Respect the Dodd
And pretty much no one else. Mona gave you all the links downblog. Me, I was really depressed about the FISA bill all the way home. And what I was thinking about was the story of Sodom and Gamorrah, and how the Lord told Abraham he’d forebear to destroy the places if Abraham could find even ten righteous men there, and what a low standard that seemed, which was the point. And I greatly admire Chris Dodd for what he did. None of the Presidential-candidate Senators who couldn’t be bothered to come back to Washington to stop this thing deserve the least support or even respect.
But it’s not enough. Ten Senators out of a hundred voted against this awful bill. One Senator was willing to deploy the full prestige of his position to stop it. It’s not enough, and it’s only a temporary stay. I expect so little of the governing class and they still fall short.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 18, 2007 @ 12:36 am
What the Dodd did is cool, but we should leave him alone and let him get some rest. I respect the Dodd’s privacy.
Comment by mds —
December 18, 2007 @ 9:26 am
It’s weird about the “ten righteous senators.” Senator Kennedy was one of the people who had The Dodd’s back during his talk-a-thon, yet he presumably voted for cloture on the Motion to Proceed to debate. (Jeez, this gets complicated.) Were some of these people going to vote against cloture on consideration of the bill itself?
And Cernig is a little bit harsh. Yes, numerous senators failed to show up for the cloture vote on the Motion to Proceed, but if there’s sixty votes for cloture, it doesn’t matter what the count is in the “Nay” column. And again, this wasn’t floor debate over the FISA bill itself.
Comment by joe —
December 18, 2007 @ 10:44 am
On the off chance the Dodd doesn’t win the nomination, he’d make a terrific Majority Leader.
Comment by bdr —
December 18, 2007 @ 11:12 am
Jim, at least one of our two senators did honorably.
WTF is w/Mikulski?
Comment by Jim Henley —
December 18, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Mikulski is the Honorable Senator from Fort Meade. Go Cardin! He justifies his pre-election UO endorsement . . .
Comment by Barry —
December 18, 2007 @ 11:40 am
“Comment by mds —
December 18, 2007 @ 9:26 am
It’s weird about the “ten righteous senators.†Senator Kennedy was one of the people who had The Dodd’s back during his talk-a-thon, yet he presumably voted for cloture on the Motion to Proceed to debate. (Jeez, this gets complicated.) Were some of these people going to vote against cloture on consideration of the bill itself?”
We’ve seen this before – make a public speech, and then vote the other way. During the GOP Congress, cloture was great for many; vote for cloture, and against the bill. Even though the bill was guaranteed to pass, so cloture was the key vote.
Comment by mds —
December 18, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
No, see, the thing is, it was the other way around. Kennedy was backing up The Dodd during the maximum 30 additional hours of debate after the cloture vote. That’s what confused me. I know it’s a faint hope to grope for strawplans, but I just wondered if there were certain possibilities I was missing in the whole “Motion to Proceed cloture vote -> 30 hours of debate -> Motion to Proceed floor vote -> Begin debate on SIC bill -> SIC bill cloture vote” process.
Comment by Steve —
December 18, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
We’ve seen this before – make a public speech, and then vote the other way. During the GOP Congress, cloture was great for many; vote for cloture, and against the bill. Even though the bill was guaranteed to pass, so cloture was the key vote.
And Kennedy had pledged to support Dodd during the filibuster itself (by addressing questions at 20-minute lenghts to the filibustering senator, their allies can provide time for them to sit down and drink a glass of water or whatever). It’s weird; I suspect there might be some Rules of Order or Senate procedural gunk involved.
Sherrod Brown, for whom I voted, was one of the Ten Righteous Senators. Good for him. (Weirdly, Jon Tester, who talked a very good game about repealing the Patriot Act during his campaign, voted for cloture.)
Comment by Thoreau —
December 18, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Although we should never give Senators the benefit of the doubt, since some questionable cases are being pointed out here I wonder if it’s possible that the procedures are so arcane that some of them voted against Dodd either out of ignorance or tactics. For instance, I recall that Trent Lott once voted for a bill that he opposed because when the Majority Leader votes for a bill in the early stages of debate it gives him the right to invoke certain procedures later on.
Normally I wouldn’t give any Senator the benefit of the doubt, but when 10 Senators are able to over-ride 78 I have to assume that there’s some serious procedural shit going down, and not everything is what it seems.
Comment by Cala —
December 18, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
Go, Dodd, go! I want to get to the part where the Rohirrim overrun the Senate.
I hope Thoreau’s suspicions are correct because otherwise I am even more annoyed by the total wussiness of the Senate.
Anyone else beginning to think that when Abraham said, “but what if there are 50/40/etc?” that God wasn’t being a hardass but trying to talk Abraham down to a reasonable number? “Abe, my boy, you have to understand that getting ten honorable men anywhere isn’t easy… don’t set the bar too high…”
Comment by wjw —
December 18, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Look at the “Ten Honorable Men” question this way: The vast majority of the Senate has voted to stand with the Executive Branch against the rights of the people. How did we get to this strange place?