No Democrat should ever court votes of Senators who want to drop daisy cutters

[hulka38]

all over the place. Sure, Grover would like to "starve the beast". Joe loves the bombing raids that result in lots of red pulp that used to be an innocents. Which is the worse crime? It's not apples and oranges. It's all politics.

[babylonsister]

1. Link pls. to Grover starving the beast? Which beast? And there's only

one Grover that I know of; I don't recall him wanting to starve anyone.

[burning rain]

5. "The beast" refers to government.

"Starving" it refers to big tax cuts designed to so underfund functions of government, that government has to be greatly reduced in size and scope.

[babylonsister]

7. Ugh, but thanks. Hamsher makes less sense to me now. nt

[burning rain]

13. Well, I can't know what all's going in Jane Hamsher's noggin.

But--and this seems pertinent to Hamsher and Norquist going after Rahmbo together--lefties and libertarians can very occasionally work together in a narrowly focused way with each acting honorably vis-a-vis their political side. One such area is opposition to what they may see as a political figure's corrupt business cronyism. They can work together in principle with neither dishonoring their side, but they'll come at it from very different angles: lefties dislike such cronyism because it betrays the public interest. Libertarians deny there's any such thing as a public interest, but dislike such cronyism largely because it betrays their sacred, pitiless principle of sink-or-swim for a government figure to aid some particular private interest. For Norquist, the role of government is pretty much limited to protecting property rights and running the traffic lights. Business is to be unregulated and untaxed, but it's to get no special favors from government.

[karynnj]

21. They are speaking of Grover Norquist

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

Sesame Street had a far nicer Grover.

[LostInAnomie]

2. It is apples and oranges.

The Senate Dems HAVE to work with Lieberman if they ever want to get anything past the 40 Republican Senators' filibuster.

No one has to side with Norquist in a political battle.

[burning rain]

4. Senate Democrats *choose* to retain the 60-vote rule.

They don't have to.

[babylonsister]

6. Ya think? Have they had time as the majority to fight it?

Do you really think they 'want' this? Seems like they had a busy year since a Dem prez was elected.

I honestly don't know, but do know every last thing they approach takes eons to get accomplished. This might not have been the year?

[burning rain]

10. They could use the nuclear option any time.

There is a strong institutional bias in the Senate for holding onto ye olde traditions of unanimous consent and holds and the filibuster, but most Americans don't care about these fetishes and would prefer to see their votes for change count for something. Senate Democrats had better figure something out, because the endless delay and watered-down legislation that does manage to pass the Senate (as opposed to the House's better work) stands to cost Democrats in 2010 by making them look feckless in the eyes of their voters.

[cali]

20. a bit short sighted of you, honey.

way to let the pukes cram through social security "reform" next time they're in the majority. And a lot lot more.

[SpartanDem]

8. since changing senate rules takes 67 votes

I'm sure we'll have no trouble finding 7 gop votes

[burning rain]

9. Not so.

It only takes a majority, whether for the nuclear option or a formal rules change. The Supreme Court has ruled that both houses of Congress have a right to change their rules by majority vote.

[SpartanDem]

11. Senate Rule XXII

Without debate, the Presiding Officer shall then submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: "Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?"

If that question is decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

It takes 67 with all senators voting to clear cloture on a motion to amend any rule.

[burning rain]

12. That rule is itself illegal, & inoperative...

as much as any state law that remains on the books despite having been ruled unconstitutional.

[TheKentuckian]

14. So, did the Republicans have 67 to go nuclear, were they bluffing and we rolled over, or

does the Constitution actually establish the law and the Senate rules are actually more of a "gentleman's agreement"?

I'm not big on blowing up the filibuster myself but I think logically it has to be one of those three options.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. To which Supreme Court decision are you referring?

[Undercurrent]

3. Does Grover

have a vote in the Senate?

[KakistocracyHater]

15. take out anti-personnel stuff, reload daisy-cutters with fire-retardant & use

to stop fires; the boys would like that & it would be a protective measure, so the girls should be ok with it too, especially me, since I came up with an alternative use-if you do not come up with a different use for 'weapons' I think the corporations will want war.

[old mark]

17. "Daisey cutters" were used to blow large clearings in jungle - large enough

to land helicopters, instand landing zones. They were used in Vietnam, but I don't know they were of much use since, because wer haven't been fighting in jungles.

More "pacifist" liberal ignorant bullshit.

mark

[MidwestRick]

18. They were used in Iraq

during the first Gulf War to clear mine fields and several were used in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

[old mark]

19. Well, good - I hope it killed a lot of minefields and a lot of terrorists.

The whole idea of war is to kill the other guy.

mark