J. McCutchen
I'm all for it. The GOP is on a record-breaking pace to 160 filibusters or so.

Back in the day (before CSPAN), I covered the floor for my Senator from the staff gallery. Then Democrats were Democrats, Republicans had Jake Javits, men were men, and filibusters were REAL.

We had quite a few in the mid-70's - real ones
They were really used for their putative purpose - to focus the public's attention to Senate debates of critical importance adn thus employed to and often did affect legislative compromise and consensus building. Even when they succeeded, people knew why.

Why would Dems be afraid of that?

This question is rhetorical by now. I think we need to stop expecting the Democrats to do anything at this point.

Seriously. They're toothless. Just riding it out til January, 2009...

One of Josh's other readers talked about theater, and Dems can hardly win at that game. That's been proven time and again. 

That Webb voted for this crap is heartbreaking, particularly after his own bill was fillibustered the day before. It seemed like he was one of the few who got what the coordinated attack on MoveOn was really about, but then he votes in favor of a toothless, pointless, moralizing claptrap. As if that had anything to do with the responsibilities of the Senate. Heartbreaking.

The impetus behind the Senate vote regarding MoveOn was a FoxNews initiative from the get-go. They have been hammering the NYT since the ad appeared claiming that the "far left" NYT gave MoveOn a discount. The Times explained that the rate was their standard for full page ads that don't require a specific day of the week for publication. Ignoring that, Bill O'Reilly claimed that the NYT "discount" amounted to "soft money" for the Dems. Hey Bill, your whole damn enterprise is soft money for the extreme right. If nothing else, the Senate vote is a roadmap showing which Democrats should face primary challenges when they come up for re-election.

Dems have had some legislative success. They have passed things like funding bills for extending the war and the Protect America Act (which I understand Bush wants to make permanent while giving immunity to the lawbreaking telecoms that DI McConnell represents).

The thing is, the Dems are not just “riding it out” but are getting rolled by the minority Republicans and a lame duck, weakling president. It isn’t even good sleazy politics because their impotence is dragging them straight down in the polls. They’ll be riding it out of town if they don’t get some courage and start raging against the machine.

The argument for taking impeachment off the table was because it would be a distraction from doing the "people’s business," all of that great progressive legislation that was going to be passed. And what business has them so busy that they can't perform their oversight and checks on the executive? Would it be acts that protect Americans by taking away protections or debating bills that decry some silly ad by MoveOn.org?

Do not insult the middle of the road. They are as far right as the Republicans because they enable the farthest right of the Republican party to succeed in every agenda be it the Supreme Court, the war, civil liberties...

Why MJ? Are you serious?

The reason why is that Congressional Democrats are, by and large, a bunch of weak-kneed, lily-livered fucking cowards! That's why.

They are also politically tone deaf cowards who, eeven while sitting on a veritable tsunami of anit-war opinion in the nation are too scared of the most unpopular President in US history to cut off the funding for this illegal, immoral war. They have demonstrated their cowardice over and over and over again on the FISA revisions, war funding, you name it. They're nothing but flat out cowards.

I too am utterly disappointed in Sen. Leahy. I have felt all along that he was too tepid in pursuing the US Attorney firings, but I thought perhaps he was simply proceeding cautiously. Now I think he is simply afraid.

What are these Democrats afraid of? That George Bush is going to say something nasty? Are they afraid of the electorate?

When history is written, the fiasco in Iraq will go down not just as "Bush's War"; It will go down as a collective failure of both political parties, the courts, especially the Supreme Court, the News Media and the apathy of the majority of Americans. All in all, it is one of the most disgraceful periods of American history.

Why didn't any of the Democratic Presidential candidates have the decency to stand up and filibuster this condemnation of the MoveOn.org advertisement?

They each could have had hours and hours to make speeches about the constant attacks on the basic freedoms of our Democracy, and to lay out the case against the Republicans.

Both political parties have failed the country.

"Discharge petitions also exist in the United States Senate, and require only 30 signatures.[9] However, they are practically powerless and more a ceremonial registering of a dispute."

(wikipedia)

Perhaps someone with insider chops can deconstruct for me whether Reid could have prevented the resolution from coming to a vote or not.

Obviously filibustering the resolution would have failed because there were enough votes for successful cloture.

But could it have come up at all, without Reid's acquiescence?

I agree with you, but Webb was not filibustered. Just like on Boxer, the senate unanimously agree that sixty votes (a cloture majority) would be required to pass the bill. A virtual filibuster, you might say. Or you might call it a weak submission. I would.

Nice to see all those town-hall meetings, demonstrations and phone campaigns during the legislative recess had such a powerful impact.

Filibusters in the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" sense have not been done by either side for years. It maybe because Senators go back to their states more often but filibusters now are simply an agreement between the two leaders.

However, the cowadice on the MoveOn ad is a disgrace. It is one thing to acknowledge that you don't have the votes to pass positive measures it is another thing to fear being called unpatriotic or anti-miltary because of an unaffliated group's ad. Where are leaders who will educate the public. With so much of today's politics about ideology that is devoid of facts it is time to have politicians who will take reality to America's voters.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Dear David Kurtz:

First, good for you for publishing the letters disagreeing with your view that forcing the Republicans to block legislation is pointless.

Staring me in the face a moment ago was my Yahoo home page, featuring a link to an AP news story with the headline "Democrats failing to pass anti-war bill"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070921/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

If you are Jane Q Public and you see this headline you probably are thinking "What is it with those Democrats? Aren't they in the majority in Congress now? Why can't they get their act together and get something done on the war?"

If the headline reads "Republicans block anti-war bill in Senate" Jane may think "What is up with those Republicans? Why are they blocking votes to get us out of Iraq?"

If Democrats don't bring bills up for votes because they will be blocked Jane thinks "What on earth are the Democrats in Congress doing anyway?" (the poll evidence Josh cited today showing that Dems have a lower opinion of the job Congress is doing than Republicans suggests that a lot of Janes are thinking exactly this now.)

Which reaction would you prefer that Jane have?

Bringing up these bills, forcing Republicans to block them, and hammering them for preventing up or down votes to change direction in Iraq, is part of what needs to happen. The other part of the job is getting on the media to get the headlines and the story right when Dems do this.

Thanks for listening.

Regards,

email sent to the Associated Press at info@ap.org:

In re an article by Anne Flaherty headlined, "Democrats failing to pass anti-war bill":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070921/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Why doesn't the headline instead read "Republicans block votes on anti-war bills in Senate"?

Democrats are trying to bring up for votes bills which attempt to address what are now prevailing and deep concerns about the war in Iraq. Republicans are blocking these votes from even taking place. Why? Isn't that the real story?

Regards,

[end of letter to AP]

The MoveOn thing is curiouser and curiouser. Must be because Petraeus is a general. Dowd, NYTimes, on Obama - "preens like a 46-year-old virgin," "testy, irritated, hung-up, conflicted and self-consciously pristine." On Al Gore, "pious smarty-pants, so feminized...he's practically lactating." Edwards' hair moves Ann Coulter to label him a "faggot," while Chris Matthews calls him "Breck Girl." As for Drudge or First-Lady-feminazi-Hillary-Limbaugh? Hohum.

So much for First Ladies, senators and vice-presidents - not generals. So much for inside-the-Beltway mouthpieces - not MoveOn.

crossed the line from criticism to defamation.

Just to be clear, I am one reader who did not take the ad that way. But others did, probably including many senators. There is no right or wrong answer to reading inferences from advertising; a smart advertiser tests their ad before placing it.

The only downside, if it's a downside, to the ad is that it's distanced rank and file Democrats from the Democrats in office even further. And I don't think that's really even a downside, as the Dems are useless. The only reason this became a "situation" is because the Democrats let it become one.

MoveOn, I bet, is gaining membership, and gaining donations from this.

Perhaps MoveOn doesn't give a crap how the Senators "feel," how "happy they are" with them? Or that poor General Petraeus got insulted.

I don't.

The point of the ad, I think, was to keep people talking about how, incredulously, this war marches on. It seems to be working.

What do you think they are afraid of? In my opinion, they're afraid of being exposed as co-dwellers in the swamp of corruption.

"Does anybody have any idea by our fearless Dems let the GOP off the hook by going immediately to a cloture vote, losing, and then going on to other business.

Why not force the GOP to stay up all night reading the Bible and The Collected Works of Ann Coulter. "

Isn't it because the Senate is engaged in all the constructive work we hear so much about (the MoveOn ad, etc.)

I don't know. I think they're just obeying the wishes of AIPAc and the Israeli government. I think that's pretty clear. I'm a bit disappointed you didn't point that out. You do know that.

It seems to me that the Democrats are either unwilling or unable to effectively communicate their rationale (for anything, not just this) to the public. It is as if it's assumed that Republican soundbites trump not only reasonable discourse but also Democratic soundbytes.

If it were me, I would explain my rationale as calmly and effectively as possible and pair it with a summary soundbyte or slogan.

I think this is the biggest issue facing the Democrats: how to package their message in a way that can be understood by the average voter. I am convinced that the Democrats are not out of synch with the masses on this or many other issues.

Back up your comment with some actual evidence.

Wait. So the Israeli government is really pulling the strings here? And the Democrats are simply obeying their wishes?

Wow. That makes SO MUCH more sense.

Gotta disagree here. Petraeus is a political general. He went in to the Congressional hearings with testimony based on distorted information and did the bidding of the Bush administration. MoveOn made a valid point against a guy who has signed up with the Republicans. He gave closed door briefings to the Republican Senate caucus. Going after him is not going after the military any more than going after MacArthur was.

Letting Petraeus hide behind the troops is as bad as letting Bush do it. As for the Democrats, falling for that crap is not helping them at all.

Thanks Hoppy and I wish I were wrong, but there's simply no other possible explanation than pure cowardice.

The thing that concerns me most is that, IMHO, these aren't even difficult calls and the Democrats wilt like cut flowers in a vase without water on a hot day. After all, if you are going to take political risks, doing so over literally life and death decisions is when you do it. Sometimes you simply do what is right and to hell with any potential repercussions. But these people are so afraid of their own shadows they can't even muster any courage for something like ending an illegal, immoral war. They'd rather do what they consider the politically safe thing for themselves without regard to the number of deaths that will happen to satisfy their cowardly motives.

It is precisely this sort of cowardice that a nascent authoritarian party exploits in order to seize power. I cannot help but to be troubled by memories of the descriptions of the ineptitude and cowardice of Hindenburg and other German legislative leaders in the face of the NAZI efforts to grab power in the early 30's they could not win at the ballot box.

Yes, yes, I know things are not exactly the same here, but the dynamics are in some ways eerily similar and there are enough parrallels for any thinking person to be concerned that thanks,in part, to these Democratic cowards, an environment exists that could indeed be fertile soil for a serious authoritarian threat to our democracy.

I believe in erring on the side of caution when it comes to the preservation of our liberties and the Constitution some of us still revere and wish to protect. Too much that would have been unthinkable not that long ago has been happening of late for me to feel as though we are not in a moment of great danger and perhaps an unprecedented moment in our history. If that is true, our peril is greater than one would expect because in the event we need a real demonstration of political courage to prevent authoritarian rule, these cowards are all that stands between us and a police state. Remember, no matter who the dictator is, these kinds of regimes ALWAYS pass laws making their illegal and immoral acts legal--and often retroactively.

Excellent points all Americandreamer!

In everyday language it's just called exposing the Republicans for what they really are: obstructionists.

Where was all the outrage when they defamed Max Cleland, or John Kerry for that matter.

The Double Standard has got to stop. When will Dems realize the double standard is killing them and all of us.

Stop trying to stifle debate, you Zionist thug!

I had to laugh at that Texas asshole and his Bill. He wanted the Senate to condem the ad, but he wouldn't stand for anyone to read it. It they would have read the ad we all would have know that MoveOn was right. The General did fudge the numbers and he did betray us. That's why debate was limited to two minutes. If debate would have been ten minutes there would have been time to read the ad and how the Congress was lied to and they would have to have condemned General Betrayus.

Most of the American public doesn't understand that Democrats can't get anywhere towards stopping the war, because Republicans are using the filibuster. Even the news media usually get it wrong. They say, for example, that a bill or an amendment was voted down when what really happened was that the inevitability of a filibuster had stopped it from coming to a true vote. It is only political junkies who are paying close attention. Nothing but endless filibustering will make the general public aware. Let them see it on the news until they get sick of it.

I have also been driven to distraction by the question of why the Dems are not making the Republicans actually filibuster. Then last night an answer came to me that did not really make me feel any better. Perhaps the Democrats are afraid that Republicans talking around the clock about the great and glorious surge would actually bring people over to their side. Do politicians ever willingly give a microphone to the other side? Even Reid's fakey all night filibuster last spring was Democrats talking all night, making it look like they were holding up the bill and not the Republicans.

I really think they are just unwilling to give air time to the Republicans, and they may have a good point there. What if the Republicans read (highly selective of course) letters from the troops instead of the collected works of Ann Coulter? Would that really help the Democrats?

I am left with the conclusion that the only thing to do is just not bring up the supplemental at all this time. Of course, if they are so scared of Republicans talking that they won't make them filibuster they surely can't take the heat that cutting off this funding would bring their way. Better leadership is the only answer. I'm about done with Harry Reid.

As to the Move On ad, I'm a member, and I have a hard time defending all of that ad. I would have much preferred just sticking to the facts in the body of the ad and dropping the name calling. On the other hand, I think all the publicity and attacks have brought in a lot of new members. Update: I've read more opinions and am happier now about the 'Betray Us' language. Disrespect was deserved in this case.

Reid's "leadership" has been weak and deplorable since his appointment as the Majority Leader. It is unbelievable that the most despised President in recent memory, coupled with the most treasonous and complicit Republican minority in recent member, can continue to frame any and all discussion in this country in terms of their fascistic loyalty to "the military."

The Democrat Party is as treacherous as the GOP because it prefers to worship the boot of authoritarianism out of fear, rather than to do the business of the people who gave it power. When our elected officials are more afraid of the faceless beaurocrats in the Pentagon than of the PEOPLE, America as an idea is dead; it's meaningless. We are a banana republic living under a military regime that gives us as much or as little liberty as it deems necessary to ensure its own survival - and the Democrat Party goes along with it, out of fear and a craven calculation that it might stand to gain as well.

Agreed! MoveOn generally does stupid shit. They do not represent me. But there was nothing defamatory about that advertisement. The general is playing a partisan political role. Generals should not do that while in the service. However much he may be a fine general in the field, he has disgraced his uniform and should resign.

Ride it out... until January 2009, when a Democratic President with a conscience finds that he/she and the Congress he/she is beholden to for legislation are still dependent on the goodwill of corporate America.

I hate to sound like some kind of, you know, radical, but we really have to stop imagining that the party that controls Congress is "in control" or has "power."

There is a larger media shaped and economics shaped structural reality that has much greater power than the power of either party in Washington.

Recognition of this fact can (and should?) drive each of us to the appropriate point of complete and utter despair.

It leads me to think things like.... what could undermine this corporate fascist dominated system? Economic depression? That would be bad for me.

Peak Oil... that would be bad for everyone.

The collapse of American military empire around the world? That could come on the tails of depression and a peak in global energy production, and might not be so bad for any of us.

The collapse of the dollar? That seems like a bad thing.... but could it enable the rebirth of manufacturing and export driven production in the U.S?

----

I do believe firmly that we're all going to be bitterly dissappointed by the very small amount of change that will occur under Obama/Clinton/Edwards.

The only way to avoid that disappointment is to lower your expectations, detach from emotional involvement, and wait for bigger world historical changes to perturb the otherwise unperturbable corporate power structure that Democrats and Republicans are so deeply embedded in.

Change will come from history's and the planet's big trend changes.... the corporate fascist system will not be disrupted by the accidental election of a "Democrat" in place of a "Republican."

Sorry to bring you the bad news. Tend your gardens, care for your children, make your peace.

I partially agree. I don't think moveon manufactured anything. They were dumb enough to put the controversy out there.

But I do believe that the DC establishment Dems took full advantage of it. And using the controversy to improve the chances of these Dems to retain their power is one of the reasons, IMO. After all the moveon ad states that Bush's puppet general is lying; doesn't that support the 2002 Senate Dems who voted for this war because of Bush's lies? So this gives them cover.

It particularly gives cover to the favoriteDC Dem establishment candidate--Hillary. See, it's all because of lies--in 2002 when I voted for this war and now when the general reports "facts". A few more moveon folks are in a state of bliss with Hillary--and are less blissful about the only two Dem non-establishment candidates, Edwards and Obama.

And who did it undercut of the Dem non-establishment candidates? Why, Obama. (If Edwards were in the Senate, he would have also been a target with this.)

It also undercut moveon and moveon influence with Dem candidates who accepted money in 2006 from moveon--and if those candidates want to make up money from a moveon organization that I believe the Dem establishment expects to fizzle out, then these new folks better start marching with the establishment who can raise money for their campaigns.

The Dem establishment simply does not believe that there is any sort of serious movement going on outside of DC. It will fizzle. It won't last. Yet again, fols in the non-DC sections of the country are being ignored--or are "invisible" as in Hillary's ad which was yanked abruptly, probably because a lot of Iowa Dems feel that way about the DC Dems.

It's all about power--who keeps it and who feels threatened that they might lose it.

I have been a very strong Democrat for nearly 50 years. However, because of the Dems who voted for that vile resolution yesterday, I have decided to change my party affiliation to Independent. For the first time ever, I'm willing to vote for either party, as IMO, they are both horrid. I also gave all my money to MoveOn. Maybe they can field candidates who DO WHAT AMERICA WANTS, and will never give into the Bush Crime family's threats. We truly now live in a fascist country. The Dems just proved it.

I can. The first two are stark, raving lunatics, and the third is a pretty good Senator.

Look, it might have been a mistake, but you shouldn't lose any sleep over it. Who really cares how anyone voted on some meaningless sense of the senate resolution?

If you really think that, then why are you bothering to read political blogs?

That's true. The most important role a general has in the American system is testifying fully and honestly to Congress. He is not just another advocate or mouthpiece for the President.

Petraeus was, at the very least, deliberately misleading in his testimony. He should be the one being condemned for that.

By making it catchy, they knew it would get picked up and repeated by the media. MoveOn was trying to play the Republican game of getting the message out to people who don't watch the news and are not paying any attention.

To those people, it went from being testimony from a random general, who most people are probably going to trust without knowing anything about him, to a general that there is at least some reason to doubt.

In the end, does it make much of a difference either way? I'm not sure that it does. We're still stalemated, which means the war continues.

I disagree. I once thought it was packaging but I think the establishment party is pretty much rotten to the core. It's full of old fossils who were good in their prime and a new batch of DINOs who are just as happy voting with the Republicans as long as they can maintain the perks of being in the majority.

Until we get rid of this cast of bums, we're going no where. Fortunately, only 11% of the public is happy with the bums so there is hope for turning large numbers of them out but the problem there is that the rotten establishment is recruiting types like Klobuchar who have the power to single-handedly make a blue state like Minnesota vote like Mississipi in the Senate.

Things are as dire as I've ever seen them and an election is not going to help if this Congress comes back in 2009.

Oh BS! Leahy and the rest of the Dems are worthless.

As to defending MoveOn, doing something is better than doing the nothing the Dem congress has managed. I suspect that the whole mess has garnered lots of donations for MoveOn, which hopefully they will not use to support the more spineless of the Dems.

Being "divisive" is certainly on point if you're trying to stop a war mad minority from continuing a war that has displaced 4 million Iraqis no doubt the majority children.

The Democrats in Congress just want continued cover as they vote harmoniously with the Republicans to continue funding it. The Democrats are betraying all the Americans who voted for them in 2006 because they wanted to end this war.

Maybe movon could create a new ad to tell that story. I'll send them some money to do it.

I'd blame the Dem leadership, not a freshman Senator, for those failings.

And saying you can't distinguish her from Inhofe is ridiculous. Say hello to the Scalia/Thomas majority with that thinking.

We're scrambling together too many issues, perhaps because MJR tends to react from his gut, perhaps because we all must right now. One is whether the MoveOn ad was a necessary calling the general to account, as Hoppy argues, before his political ambitions advance further. Others think it was a disaster.

I think Hoppy's argument is wrong on the face of it, since if the ad makes the general look good, it can only help his ambitions. And, conversely, the fears that it has done so and criticism of MoveOn, I suspect, are overstated, since outside the Beltway no one seems to have cared about his testimony. It changed no minds. 

But note that we're talking about strategy, not morals here. And that's as it should be. Let the GOP do their pretense of moral dudgeon.  I only wish we could have the same realization that this is a practical issue when we come to the filibuster, but I'll have to make that a separate comment. 

But meanwhile, the second issue in the mix, the congressional vote to condemn the ad. I find that reprehensible and shameful. It is not the business of government to condemn political speech. I'm particularly disappointed in Feinstein. On the other hand, even Clinton did not support this, and Obama distanced himself from it. So again