My wife and I were just talking this morning about how the democrats could get the media to pay attention.  Leave it to that wiley Nevada coyote, Harry Reid, to carry out something both patriotic and political.  It is also an astonishing `in your face' to Bush in light of the ZERO consultation on Alito.  Fantastic.  No longer an opposition party in waiting. 

Maybe the President of the Senate will need to make an appearance as presiding officer. That would be interesting.

I agree, but think the "power shift" may have started last week when the Demo out of CA stood up to this corrupt power by doing what was necessary to force a vote on the president's Davis Bacon tomfoolery, and then the GOP had to back down. Bravo to this. Hope to see more of it. Spine is always a good thing.

I certainly hope you're right, Mark. 

This is a remarkably obtuse analysis.  Republicans only need to maintain unity in their own caucus behind Alito.  Democrats will need to hold all of their Senators in opposition to a cloture motion against him, and they won't be able to do it.  The "nuclear option" will not be a factor.

What this is relevant to is the Intelligence Committee and more broadly the whole issue of Senate oversight.  Appointment of a special committee to ensure that the Intelligence Committee does its job is a personal humiliation of Intelligence Chairman Roberts unlike anything I can remember -- richly deserved, frankly, because he had a responsibility to the Senate greater than his responsibility to protect President Bush from the least little public embarrassment, and he shirked it.

But the impact of this episode on Alito's confirmation?  Zero.  Nothing.

I just say Harry Reid's interview on CNN.  He nailed it.  Showed emotion, intelligence, passion.  Made Frist look like a whiny baby who is the b%&^ of the White House.

Larry Wilkerson's speech to the New America Foundation may also have had something to do with it. He explicitly linked the extra-constitutional powers of the VP's office and the abrogation of oversight by Congress:

I believe furthermore that the people's representatives over on the Hill in that other branch of government have truly abandoned their oversight responsibilities in this regard and have let things atrophy to the point that if we don't do something about it, it's going to get - it's going to get even more dangerous than it already is.

With the Libby indictment, that power struggle between Congress and Cheney becomes open war, courtesy of Harry Reid.

From your keyboard to God's browser, Mr. Schmitt.

I am naive, but I do not understand what happened today.

Reid called a closed session, what does that mean? Did he bring things to a vote when republicans were not there to vote on it?

What are the political mechanics of what happened?

This has me lost...

Gee, thanks Peatey. Up yours.

It turns out there is a rule that permits any senator to take the body into closed session, with a second.

There are other rules like this, actually. The Senate is designed a slow-moving, deliberative body, with individual Senators having  a great deal of power. Not only did Reid use this maneuver as a means of keeping the nation's and the Senate's focus on the manipulation of intelligence that is now being brought into the spotlight, he also fired a shot across the Republican bow. He is reminding them that he has other tools at his disposal, including the ability to force votes on bills that the senate really would not want to vote on, and the ability to essentially stop business at will.

So this also a warning about using the nuclear option over Alito, and a reminder that the nation is not with the Republicans at the moment.

It also happens to be right on the merits. Roberts has stonewalled the investigation into the WH use of intelligence, the Libby indictment makes it clear that this is a real issue and the WH has been setting the Senate's agenda.

Without taking even half an gram of credit from Reid, I do agree that Wilkerson and so many more provided momentum -- even, bless his pointed conservative head, Scowcroft 

Life is complicated; people's motivations are even more so.  As I note, in the sidebar to my left here, the smiling ugly faces of DeLay and Bush -- carrying as they do intimations of unforgiveable corruption and arrogance -- I'd have to say a lot of the momentum for Reid's surprise move has come from uneasy Republicans. 

Around it goes, and where it began, nobody knows.

 But in this administration, leaving government institutions standing for future generations doesn't seem to be a priority.

I think that's right. It seems insane, speaking politically, for a lame duck to be acting that way toward the Senate. At this point there are Senators with longer terms of office left than Bush. 

Squeaky- Don't let Peaty get you down.  I think he/she is just a troll who somehow got through the rating process.  You never see a posting; just bad ratings.  I hope TPM catches on before long, because it is a disservice to this forum.

I was reminded of the story (from a New Yorker profile) about how he leapt across the table and tried to choke the living shit out of some mobster who was trying to bribe him.
 
That mobster made a real mistake.  All he had to do was hire one of Harry's sons as a consultant.  The LA Times, hardly a conservative organ, wrote all about it a couple of years ago.


http://www.westlx.org/assets/HarryReid.pdf

Interesting article. I missed the part with the quid pro quo. Although you could make a strong case that Reid is a heavy hitter in Nevada and that his son-in-law's consulting firm seems to have an inside track when it comes to lobbying to him this cannot be conflated with illegal activity.

A pretty weak case if that was supposed to be your point. Fortunately for you the Republicans are in absolute power so if he were corrupt and/or involved in ethical violations like Frist they could easily investigate him. Isn't it interesting that, even though the Democrats are powerless, all of the investigating and indictments and the corruption and cronyism are falling on the Republicans?

Imagine what it would be like for the Republicans if the Democrats were the majority party. Then, not only would the Justice Department and the other Administrative Agencies be rounding them up, but there would be actual hearings in Congress.

Isn't it interesting that, even though the Democrats are powerless, all of the investigating and indictments and the corruption and cronyism are falling on the Republicans?

Not a true statement.  You need to broaden your reading:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-trs16.html

http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local_news/article/0,1426,MCA
_437_3808002,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/26/politics/main983972.sht
ml

Mark Schmitt's observation makes a lot of sense.  Frist's reaction is particularly telling in this light.  As WaPo reported,

Frist angrily denounced the move, charging that "the United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership." He told reporters that he has never as majority leader "been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution."

Frist called the closed session "a pure stunt" by Reid, Durbin and the Democratic leadership.

Frist sharply criticized Reid personally, saying he could never trust the Democratic leader again.

That's a strong statement.  His vehemence didn't make much sense to me at first.  Now it does:  he knew that he had lost something significant.  

Then Katrina exposed their disasterous incompetence and showed Bush to be naked in the face of national emergency, revealing that he'd been lying to us when he said he was keeping us safe.  Then he badly bungled the Harriet Miers nomination.  All the while Iraq was melting down even further and the clock kept ticking on Senator Pat Roberts's unkept promise to carry out phase two of the investigation into the Administration's use of prewar intelligence and then last Friday, Fitzgerald brought the big hammer down on Scooter and anyone with a brain knows that Scooter wasn't acting alone.  Then today came and I feel better about today than about last Friday or just about any day this year from a political standpoint. But remember, the republicans haven't really done anything but "promise" to do something and we all know how they keep their promises.

Missing the boat here, bro.
The context is completely different.

Harry could use some help, and a show of support.

How about a million women on the mall?

And a million men standing behind them?

I will be writing Harry's office tonight to let him know he has taken a large step in the right direction.

I will also be writing Sen. Warner's office letting him know the nuclear option is unacceptable, and that if he votes for it I will be voting for a potted plant before I ever vote for another Repub in Virginia. 

The point about shifts in political momentum is a good one. Considering what's going on with Bush's popularity, it figures that this has to occur sooner or later in Congress.

Concerning Alito, it would be too bad but not unexpected if the Democrats allowed his candidacy to remain framed as about abortion. Alito has an apparently consistent record of opposing equality for women, under whatever guise -- also Title IX and the Family Leave Act -- and that's the way it should be framed now. Alito is another woman hater. Typically, these types are no nicer to ethnic minorities either.

No, no, no.

The article is completely wrong. Not only that it illustrates why the Democrats have been out of power so long.

The first rule of politics is you do what you can to get elected. That is, you present yourself to the voters as a good party to be in charge, NOT, repeat NOT, a good party to be in opposition.

This is why the Democrats don't win elections any more, because they still act as though they are the ones running things. They ran the Congress for so long they still act as though somehow they are in charge of anything.

Of course a minority party can easily act this way, throw their weight around, and influence legislation quite a bit, but it is a dreadful mistake to do so.

Why? Because if you are a good minority party then voters prefer to keep you as the minority party. On the other hand the Republicans are a terrible minority party so they get kicked upstairs into running things.

The whole first 4 years so far of Bush the Democrats have tried to present themselves  as a brake, moderator, regulator of the Republicans. They were there to stop the Republicans messing things up too badly.

Consequently the voters thought they could vote Republican because the Democrats would find a way in the minority to clean up the mess. Even now people assume they can bring the Democrats in to fix the deficit any time they want.

So the voters get a bipartisan government with the Republicans in charge, and the Democrats holding them back. They get an aggressive policy and a minority party restraining it.

Why then would they want to break that up and put the Democrats in charge? Republicans made that mistake for years, acting as the sensible party to restriain the spend thrift Democrats, consequently they stayed in that role as the minority party.

Every time the press asks the Democrats about any issue they should say "We are not in power. We cannot say for sure without being in power ourselves. Vote for us otherwise ask the guys you voted for". The only things they should say is in criticising the Republicans, never ever suggest what they would do.

There is no upside to trying act like a governing minority party. The more the voters hear from you as things get bad they just see you as part of the government that screwed things up. If things go well then the Republicans point out it is their government and the Democrats have to pretend like they are Republican Lite to get some of the credit. So they appear wishy washy at best, and tainted by screw ups at worst.

If the Democrats want to win elections then SHUT UP. Let the Republicans screw it up without being able to say the Democrats supported it, just like they say with Iraq and everything else.
 
If people complain the Democrats are not presenting an alternative then say if they want an alternative policy don't vote Republican otherwise clean up your own mess.

The Democrats should have said nothing about Iraq except that they support the President because people voted for him not them.

In fact the Democrats should let the Republican stack the Supreme Court any way they want, and then point to it as the price people pay by electing someone like Bush. Democrats are not supposed to be Bush's nanny.

If Roe versus Wade is overturned Democrata should say that's the price of Republicanism. If people assume that Democrats will stop this then pro choice people have no reason to vote Democrat at all.

In fact the Democrats should let the Republican stack the Supreme Court any way they want, and then point to it as the price people pay by electing someone like Bush.

Dude, I hope no Democrats are paying you for this kind of advice.

You cannot be serious.

The old "Dems shut up" strategy. Yeah, that'll work.

I have a theory about Congress, which is that there is often a moment when the effective majority switches, when the minority takes control of the agenda well before an election.

I have a theory about ass, which is that frustrated Democrats frequently talk out of theirs. Reid's move is smart and seizes a tempo, as chess players put it, back from the GOP. But we will control the agenda when we take back the majority, not before. There's a long way to go yet.

That was Henry Waxman, I beleive.   He has been doing great stuff for quite some time, but Ds just will not push the issues he brings up.

My opinion:  Waxman is the best Rep in the house. 

Santorum, being a rather stupid individual, walked into a large hole. An important political tactic over the next year will be to get as many vulnerable GOP incumbents explicitly carrying water for the White House. Reid's closed session was the start of that process, and Frist's gang of petulant kids went on record.

Ricky basically said 'My priority is cutting social programs, not investigating why Pennsylvanians are getting blown up in Iraq.' Casey can feast on that one.

President Bush and the Republican-led Congress have increased the size of the government and turned a record surplus into a record deficit.

I don't know, it seems like Harry Ried was having a Howard Dean moment to me (I know most of y'all think that's a good thing, but in at least 52% of the country it's not). He almost exploded when he was asked why he didn't inform the majority of his intent. Now usually it's the House where everyone is out of control, and the Senate provides the "adult supervision." No Sen Robertson said that the committee staff met yesturday and set a date to finish the report, and this "closed door meeting" Dems demanded that they finish the report by the date they agreed on yesturday (which makes sense to a Liberal, what you accomlish is not important it's what you say about it, how you feel about it and claiming credit for it whether you did anything or not). Now to be fair they did ask Sen. Rockafeller if it was true that the staffs of the inteligance committee had agreed to finish the report next week and he didn't answer (which also for liberals means they can claim whatever they want about it and when confronted later say the complete opposite). The problems for the Dems is that no matter how far the polls fall for the Republicans and the President, they're always a few points lower. Until they actually come up with one propsal they'll contiue to be seen as weak, defiant obstructionist (which initself isn't a bad thing as long as you can explain what and why you are obstructing, "we hate Bush" & "because" don't count as legitimate reasons).

If I recall correctly, Harry was an amateur boxer in his younger days. And one of the things they teach you as a boxer is that when you have a guy on the ropes, hit him even harder, with everything you've got. Throw leather. Land punches. Don't let him recover. I think that's what happened yesterday. Harry sensed that his opponent was hurt and back-pedaling, and he went in for the finish. I think his old coaches would have approved.

Dems demanded that they finish the report by the date they agreed on yesturday (which makes sense to a Liberal, what you accomlish is not important it's what you say about it, how you feel about it and claiming credit for it whether you did anything or not).

You nudnik, this investigation was promised by the Republicans in October of 2004. A YEAR has gone by, and nothing has been done about it. If you had a contractor working on your house, and he didn't do anything for a year, and you finally gave him a hard and fast deadline, and he came back with "Typical of a conservative, what you accomlish [sic] is not important it's what you say about it," you would hit him in the teeth, right?

The Dems gained not one single thing from opening their mouth during the debate about the war, not one single thing.

They woke up to this with Social Security and let the Republicans screw it up by themselves, without the Dems trying to make it bipartisan.

If you think what the Dems did in the run up to the war was "opening their mouth" then I'd hate to see what you think them shutting up looks like. All of them quitting?

They also did NOT let the GOPs "screw up" the SS debate -- the Dems were VERY loud on that issue, and we won it.

Hey, Notrol, where in VA do you live?  I guess you can figure out my city.  Don't you feel a little impotent when it comes to national elections?  I would personally love to get rid of the Electoral College -- it is simply outdated and each citizen's vote should count equally as far as I'm concerned.   Also, the candidates would have to actually appeal to everyone rather than concentrating on "battleground states."  What do you think?  (Not that it really matters: it will never change!)

No, the Rep. who found a way to force a vote on the Davis-Bacon repeal was George Miller. Waxman has been tireless on war profiteering issues and many others, but this was Miller.

Crato:  I agree with 90% of your comments, but not the theme that voters believed that Democrats...

...were there to stop the Republicans messing things up too badly.

Consequently the voters thought they could vote Republican because the Democrats would find a way in the minority to clean up the mess.

As a lone Democrat in a family of Republicans, I can tell you that no one thought the Republicans were messing up.  This was their mantra:

Republicans lower taxes
Democrats want a "death tax"
Bush will keep us safe in the war on terror
Democrats are soft on defence
Bush & all Republicans are religious and therefore honest 
Democrats are not Christians -- even the Catholic ones
Republicans believe in the "culture of life"
Democrats kill babies

I assume I don't need to go line by line and explain how fallacious these points are, but I assure you, these voters did not consider that the Democrats were benevolent house-cleaners who would fix the Republican mess.

The truth is:  That is how Democrats see THEMSELVES!

The saddest truth is that in both elections the majority lost, and we will all have to clean up this mess if it is not already too late.

C'VilleDem-

And all this time by the nature of your posts, I thought your nom-de-plume meant civil  ;<)

Well, you're either Charlottesville or Centreville, either place being pretty reasonable. 

I'm just outside Fairfax, rhymes with cartax.  I think Virginia's political soil is shifting. Democrat governors (admittedly "moderate", read=more like Eisenhower republicans) and the absurdities of the local races are making the NOVA area fair game for dem candidates.  The real progress needs to be in the southern (y'all) end of the state.  When driving through those areas, seeing wide roads and no traffic ('cept around Virginia Beach), it's easy to see why they buy into a Kilgore type mindset.  We "librul northerners" sound like a threat to their very existance.  What they miss is the fact that this small area of the state generates the revenue that keeps it going.

In a national perspective, I don't feel any more or less disenfranchised as those from my old home, Ohio, after they had the election stolen by the crooks that now occupy the State House.  I heard the other day that Taft's polls are at 15%!!  That's slightly higher than Il Duce in Italy before they dragged him through the streets on a meathook.  With the Taft/Noe/Ney/DeLay/Abramoff  linkage now becoming visible, I hope the national Dems are making some serious plans.  The Republicans used to be on the model of Voinovich, (hopefully to make a full recovery from his own party inflicted wounds), which was at least tolerable.

In Virginia, I find Warner to be reasonable in judgment on the whole.  I find George Allen, however, to be a drooling mouth-breather.  Wait, I don't want to sugar-coat it.....  

DMB territory?

I have been mulling that "fasting" over, and have been limiting my screen time lately.  The more garbage I see on "news" channels propels me here, but info overload can cause heads to suddenly explode ;<) 

Two Senate leadership changes while Bush has been in office, and imo both favored the Dems.

1.  Frist took over for Lott.  Lott was more independent than Frist, who has been little more than the WH's toady, but Lott was much more effective at running the Senate.  Frist, in comparison, looks spineless and incompetent.

2.  Reid took over for Daschle.  Daschle never appeared to understand his role of leading the minority party -- that is, to oppose the Republicans.  We miss his vote but not his leadership.  Getting Reid instead has been a plus.  Harry knows how to give 'em hell.

I imagine that part of the reason for Frist's meltdown is that he saw the very last vestiges of his presidential ambiitons going down the tubes.  Between the Terry Schiavo fiasco, the insider trading invesitgation and now this - even he must finally be realizing that he's a fairly powerless leader who gets humilated by both the White House and the Democrats.

Definitely DMB territory.  I even run into Boyd Tinsley when I'm on the treadmill at the gym sometimes (which is interesting because I know he could join the Farmington Country Club, but he comes to my more modest place.)  2 weeks ago it was even Rolling Stones Territory - what a concert!

As much as I would like to start my newsfast, this is just not the week to do it!

jay -  Nice, except that the filibuster has changed from the Mr. Smith times.  Now they just declare a filibuster, go and get a nice long lunch, and no one has to even say anything.  It is mainly procedural. 

Your idea is great though because they could do it just as you described, and it would be even more effective when you consider that no one bothers with the yakking any more!  I'm sure the TMP Cafe-sitters would love to provide reading material for them!

Maybe the Democrats' new slogan should be:

BACK TO BASICS   

You know: Rule 21, Talking Filibusters, Peace, Truth in Budgeting, Fiscal Responsibility, Rule of Law (as opposed to Bush's Rule o' law -  wow, was it leaving out that little "f" that has had enormous consequenses for our country?), etc...

Ooops, that 1-rated comment was not in this thread, but in a closely related one.  Sorry.

Reid called a closed session, what does that mean? Did he bring things to a vote when republicans were not there to vote on it?

No, he just took away their TV cameras. 

Well can you name a single occasion in the last 5 years where the Democrats have gained by not shutting up?

I was trying hard to think what occasion that might be, where Democrats didn't shut up.  They shut up on the issue of the war--all but a handful voted to give Bush the authority he wanted.  They shut up on the PATRIOT act; they shut up on tax cuts; they shut up on the Bankruptcy Bill; they eventually shut up on the confirmation of the last batch of Bush's extremist right-wing judicial appointments.  What did it gain them?  Nothing that I can see.  It enabled the Republicans to paint them as wimps with no core values, unwilling to fight for their own agenda, so how could they be trusted to fight for the country?

Then you reminded me: Social Security.  But on that issue "cscs" is absolutely right--they defeated the Republicans by not shutting up.  You've got it all exactly backwards; did you step through the looking glass or something?

Newt shut down the executive branch, by withholding its budget.  That's the branch that we notice on a day-to-day basis, whenever we use parks, museums, etc.  Basically, it's the branch that actually spends the money to hire people to do stuff for Americans.

Reid is threatening a shutdown of the legislature, specifically the Senate.  He's already ruled out a complete block of the budget.  So that means no new legislation, no opportunity for Republicans to advance their initiatives, and a lock-in of the status quo.  This is bad for the Republicans who need to pay back their corporate sponsors, but in essence it's not much different than the the sort of gridlock that has often occurred when one party doesn't control everything (e.g. Reagan era).

or "acerbity is in the eye of the beholder"

Common sense. God if that was all we needed we could indict every member of the Bush White House who hasn't already resigned.
Fortunately the House, Senate and Executive Branch are all in the hands of honest Republicans as they will surely investigate any corruption.
And if the Reid story is enough for you to think he is corrupt you must already be howling for the head of every Republican who is linked to DeLay and Aberremoth.

That's not what I'm saying. The Democrats for the last 5 years have been playing the role of the only ones on a ship of fools who sees that it is sinking, so they are the ones trying to man the pumps.

Meanwhile the Republican use this to enact even more extreme politics. Since they know the Dems try and tone down the more extreme nonsense the Republicans just get angry at this, since they see things like filibusters as the Dems not conceding they lost the election. So they see this as signs of an elitist dictatorship.

This is bad for the Dems because they do all this work and get no credit for it from the Republicans.

It's also bad among the Independants. They are worried about the excesses of the Republicans but the Dems are acting like they still have enough control to blunt these excesses while in the minority. So independants have nothing to fear from these excesses and hence no reason to vote Democrat.

So the Dems jumping in with advice and trying to govern from the minority either 1. upsets people as democratic. 2. Allow Republicans to claim their policies were just about to work when the Dems stepped in. 3. They were going to do what the Dems did except they didn't have a chance.

So instead of thinking the Dems are doing a good job and voting for them, voters think the Republican margin needs to be increased so they can see what Republican policies do without interference.

And Dem voters see their party apparently still in charge to some degree, like filibustering in the senate, and don't feel threatened enough to vote.

Whenever reporters ask Dems what they should do they should say 1. The Republicans won the election, so Dems are powerless to do anything. 2. They don't want to second guess the President, if they want their opinion put the Dems in charge. 3. They don't want to back seat drive.

Voters won't mind this if the Dems make the point that being in the minority has large disadvantages which prevent them from making effective decisions to compare with Republican ones.

That leaves then to criticise everything Bush does all the time, without being put on the spot as to whether they could do better, or that they supported the President's policies.

There is nothing unusual about this, this is how opposition parties do things all over the world. No opposition party elsewhere breathes a word about policy until just before the election when people are listening, so all the press is on the ruling party's mistakes.

If the ruling party is doing well then nothing will make a difference anyway, especially not the Dems trying to jump in, try to steal the credit, say they are still in charge kinda, say they are really Republican Lite, etc. So they may as well shut up.

If the ruling party is doing badly then it is essential the opposition party shuts up about themselves and concentrates all the criticism on the ruling party.

Reid is just preparing to mess things up. He appears anti democratic, like the Republicans didn't really win. Alito is the prive Dems pay for not supporting the Dems in the last election, so let the voters have the bad consequences they voted for. Otherwise they will just keep voting Republican.

slb-

I had heard on KoJo Nambe's show that the independants were swinging to either Potts or Kaine.  Since Potts' move out of the Republican party was more a fight for money and leadership in the VAGOP, but not a change of stripes necessarily, I would caution raising any hopes of a Potts campaign being substantially different.

In your situation, however, one less for that fascist Kilgore is still one less for that fascist Kilgore. 

You have a strange view of history. Bush made it the whole issue of the Congressional elections, that the Dems had to decide just before the election on this. The whole debatewas about what their opinion was.

If they voted against it they looked unpatriotic, if for it now they can't complain about what happened. What they should have done is what you said incorrectly that they did, they should have said Bush was the president and it was his decision.

All this about it being Congress's decision was just a plan by Rove to make the Dems take a side on it to be criticised later.

How many times did the Republicans call Kerry a waffler on his stance about the war? If he had said it was the president's decision and he wouldn't second guess him in a time of war then he would have won the election. The Republicans themselves said that's what Kerry should have said.

Nothing Kerry said about the war did anything but lose votes. He should have shut up about it. The problem was the Dems don't understand they are out of power yet, so they can't start acting like an opposition.

In fact that's what Lieberman said which is why so many Republicans would have voted for him, and Lieberman would likely have won.

Actually the whole outing of Valerie Plame has everything to do with pre-war intel. The reason for the indictment I believe is to pressure Libby  into providing more info. This will eventually tie into Cheney, forged Nigerian documents, John Bolton, Carl Rove and probably Bush himself.

You have a strange view of history.

Believe me, I have been thinking the same of you. 

...they should have said Bush was the president and it was his decision.

And they would have been surrendering their Constitutional duty to serve as a check on the executive branch.  Anyone who did that should have been voted out of office for being of less use than the furniture in the Senate Office Building. 

If he [Kerry] had said it was the president's decision and he wouldn't second guess him in a time of war then he would have won the election.

And in my view, Kerry lost the election in part because he refused to challenge Bush effectively on the war.  How can you hold those in power accountable unless you stand up and demand accountability?  If Kerry had said he refused to second-guess the president in time of war, isn't that telling the voters they should do the same, and re-elect the incumbent president?

The problem was the Dems don't understand they are out of power yet, so they can't start acting like an opposition.

Say what? Are you saying that you can't be an opposition party if you are out of power?  Because if that's what you are saying, we really are in the land of the Red Queen.

In fact that's what Lieberman said which is why so many Republicans would have voted for him, and Lieberman would likely have won.

If I had had to choose between Lieberman and Bush on election day, I'm not sure I would have bothered to go to the polls at all. And Republicans have shown time and again that if you give them a choice between voting for a faux-Republican and the real thing, they'll vote for the real thing every time.  Lieberman would have been buried in a Bush landslide.

or "acerbity is in the eye of the beholder"

And here I thought it was spit... 

Crato!  Is your ENTER key broken?  You need some paragraph breaks, man!

I am howling for the heads of Abramoff, DeLay, Blunt, Senselessbrenner, Cheney, the Dukestir, Katherine Harris and the horses they rode in on.

But as an environmental lawyer who represents the environmental side, I can tell you from long experience before many California state and local agencies that Republicans do not have a monopoly on corrupt campaign donations as quid-pro-quo favors on development, pollution and logging.  Can you say Gray Davis? 

My point was simply that just because the charge can't be proven to twelve jurors beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean that a quid-pro-quo wasn't exactly what was happening.