lies in them thinking that it's not fair now but it was fair when they did it.

And August... not sure what Rock you crawled out from under... FYI... Mark Noonan isn't a United States Senator, and just because he thought the filibuster should be gone, doesn't mean that the nuclear option was to ban the filibuster completely.

It's called context and actual facts....

You were trying to make a point by being flippant.

So yeah, you were saying....

The minority party is merely trying to provide some 'oversight' for the Dem initiative. And after all, isn't 'oversight' the end-all and be-all of everything we hold dear?

What cracks me up is the claim that the Republicans tried to BLOCK "debate" when what they really wanted to do was open up debate, on all aspects, on all approaches. Saying we should not limit our debate is not the same as saying we don't want debate---except in the Lib Dictionary, of course.

WA Will is right---the objection to judicial filibusters was ALWAYS framed in the context of the filibuster being used TO BLOCK JUDICIAL NOMINEES. Quote Mark if you like---the official objection to the misuse of the filubuster was to its use to bypass the Constitutionally-outlined responsibility of the Senate to vote on judicial nominees. Period.

When the Dems knew that a nominee would be approved in an up or down vote, they tried to do an end run around the Constitution by keeping that vote from taking place.

Conservatives don't like end runs around the Constitution to accomplish unconstitutional goals, whether they be through filibusters or amending the Constitution from the bench. Oooohhh---how NEOCON of us

Great Bob, but Jefferson said it best, "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Thos. Jefferson, March 1801

In 2004, some guy named Noonan posted ona blog called "blogs for Bush a call for the elimination of the filibuster. Now the same blog complains that Democrats are making outraged comments like:

“You can run but you can’t hide,” ... “We are going to debate Iraq.”

wow. Feel that outrage. Harry Reid has really closed the line here. he suggests that the Democrats are determined to have a vote on what the nation sees as the most important issue in the nation. Good thing the Republicans are around, or there might be a vote on the subject.

What happened to the good old days of civility, whena vp might suggest a Senator go fuck himself, instead of all this impassioned talk of voting?

DEMS = THE PARTY OF 'DOUBLE STANDARDS'

Fake moral outrage and fake condemnation from someone with faux wit.

It's funny to watch Democrats bitch about the Minority using the rules to stop stuff from happening... when they did it for six years and said it was "THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY."

And besides... nothing like rushing to debate a non-binding resolution that doesn't deliver on anything Democrats claim were the reasons people voted for them.