Updated:House FISA Debate over Dems Cave Again

Updated
Its over, dems cave again. Yeah Charlie Brown, I'll hold the ball, and you kick it. This time I PROMISE I won't pull it away....

DEBATE is on CSPAN now. They don't have it labeled but you can get it if you go to the site.

http://www.cspan.org/...

Not sure what Nancy is up to but GOP congressmen are pissed off so it must be pretty good.

Just saw this at CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An angry group of Republican House members accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Saturday of delaying a vote on President Bush's legislative priority -- a measure amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Earlier in the day, House Democrats rearranged the schedule to place the measure in third place, after an energy bill and funding for the Defense Department.

snip

The vote isn't expected until after midnight Saturday, which has some Republicans fuming.

Well if they are fuming, I guess thats good.

"Last night, the Senate passed this bill at about 9:30. Now it's almost 1 o'clock. We should have had the FISA bill on the floor the first thing this morning," Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan told reporters in the early afternoon.

snip

"We could have passed a rule and passed this bill by 11 o'clock this morning, and it could have been on its way, and the president could have signed it," said Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

Poor guys coulda been out of town on their lobbyist purchased boats by now !

snip

"All but one Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee voted for it," House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said. "If it's good enough for the Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats, it would seem to me it should be good enough for House Democrats.

Yeah thanks guys... pulling a Petreus, just as I predicted yesterday.

Any idea what Nancy is up to.... or is she just trying to play mind games.

•  Tip Jar

  by CTMET on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 04:59:38 PM PDT

  •  Whatever she's up to, it's time for...

    ...a full court press by us on the House side. Tine to fire up the Congressional phones, faxes and e-mail addresses!

    by Faheyman on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:04:18 PM PDT

    •  Find contact info

      Find your representatives contact info at Congress.org or via the House Directory (less user friendly in my opinion).

      by forbodyandmind on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:06:53 PM PDT

      •  Thanks for that! Didn't have links handy. n/t

        by Faheyman on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:10:49 PM PDT

    •  Awww. Republicans probably know

      that Bush is eager to cut brush in Crawford. Perhaps he'll have to delay his trip in order to sign the bill. He can't go to Crawford (or Camp David) and make it look like the bill isn't that important after all, now can he?

      by madgranny on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:43:24 PM PDT

      •  Besides...the repubs are already

        spitting mad about some of the maneuvers the House Dems did Thursday. I heard Rahm Emanuel (on c-span)saying that the repubs had given them no choice, that they had broken a prior agreement so that was all that the Dems were left to do. I understand that whatever they did is now going to a "special select committee, with subpoena power". It will "investigate Republican allegations that Democratic leaders had stolen a victory from the House GOP on a parliamentary vote last Thursday".

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

        by madgranny on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:53:03 PM PDT

        •  The Roadblock Republicans just can't stand it

          when Pelosi and friends challenge their shit. I wish the Senate leaders had power like the House does (at least while we have the majority ).

          by madgranny on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:54:52 PM PDT

    •  they are pissed because

      the schedule put the energy bill to be debated first.

      I dont see what difference it makes when this bill is voted on though, the only difference for us is whether or not it is defeated.

      Perhaps Nancy delayed the bill so WE would all be asleep as the house gave away another of our dwindling constitutional protections.

      by KnotIookin on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:55:59 PM PDT

      •  If the Repugs have to work more than 2 hours

        they get pissed off.

        And yes, I mean 2 hours a week.

        by PatsBard on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:14:23 PM PDT

    •  Called my Republican representative already

      but Mary Bono sides with Bush 99% of the time.

      by blue drop on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:56:31 PM PDT

      •  I called John Conyers office just now ...

        Someone actually answered the phone...I talked to them and Conyers won't vote for it and said they were trying to influence others not to...

        I am now asking her to get them to stop the session.

        get this:

        She actually said she'd give them the message.

        Hopefully she wasn't putting me off.

        Please everybody phone your congresspeople.

        There is nothing more important than stopping this vote.

        If the Bushies don't respond to subpoenas then why do we have to be in session?

        by TalkieToaster on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:31:55 PM PDT

        •  doesn't matter if he doesn't vote for it

          if he didn't object to the bill coming up in the first place.  dems conrol what bills even get a vote so they are solely responsible for the bill passing, even if they did a phoney baloney "this violates the constitution" bullshit afterwards.

          by wearewatching on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:12:01 PM PDT

    •  so kids

      what do you think Nancy is up to?  Or is she up to anything....

      by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:02:19 PM PDT

      •  She's hoping to miss the news cycle. n/t

        by java4every1 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:11:26 PM PDT

        •  sad

          but probably true, again.

          by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:11:59 PM PDT

  •  They are debating the bill right now

    on C-Span.  Pelosi just delayed the vote until the middle of the night so the American people won't see what they are doing.  I wish this were something positive, but I'll believe it when I see it.

    by Boston Boomer on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:26:44 PM PDT

    •  Can someone Liveblog this

      I have used my diary for the day.

      by ctsteve on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:28:08 PM PDT

      •  I tried but

        it insists I've used my diary, although I haven't.

        by prodigal on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:35:16 PM PDT

        •  Strange

          Same thing happened to me.

          by seeker on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:14:13 PM PDT

    •  Great Boston minds think alike. I just

      made basically the same comment downthread before I read yours.

      by oibme on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:46:41 PM PDT

    •  ti's not like there is no youtube.

      there might be another reason it's been delayed.

      by DawnG on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:48:00 PM PDT

•  Good on Nancy. This should NOT

  have gone through the Senate.  Feinstein is one of my senators and I have told her office how disappointed I am.  There is a diary up with an "explanation" from Jim Webb that doesn't fly.

  by bloomer 101 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:02:02 PM PDT

  •  I let Feinstein have it, too

    I fed up to the teeth with her, and will do my damndest for any Democrat with a better track record who challenges her in the primary.

    If not this upcoming election, then in further elections. I've got a long memory and been a California resident for 25 years -- plan on living the rest of my life here, and don't plan to do it under Feinstein.

    by judybrowni on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:36:42 PM PDT

    •  I did the same with my Senator, Claire McKaskill

      n/t

      by admiralh on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:53:32 PM PDT

  •  Well, here's the question

    Why is Pelosi bringing this up to a vote at all???

    by echatwa on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:38:20 PM PDT

    •  So that she can pretend that she tried.

      She'll wait till victory is assured, then throw the fight. Just like she has every other time.

      by khereva on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:07:46 PM PDT

      •  Here's my theory

        The conservative Democrats were probably threatening to sign a Republican discharge petition bringing the bill up to the floor by force, and Pelosi pre-empted them to avoid embarrassment, instead of showing some real LEADERSHIP and holding those Democrats in line.

        by echatwa on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:14:49 PM PDT

    •  Too bad there is no filibuster

      in the House.

      Is Nancy bringing this up in the middle of the night in the hopes that some of the supporters will get tired and go home?  Or is she trying to protect Dems from their sure to be irate constituents?

      by litigatormom on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:23:55 PM PDT

      •  It's not middle of the night

        The vote is over. 43 Democrats voted with the Republicans. Obviously, Pelosi did this to protect the coward Democrats.

        by echatwa on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:13:46 PM PDT

•  Is Looselips Blount correct?

  "All but one Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee voted for it," House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said.

  I've seen several claims here that there was a 4-4 split of the Dems there.

  by Elwood Dowd on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:03:46 PM PDT

  •  No - Blunt is wrong

    Rockefeller, Feingold, Whitehouse voted against it - and one other Democrat, can't remember right now. But for sure Whitehouse and Feingold spoke during the last moments and were outright AGAINST.

    by paige on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:08:52 PM PDT

    •  blunt wrong????

      say it ain't so! I can't imagine blunt spinning anything. He's as reliable as o'reilly.

      by dougymi on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:13:51 PM PDT

      •  Well question is he ignorant, evil, or both.

        by CTMET on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:15:04 PM PDT

        •  I don't know about evil

          but mendacious and ignorant for sure.  The guy wouldn't know the truth if it smacked him upside the head.

          by dougymi on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:16:30 PM PDT

          •  That souds like a good idea.

            Truth smacking him, that is.

            by justme on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:43:03 PM PDT

      •  Thank you, dougymi, for that laugh.

        by madgranny on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:56:42 PM PDT

    •  Wyden also voted against. n/t

      by bartman on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:27:50 PM PDT

    •  Also, Wyden n/t

      by dharmafarmer on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:43:51 PM PDT

  •  From rec'd Webb diary

    no in bold, right? (21+ / 0-)
    
    John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia
    Dianne Feinstein, California
    Ron Wyden, Oregon
    Evan Bayh, Indiana
    Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland
    Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin
    Bill Nelson, Florida
    Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island

    I don't know why this isn't up on the US Senate roll call website...

    I choked on your post. It nearly killed me. Hitler killed people. Your post is just like Hitler. - Pope Bandar bin Turtle

    by Buffalo Girl on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 04:00:14 PM PDT

    by forbodyandmind on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:10:13 PM PDT

  •  That was the Senate, not

    the House Intel committee.  

    by Boston Boomer on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:28:04 PM PDT

    •  Okay - I don't know what you're correcting

      The House hasn't voted for it, so the House committee members haven't voted for or against.

      by PatsBard on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:33:05 PM PDT

      •  Don't the committee members have to vote

        on a bill in order for it to be presented to the full House?  That's certainly how it works in the Senate.  I thought it was the same in the House.

        by Boston Boomer on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:48:54 PM PDT

        •  Ah - I see - I don't know

          Hopefully someone will clear that up then.

          by PatsBard on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:11:57 PM PDT

        •  Bill was introduced on the floor

          It doesn't have to go through committee.

          by willb48 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:13:39 PM PDT

    •  Which would be why

      Blunt said Senate Intelligence Committee.

      by Elwood Dowd on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:04:43 PM PDT

•  Maybe just demonstrating

  that Congress, not the President, sets the legislative priorities.

  by S wapiti on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:04:09 PM PDT

  •  But but but...

    Nancy is cutting into the precious yacht time Republicans get with their friends at Abram-om-off, Inc.!  She can't do that!  Wuaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

    by deaniac83 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:38:26 PM PDT

    •  They'll have to go straight to the 19th Hole

      Hate it when that happens!

      by PatsBard on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:16:04 PM PDT

•  Time to think

  Maybe she's concerned about the speed with which the Senate OINOs rubber-stamped this and she's trying to head off a little buyer's remorse in the House.

  by Blue Boy Red State on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:04:54 PM PDT

•  Any chance this will go down in the House?

  Democrats do have a bit more of an edge in terms of numbers in the House than in the senate.

  by corwin on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:05:51 PM PDT

  •  That's what I'm thinking n/t

    by Caneel on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:06:34 PM PDT

    •  But on reading CNN report ...

      Last night, the House rejected a Democratic version of the FISA bill, 218-207, with a two-thirds majority required for passage,

      by Caneel on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:10:36 PM PDT

      •  They need two thirds to pass this one???

        Why?

        by CTMET on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:21:05 PM PDT

        •  or are they assuming a veto on the other.

          by CTMET on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:21:19 PM PDT

        •  Rules Suspension

          I don't know about this one, but I think they need 2/3 majority to pass when suspending rules since it didn't go through the usual process.

          by cronian on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:14:40 PM PDT

        •  No they don't

          Last night was a special procedure, "suspension of the rules", requiring 2/3.  This is standard procedure requiring half + 1.

          by seeker on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:18:21 PM PDT

  •  I wouldn't bet on it.

    as I noted downthread, Bush will call a special session and send everyone out to the Sunday talk shows to accuse the Dems of being soft on terror.

    by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:08:45 PM PDT

    •  I'm hoping for a minor amendment

      Say, requiring the AG to cross his heart before invoking the thing.

      Just enough to force a conference.

      by Elwood Dowd on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:11:34 PM PDT

      •  That wouldn't solve the dilemma

        that the Dems see themselves to be in.

        by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:18:32 PM PDT

        •  As Einstein said " the same mind that created a

          problem can't solve it." They have to start thinking differently!!!

          by Tanya on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:24:36 PM PDT

        •  What dilemma is that?

          That they can't support a policy 70% of the electorate supports?

          How lopsided does it need to be?

          by ek hornbeck on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:32:18 PM PDT

          •  That 70% number is a canard -

            it reflects how many people feel Bush is not doing a good job - it doesn't reflect how many people can no longer be influenced by using the "terra" meme in a full-fledged propaganda war, which is what Bush/Rove would do.

            Don't get me wrong, ek - I think/hope/wish the House would defeat this bill.  And I'm not being an apologist for the congressional Dems.  But too many of them are not thinking like we think.

            Look at the Dem Senators who voted for this bill yesterday - we could have listed them from the start, and they included nearly every one of our "netroots wins" - Casey, Webb, McCaskill.

            by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:45:30 PM PDT

            •  Then we need to get their attention.

              I hear 2 x 4s work on mules.

              And a "full-fledged propaganda war"?

              Well he hasn't arrested them and sent them to Gitmo.

              But he could and we're just supposed to be ok with that?

              Pfui.

              by ek hornbeck on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:56:53 PM PDT

              •  And here is a poll for you-

                CBS News/New York Times Poll. July 20-22, 2007. N=889 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

                .

                "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

                .
                              Approve Disapprove  Unsure  
                                 %        %          %  
                ALL adults      25       69          6
                 Republicans    57       38          5
                 Democrats       5       93          2
                 Independents   24       70          6

                .
                7/9-17/07       25       70          5
                6/26-28/07      23       70          7
                5/18-23/07      23       72          5

                by ek hornbeck on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:07:09 PM PDT

                •  I get your point ek, but again -

                  you don't seem to be getting mine. Yes.  You're right. People have finally started figuring out that Iraq and terrorism are two different things.  That's good.  They're "getting it" on Iraq.  This poll shows that.

                  But this poll you quote has nothing to do with terrorism, and the way in which both the MSM and the general population have been trained by the Bushies to be Pavlov's dogs:  some accident or disaster happens:  all across the country, the first thing people think and ask is "was this another terrorist attack on us?"  The first thing the MSM does is rush to get ask the question of some government official.  The first, most important piece of follow-up news, which is then broadcast every five minutes is "there's no indication that this was a terrorist attack."

                  So long as that question is the first thing that springs to the mind of the majority of Americans, so long as the MSM repeat the assurance over and over, then so long are Bush and Rove still winning, still able to use "terra" as a blunt object with which to bludgeon anyone who dares challenge them.

                  by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:27:23 PM PDT

                  •  And you pander to that meme...

                    instead of denying it.

                    It is not true.

                    You are enabling this attack.

                    by ek hornbeck on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:00:23 PM PDT

      •  I know you are snarking, but I don't want anybody

        but a judge (even conservative 4th circuit) authorizing this on a case by case basis.

        Plus no retroactive immunity.

        by Habanero on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:02:51 PM PDT

    •  I don't think Bush wants to do that

      if he calls an emergency session of Congress, several things happen:

      1. No recess appointments!  Heh, I kind of like this!

      2. Democrats get to talk more and more and more about the unmitigated disaster that Bush has made out of the US Intelligence community - from outing a covert CIA agent to illegally spying on Americans to ignoring briefings tittled "Osama Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the US" as "historical document" to their intelligence manipulation to lead the country into war in Iraq.

      This issue is not a winner for Dubya in the Sunday talks.  So if he wants to do it, bring it on, I say.

      by deaniac83 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:46:14 PM PDT

      •  You and I may agree on that

        but it's pretty clear that he and the Dems agree that it would be a winner.  Or at least the Dems are not willing to risk it.  Unfortunately.

        by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:59:14 PM PDT

      •  No recess appointments

        Sounds like a great idea.  I really thought the Dems would jump on an excuse like this to keep Congress in session.

        by horsepatsy on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:03:17 PM PDT

  •  I sure hope Pelosi and Hoyer hold tough for U.S.A

    They are what seems to be the last protection for the Constitution.

    by Los Diablo on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:30:22 PM PDT

    •  c'mon Steny!

      I'll believe it when I see it, though ...

      by mightymouse on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:02:05 PM PDT

  •  when I talked to Congressman Berman's Office

    today the staffer didn't know how he was "personally" going to vote, but said that she heard it would be an overwhelmingly vote for "yes".

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:05:11 PM PDT

  •  No. nt

    by protectedmode on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:15:14 PM PDT

•  CNN: "Accusations fly"

  GOP makes noise - CNN frames the story from their point of view.  Clearly implying that Nancy is doing something wrong.   http://www.cnn.com  

  I wonder what would've happened if the Democrats had made this much noise when they were in the minority -- would they have caught the MSM's attention?

  by diana04 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:06:06 PM PDT

  •  You should already know the answer to that NO n/t

    by eaglecries on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:08:35 PM PDT

    •  But they also didn't make this much noise

      The GOP never goes down without a knock-down, drag-out fight.  Can we say as much for our Dems?

      (Of course, the media would then portray them as being difficult and obstructionist, which they never say about the GOP).  

      by diana04 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:24:26 PM PDT

  •  start calling CNN and emailing

    they listen to the ratings and if the sense a backlash to their reporting of this they might change their angle.

    by Tanya on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:22:58 PM PDT

  •  Accusations? Monkeys!

    Monkeys are flying out of John Boehner's behind!  Get'em!!  Flying monkeys!!

    by deaniac83 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:40:59 PM PDT

  •  No.

    this has been another episode of "Simple answers to simple questions"

    by DawnG on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:49:29 PM PDT

•  It's unlikely she'll delay it permanently

  though.

  Bush has already hinted that if the House doesn't pass the exact same bill the Senate passed, he'll call a special session of Congress and pull everyone back to DC.

  Not, in itself a bad thing, but the Dems still fear Rove's ability to manipulate the MSM into blaming the Dems for being soft on terra.

  by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:07:41 PM PDT

  •  SO WHAT?

    Bush has already hinted that if the House doesn't pass the exact same bill the Senate passed, he'll call a special session of Congress and pull everyone back to DC.

    OOOOOH!

    by ormondotvos on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:09:58 PM PDT

    •  While they are there...

      perhaps they can start Impeachment hearings...

      by jigsaw68 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:12:25 PM PDT

    •  It's not being called back into special session

      they fear.  

      It's being called back into special session and risking the general public believing the lies and memes Rove will spin over denying this.

      Let's face it - the vast majority of Americans may feel troubled about the war in Iraq now, but they're simply not adequately educated on FISA and the true implications.

      That, and my own sig line, which translates roughly into "the people will be decieved".  As in they're willing to be decieved.

      I think the Dems should take the risk, of course, but I don't think they will.

      by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:14:49 PM PDT

      •  Let's face it:

        70% of Americans think Alberto Gonzales should be investigated by Congress.

        by Elwood Dowd on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:20:35 PM PDT

        •  Yep. but the war on terror remains one of

          Bush's only two bats with which to beat Dems (the other is accusing them of not supporting the troops.)  

          And the majority of Americans still buy into both of those.

          by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:24:50 PM PDT

          •  Not true.

            Democrats lead on both those issues according to all recent polling.

            In fact Democrats lead on ALL issues.

            by ek hornbeck on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:30:20 PM PDT

            •  Then what the hell is their excuse? n/t

              by bablhous on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:37:34 PM PDT

              •  What a very good question.

                If they put their jobs over the Constitution that is nothing but rank cowardice.

                by ek hornbeck on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:39:10 PM PDT

              •  Their spineless!!!

                by Tanya on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:39:32 PM PDT

              •  they're afraid

                of being called bad names and those envelopes with anthrax in them.

                by Shirl In Idaho on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:49:47 PM PDT

            •  That's literally true, but the lead isn't

              nearly enough to instill confidence that the Dems could get away with defying Bush on this; it's still closely divided enough to be an effective propaganda bat for Bush/Rove in the short-term, perhaps.  Or at least that's what the Dems fear.

              by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:39:50 PM PDT

              •  So what margin is sufficient?

                70% of Americans want out of Iraq.

                The answer is NO margin is sufficient for cowards.

                by ek hornbeck on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:44:30 PM PDT

                •  Yeah. because enough Americans

                  have finally realized that Bush hornswaggled them by conflating Iraq and Terror.

                  Just becuase 70% have figured that out, it doesn't mean 70% have decided that they're no longer afraid of terror.  That is why, regardless of the poll numbers, screaming "terror! terror!" still works for the Bushies.

                  I mean, think about it - what is the first thing that happens when we have a "disaster"?  

                  The steam tunnel in NYC?  "Homeland Security is telling us that this doesn't appear to have been an act of terrorism"

                  The bridge in Mpls?  "Homeland Security is telling us that this doesn't appear to have been an act of terrorism"

                  And on and on.  It's still his most powerful tool, and like it or not, it's still an effective one.  

                  I mean, really.  I was sitting with two people when the news about MPLS came on - both of them raving liberals, both of them from MPLS.  And the first thing either of them said as the news broke?  "Oh, my God!  Is it a terrorist attack?!?"

                  by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:52:02 PM PDT

                  •  You should find other friends.

                    Everybody here in Stars Hollow found the MSM hype ridiculous and laughable for it's transparent pandering.

                    Nobody buys that "orange alert" stuff anymore except the credulous 30%.

                    Just another missing blonde.

                    by ek hornbeck on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:12:13 PM PDT

                    •  I've always admired your thoughts and

                      opinions, but now you're just being a jerk.

                      by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:30:57 PM PDT

                      •  I am factually reporting...

                        that among the people I meet in Connecticut, many of whom lost someone close in 9-11, that meme no longer gets anything but snorts of derision.

                        If your experience is different, it is.

                        by ek hornbeck on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:46:26 PM PDT

                        •  No. You're also denigrating

                          my friends and acquaintances.

                          by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:48:53 PM PDT

                          •  Why do you think they buy into it then?

                            Are they just uninformed?  Not surprising given the state of the MSM.

                            Yet you know better and trot that out as an excuse.

                            Are our Congresspeople as ill informed?  Can they claim that excuse?

                            If they do, what are we paying them for?

                            by ek hornbeck on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:55:33 PM PDT

                            •  I don't have the answer to that.

                              I never bought into it and it doesn't make any sense to me, but it exists.  Not as an excuse. I pointed it out as a fact that it's the first question many people ask when a disaster happens.  Because it is a fact.

                              But I also don't have an answer to why you might believe a poll showing 70% of Americans being opposed to Bush on Iraq equates to 70% of Americans no longer believing Bush on Terrorism.  That also doesn't make sense.  The poll was on Iraq, not Iraq and Terror.

                              And look at the live debate on the FISA bill, right now:  what are the Repugs doing?  Exactly that.  Using it as a fear tactic.  Because they know that nowhere near 70% of the populace is inured from that fear.

                              by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:11:13 PM PDT

                              •  They are deceived.

                                Or are consciously fostering deception because it is simply not true.

                                To give it any credibility at all reinforces it.

                                Stop playing the Beltway game.

                                by ek hornbeck on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:20:05 PM PDT

                      •  I've had conversations...

                        with Armando where I thought he was being a jerk.

                        Now that he's gone I understand he was trying to help me clarify my thinking and he spent a lot of time on me because he liked me.

                        by ek hornbeck on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:04:36 PM PDT

      •  It's been a long time for latin,

        but doesn't it translate into "the people wish to be decieved?"

        by StrayCat on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:25:05 PM PDT

        •  Either interp is literally correct

          ;-)

          by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:29:48 PM PDT

    •  Good, then don't recess to begin with.

      That way, he can't make any recess appointments.

      by leevank on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:17:52 PM PDT

      •  That would be the solution.

        I understand the feeling that they need to get back to their districs so they can press the flesh during county fairs, but I don't understand why they refuse to recognize that the best option for dealing with this (and the risk of recess appts) is to simply stay in DC and continue commuting for weekends.  Hell, they could even go back to the Tue-Thur schedule the Repugs had set, if just for August, giving them all plenty of time in their districts.

        by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:22:22 PM PDT

    •  "The exact same bill"

      I truly hope that Pelosi and the rest of the leadership are not so foolish as to think that Mr. 28% is capable of making a case to the public that minor differences in the language are DESPICABLE.

      They just got through being rolled by the Republicans using exactly that tactic of stalling by different language on the ethics bill.

      by Elwood Dowd on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:18:41 PM PDT

    •  Yup and if it is such an urgent

      threat why in Gawd's name is Bushie threatening to veto any bill (even the one like the Dems proposed with only very minor changes)that addresses this issue.

      Comeon... Cheney/Addington Bushie's telling people (and he's known about the problem for a few months already but just happen to bring it up publicly recently) that it's his way or the highway or he'll veto it...can't be too urgent a need then if he would veto it.

      by emal on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:22:20 PM PDT

  •  No recess appointments!

    Sorry `bout that, Mr. Nussle...

    by JeffW on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:39:41 PM PDT

•  Sorry I doubt it

  Call me a cynic, but my bet is that she's putting it off until 3am so the Dems can cave and get out of town while everyone's asleep.

  I hope I'm wrong, but I'll be that's what we all read tomorrow morning.

  by the OTHER rasmussen on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:08:33 PM PDT

  •  Maybe you'll read it in the a.m.

    but I'll be watching.

    Hear that, CongressCritters?

    We'll be watching.

    by Remembering Jello on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:10:25 PM PDT

  •  I wish I had more faith.

    But I don't.

    by Castine on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:10:48 PM PDT

  •  Maybe she's hoping the GOP guys will

    fall asleep??? Doling out diet pills with caffiene for the dems?

    by CTMET on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:16:38 PM PDT

•  Anybody know which bill she's doing

  is it the exact Senate one?  If she's going to pass a bill she'd better pass a different one and force a conference to give us time (and another chance to filibuster/block in the Senate)

  by Builderman on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:09:32 PM PDT

  •  It's the senate bill that's scheduled to be voted

    on.  Not a different one.  Again:  If they vote on a different bill, hoping to forestall this and push it to a conference committee, they fear Bush will call them back into special session (he's hinted he would) and it's the political fall out of that which they fear.

    by aggieric on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:17:10 PM PDT

    •  Yeah that's what I feared n/t