Gotta love how they “support our troops”.

Meanwhile, our troops and military families are stretched to the breaking point. But for Warner, it’s more important to jump through Bush’s hoops. How low will he stoop?

PREACH ON!! If they want to debate let them. They will give more and more sound bites showing their true colors. IF they bring up any valid points (and that is a BIIIIG IF), then you can address them, otherwise, let them bury themselves. The beauty of it is it still takes the high road. It isn’t an underhanded or dirty trick. It is using the procedures as they were designed to be used.

(awesome name too 8-)

If I understand correctly, the minority must sustain the discussion and if they cannot, then the vote proceeds. If it appears they have run out of breath, vote for cloture. If it again fails to close discussion, well then they should feel free to keep talking, but make them sustain it. I can’t find anything that holds the Democrats to having to participate in the debate itself at all.

From Wikipedia:

As a form of obstructionism in a legislature or other decision making body, a filibuster is an attempt to extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay or completely prevent a vote on its passage. The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a supermajority group of 60% of senators brings debate to a close by invoking cloture.

This seems to me to be the biggest mistake that the Majority is making. We are allowing them to obstruct through threat without ever requiring them to follow through with it. Let them talk. Let them talk as long and abotu whatever they want, just as the procedure provides for.

Make them follow through and draw the attention to themselves. Over and over again. If other bills or actions are being delayed because the Republicans actually do continue their discussion, that is what the Democrats should be bringing to light when they are being interviewed. “We would like to move on to bill x, y and z, but the Minority has chosen to invoke this procedure and we are respecting their decision. When they have decided that they have had their fair say and that we can proceed with the simple majority vote on Bill A, we will move forward. Until then, the Republican party has the floor as is required by their actions.”

Stop allowing them to drive a 60 vote requirement into the public consciousness. I bet that with as many times as this has happened of late that if a poll was taken asking what the requirements are for a vote to pass the Senate, some percentage would now believe that it is a 60 vote majority.

Senate Majority leaders. Make them follow through. Please.

Nice to see that Warner wants his entire political career to be summed up by his pathetic “lackey” status on every issue close to Dear Leader W’s heart

good one… … i heard another the other day, from randi…
something like:
dubya calling the return of 30,000 troops a withdrawal,
is like saying childbirth is a weight-loss plan…

cracked me up…
.

you do that so well!… i’ve been listening too, but could not even TRY to reiterate that message as eloquently as you have… thanks!

and THAT is the answer to my question above, i fear…
they do not want the dems to have credit for anything positive…

it is up to the dem leadership to make that fact known –
loudly and repeatedly… the repugs are obstructing the will of the people…
…

You miss it again. The issue here is NOT Petraeus. It is that the troops need a rest – you try and derail the issue by claiming this false outrage about ONE AD, but not outraged about the extended tours, the substandard care, the waving of benefits claiming “personality disorders” instead of PTSD – AFTER THEY SERVED in combat. The fact that you choose one General’s potentially hurt feelings over those nameless hundreds of thousands that are sweating, bleeding, and dying in the battlefield of Iraq, exposes your exploitation of the troops.

I shouldn’t, but in response to your pitiful “my general is better because he is there now” argument. The other generals WERE IN CHARGE. Two resigned in protest, and two were replaced – one by an ADMIRAL which, in American history, has never led a ground war, that isn’t their job. The other two weren’t listened to in the beginning. Like I said, the one currently in charge is there because those who put him there like what he has to say – true or not. You can keep clouding the issue and getting outraged when one Soldier is slammed and you also keep quiet when TONS of others that have spoke out were slammed or silenced.

Hey brother, can you spare a loonie?

it’s not that they are married to this disaster of a president and his policies, they now seem to be caught in a trance-like obsession with him – like the deer in the headlights, they know the wreck is coming but they can’t seem to be able to swerve out of the way. it’s like they’ve been so brainwashed in the republican mantras that they can’t realize the death by a thousand cuts they’re causing themselves. they truly are party over people.

so my point is that if we’re still at >100,000 troops in iraq and the continuing disaster it is, there really is no way to avert electoral disaster for the republicans in 2008, save for the cheating, of course.

well, there is also that next terrorist attack the wingnuts are now basically praying happens, sick bastards they are.