It comes across as the GOP obstructing votes on several broadly supported Resolutions as a maneuver to thwart a vote that could reflect badly on the President.

This may pander to the conservative base but the majority of voters will not appreciate it.

Isn’t that what I said all the time, CS? McConnell never seriously wanted to allow the Warner bill to come to the vote.

while also portraying it as though the GOP was blocking the debate

The GOP isn’t blocking debate?

The will fillibuster. 100%. The Warner resolution.

The GOP isn’t blocking debate?

Why should anyone want to filibuster him, it was alread questionable if he would get 51 votes. And generally, the Dems filibustering a bill while they have the majority sounds a bit ridiculous.

Well I agree, but still, the point is he wouldn’t agree to that compromise because he’d be giving up the right to filibuster the Warner resolution. I think Reid probably knew this and saw it as a way to prevent the other two resolutions from coming to the floor while also portraying it as though the GOP was blocking the debate.

Sryx, I disagree. Tactically, this may look good for the GOP, but strategically, it was a victory for the Dems. Almost all GOP Senators are now on record supporting the surge. The public is flaggergasted about the use of the filibuster in a vote that wouldn’t have been binding anyhow. This makes the republicans look incredible partisan and mean spirited. At the very same time, it dampens public expectations that the Dems will be able to make an decisive impact on the course of Bush’s presidency. Thi will make any Dem achievement look even more noteworthy.And what has the Bush gang gained, on the other hand? Nothing but a passing propaganda victory, showing that there are still some reopublicans in Senate. Nobody will care for this in 2008.

Thx, CS, know I see more clearly what you want to say. But, come on, there wasn’t a 60 votes hurdle fo McConnell. Why should anyone want to filibuster him, it was alread questionable if he would get 51 votes. And generally, the Dems filibustering a bill while they have the majority sounds a bit ridiculous.

I’m not saying there’s anything particularly wrong with what Reid did, but I’m calling it what it is: a political maneuver.

Damn those politicians who are willing to debate then vote on everything and see what passes. They’re always trying to scam us.

I am heartened by McConnell’s loyalty to the fillibuster, without which our government could hardly function.

Summary: Here’s what Reid wanted- primarily he’d have preferred debate/vote strictly on the Warner version. He wasn’t too concerned about the McCain version but he was concerned about making the Dems vote on the Gregg version. He offered a compromise that he knew McConnell wouldn’t accept so that he could politically maneuver McConnell into the position of appearing to want to avoid debate.

What McConnell wanted: for all three resolutions to be debated according to the normal rules of the Senate (which allow for filibusters, thus must have 60 votes for cloture). Senate rules can be changed and agreements can be made by the two sides (like the compromise that prevented the nuclear option on judicial nominees), so I’m not saying there’s anything particularly wrong with what Reid did, but I’m calling it what it is: a political maneuver.

Both sides were practicing political maneuvering. In the end I think it’s a wash because a) most Americans are paying no attention to this anyway, b) partisan Democrats will think that Reid came out ahead, c)partisan Republicans will think that McConnell came out ahead.

Sry, CS, I don’t understand this at all. Could you pls explain with a bit more detail?
And, btw, what I wanted to say about McConnel’s arbitrarily demand for a 60 vote approval is that he just created an impossible hurdle for the measure to pass, as an alibi. This shows he never intended to let the bill pass. This is entirely unrelated with the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. Afaik noone threatend to filibuster McConnel’s pipe dream, it would have gone done in normal vote.

I’m not exactly sure, but I seem to remember that the Dems not only filibustered nominees, but some bills, too, and that these arguments came up on the republican side when it happened.

If they did, Gray, then I’d say they shouldn’t have. But I do know that the idea of the nuclear option was specifically in the context of the votes on nominees.

I don’t think either side should try to change the rules for a particular situation just because of how it affects them politically. But you initially characterized this as a demand by McConnell for the 60 vote criteria. That’s a mischaracterization IMO because what he was doing was rejecting the idea that his party should agree to a rule change; your way of stating it sounds as though HE was trying to change the rules.

Yeah, life’s a bitch when you have to swallow your own medicine!

Yup, that’s what going on behind the stage.

“But don’t give me the “up or down voteâ€? nonsense. There’s no such thing as a nuclear option here because that was only in reference to the Senate voting on judicial nominees (because of the Constitutional issue that Congress can’t obstruct the president’s need to fill appointments.)”
Hmm. CS, isn’t it also correct that there’s absolutely no mention of something like a filibuster in the constituion? And that Senate rules can essentially be changed by a simple majority? I’m not exactly sure, but I seem to remember that the Dems not only filibustered nominees, but some bills, too, and that these arguments came up on the republican side when it happened.

It’s the insistence on 60 votes that gives the lie to Republican claims to welcome debate.

Look, obviously both sides are looking at these resolutions as political gamemanship. Since they’re nonbinding resolutions, that’s really the only point of them anyway, to try to trap the Senators from the opposition party into going on record with an actual position on the war and funding. I fully acknowledge that this is what McConnell wants to do, but it’s also Reid’s game that he wants the Dems to be on record as saying they oppose the surge but he wants soft language about cutting funding.

So yes, the GOP is unwilling to give up its right to filibuster because they don’t want Reid to win that game. But don’t give me the “up or down vote” nonsense. There’s no such thing as a nuclear option here because that was only in reference to the Senate voting on judicial nominees (because of the Constitutional issue that Congress can’t obstruct the president’s need to fill appointments.)

It’s the insistence on 60 votes that gives the lie to Republican claims to welcome debate.

Ok, you may have a point with this, too, Kim.
:-/

Right. This whole thing is a PR stunt in the first place, but GOP leaders don’t want to allow Dems this measly small victory. But, ok, they’re shooting their Senators into the knees by doing this, so let’s wait and see how this looks in 2008.