Nothing has changed.

Apparently it's okay in Alabama....

What the Senate tried to stop Senator Warren from reading on the Senate floor

Full text available here.

I think they forgot Poland...

Paul Krugman explains.

Blog sprinkles

Bryan of Why Now? remembers the veterans.

Dogs and kids welcome back home returning soldiers while Senator Tom Colburn (R-OK) blocks a veteran's care bill. Losing vets who don't have health care.

David Horsey's cartoon is fantastic as usual:



Excellent interview with Vice President Gore about his new book.

The good, the bad, and the horrific about sex workers.

Blackwater's crimes beginning to be defined:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly comments on the collapse of the Senate as a functioning legislative body:

Facing extraordinary crises and challenges, the United States has a legislative branch that is barely able to legislate at all. The system can see the problems, but is struggling badly to address them. The first step in changing the way Congress operates is creating the demand -- most of the public has no idea that the Senate no longer operates by majority rule. Public frustration can lead to proposals, which can lead to debate, which can lead to solutions.

Phila of Bouphonia on the stupid Stupak amendment:

The idea that a woman must play second fiddle to a fetus, on the grounds that some enterprising sperm cell planted a man's flag inside her -- as though it were a submarine claiming drilling rights in the Arctic Circle -- is scientifically illiterate, theologically dubious, ethically unworkable, and morally incoherent. And I'm sick unto death of the idea that the ever-so-precious tax dollars of these oh-so-sensitive control addicts mustn't be spent on abortion. Especially since my equally strong feelings don't entitle me to opt out of funding two grotesque wars, or detention centers and border fences for immigrants, or the state oppression of women and gays; or paying the salary of a reactionary fuckhead like Bart Stupak; or providing high-quality healthcare to politicians who refuse it to others.

Phila's wonderful flag imagery reminds me of this:



Canadian teenager survives three days on an ice floe.... with polar bears.

Also from the Guardian:

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

Steve Bates of The Yellow Doggerel Democrat keeps an eye on the promised closing of Gitmo.

15 funny pet videos.

Oliver Willis caught the essence

Of the moronic questioning of Judge Sotomayor.

Where did he get those wonderful pics?

It's not normal

And really fucked up.

Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly explains: (my bold)

But there's another detail that the Post article didn't mention, and which is summarily ignored by the political establishment: we're dealing with a procedural dynamic that has never existed in American history. There's never been a time in U.S. history in which a Senate minority caucus could simply stop the majority from bringing all bills and/or mildly controversial nominees to the floor for a vote.

I'm not trying to pick on Bacon and Kane here, but the piece makes the current dynamic -- every vote gets a filibuster, and it's up to an easily-divided Democratic caucus to overcome this hurdle -- seem customary and normal, as this is just the way the American government has always operated.

It's not. Without a hint of debate, the rules have changed, and mandatory supermajorities on everything have become routine. Matt Yglesias recently noted, "This is a very new 'tradition' in American governance, it goes against everyone's common understanding of how democratic procedures are supposed to work, and there's very little reason to believe that the results will be beneficial in the long run."

Quickly and quietly, the political establishment came to accept that 60-vote minimums on everything of significance are customary. It's become something everyone simply "knows," despite the fact that this is a fairly radical departure from American norms.

If the nation is comfortable with this dramatic departure from the way the system was designed to function, fine. But let's not pretend this is normal.

Do you think we can get the Democrats to stop being such wusses and actually show some muscle? Stop kowtowing to the Republican power structure? We got a mandate last election, we need to use it. Dammit.

Be careful where you point that finger, Senator Graham

Think Progress:

...Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) criticized Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for being absent for so many Senate roll call votes...

[see the video]

Of course, Graham failed to mention that his candidate, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) remains the most absent member of the Senate, beating even Obama. McCain has missed 63.8 percent of the votes in the 110th Congress; Obama has missed 45.5 percent.

Go, Franken!

ROCHESTER, Minn. - Al Franken won a resounding endorsement for the U.S. Senate on Saturday from Minnesota Democrats, quickly dispatching with concerns about jokes that offended some and promising a tough challenge to Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.

"To the people of Minnesota, let me say this: I'm not a perfect person," said Franken, a former "Saturday Night Live" writer and performer. "I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers. But I'll tell the truth, I will keep my spine, and I will work for you."

Playing chess in Congress

Means you have to know how to make the rules work for you.

Via Atrios at Eschaton, Kagro X of the Daily Kos:

The RESTORE Act, H.R. 3773, passed the House last year without including retroactive amnesty for the telecom companies and sent it on to the Senate.

When the Senate took up the issue, it opted not to deal with H.R. 3773, but instead passed its Rockefeller-backed FISA bill (S. 2248) that did include retroactive amnesty. And there was a tremendous uproar among immunity opponents over the procedure the Senate used, making the Bush-backed Rockefeller legislation the base bill, and the immunity-free Judiciary committee bill the substitute, creating an uphill battle for the fight against immunity. That situation created a lot of ill will toward Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Everyone remembers that.

But here's the interesting part. Rather than send S. 2248 to the House once it passed, Reid sent the bill on a little detour. With the unanimous consent of the Senate, he stripped out the language of H.R. 3773 and substituted in the language of S. 2248, vitiated the passage of S. 2248, and sent the amended H.R. 3773 back to the House.

That put the House in the position of considering the Senate amendment to H.R. 3773, as opposed to the original version of S. 2248. What difference does that make? Well, it makes no substantive difference, in that H.R. 3773 as amended now included retroactive immunity, along with all the other garbage we didn't want the Senate to pass.

But as I've stressed a number of times, control of procedure can, in the end, control the substantive outcome.

So, what's a House that's opposed to retroactive immunity to do? Amend H.R. 3773 to take it back out, of course. And that -- along with a number of other substantive improvements -- is what Chairmen Conyers and Reyes plan to do, in the form of an amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3773.

Sounds like a joke, doesn't it? The sort of thing people say when they make fun of the legislative process: the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3773.

Only guess what's special about offering an amendment to the amendment that isn't true of just starting over with a new House bill that doesn't have immunity in it?

You can't move to recommit an amendment to an amendment.

So the House gets to strip immunity (and the other junk) back out of H.R. 3773, and the Republicans can't just undo that work with a motion designed to peel off Blue Dogs. If the amendment to the Senate amendment passes, it pops right back out of the House and goes back to the Senate on the express bus, no stops.

And there's more. It arrives back in the Senate in privileged form, as a message from the House (the message being: we amended your crap) the consideration of which is not subject to filibuster. To be sure, the Republicans (or anyone willing to stand in their shoes) can filibuster the actual debate on the House amendment to Senate amendment, but they can't filibuster the question of whether or not to even have that debate, as they can with most other legislation.

That doesn't mean we're out of the woods, of course. The Senate, at Jay Rockefeller's urging, can still decide it wants to overlook the ridiculous trail of surveillance overreaches and lawbreaking in the "administration's" use of surveillance tools that emerges with each passing day. The Senate, at Jay Rockefeller's urging, can still decide that it quite inexplicably continues to trust the Bush-Cheney "administration" with these tools and that they want to blindly continue in their almost childlike belief that they'll somehow be able to exercise oversight of these immense new powers, despite all of the roadblocks the White House routinely throws up in the way of even the most routine inquiries.

Wow.

Diaper Dave subpoenaed

WASHINGTON -- The "D.C. Madam" served a subpoena Tuesday on Sen. David Vitter, R-La., requiring him to testify about his use of the Washington, D.C., escort service federal prosecutors say was a prostitution ring.

The subpoena calls on the freshman senator to testify at a federal court hearing Nov. 28 looking into the business operations of the $2 million escort service Deborah Jeane Palfrey operated in the nation's capital for 13 years.

Vitter has acknowledged being a client of Palfrey's company, Pamela Martin & Associates, and his telephone number appeared six times in the firm's phone records between 1999 and 2001, when he was a member of the House of Representatives. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

[snip]

Palfrey's attorney, Montgomery Sibley, said Vitter is being summoned to testify about what transpired during his sessions with the escorts. Sibley said he thinks Vitter might have been a client of Neble, and the subpoena also requires him to show up with any records relating to her or the service.

[snip]

Vitter declined to say whether he would honor Palfrey's subpoena or challenge it. A spokesman said, "Sen. Vitter is completely focused on critical Louisiana priorities in the U.S. Senate."

Uh huh. Riiiiiight.

George, Dick? About that war with Iran...

Thirty senators say no:

We are writing to express serious concerns with the provocative statements and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S. military action in Iran. These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy.

This includes the Senate vote on September 26, 2007 on an amendment to the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment, expressing the sense of the Senate on Iran, and the recent designation of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, should in no way be interpreted as a predicate for the use of military force in Iran.

We stand ready to work with your administration to address the challenges presented by Iran in a manner that safeguards our security interests and promotes a regional diplomatic solution, but we wish to emphasize that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress.

Bursting in on meetings?

Is this new weird behavior? Or just the usual weird behavior?

Washington (AHN) - President Bush interrupted a meeting involving White House officials and GOP Leaders Monday night to tell them he did not plan on giving in when it came to keeping troops in Iraq.

Officials said they were shocked that he came into the meeting. According to reports, Bush was friendly yet adamant about his message.

The incident came the night before a Senate meeting discussing troops in Iraq, which Majority Leader Harry Reid threatened to be an all-nighter.

Reid is expecting a test vote Wednesday on an amendment that would begin troop withdrawals before the end of this year and have most of them pulled by spring 2008. The amendment was proposed by Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, and Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed.

"We're going to work on this amendment until we get an up or down vote on it," Reid said.

According to reports, the meeting on Wednesday will be complete with roll-away beds in case it really does go all night.

The meeting interrupted by the president was attended by White House representative Tony Snow and another White House communication staff member Ed Gillespie as well as republican leaders.

I was just following orders

Another rock overturned.

Von Spakovsky, they wrote, had been instrumental in overruling career attorneys who objected to voter ID laws -- such as the infamous case of Georgia's 2005 law, which was ultimately blocked by a federal appeals court, likened by the judge to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.

But in his testimony before the panel yesterday, von Spakovsky said they had it all wrong. He was merely one counsel among many there, and when he was asked his opinion, he gave it; he was not "a decision maker." He nevertheless defended the division's stances, even though, he argued, they weren't his decisions to make. Here is under questioning by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) about the Georgia voter ID law::

Israel looks beyond its warring neighbors

And blames Iran:

The first immediate result of the internal Palestinian clashes is that the IDF will suspend its operations. Israel traditionally does not get involved when Hamas and Fatah go at it, especially when that is exactly what the terror groups would like.

The assumption is also that this will not be the last conflict between Hamas and Fatah. Predictions are that while the Egyptians will once again step in and obtain a fragile cease-fire, it is only a matter of time before the groups once again hit the streets.

Then there is the northern front, where Syria is beefing up forces along the border and procuring advanced military systems alongside Hizbullah in Lebanon, which is, Israeli defense officials said last week, back to its pre-war strength.

Like the PA, Lebanon is a case of a moderate US-backed leader who is proving weak and incapable of quelling factional violence. For weeks now, Prime Minister Fuad Saniora's Lebanese Armed Forces have been battling Fatah al-Islam in the Palestinian refugee camps, but without a clear and decisive victory.

At the epicenter of all of these seemingly isolated conflicts is the region's true troublemaker - Iran.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah and Syria are all funded by Teheran, which continues to ignore international pressure as it races towards obtaining nuclear weapons.

Noting these ongoing conflicts, UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen's dismal prediction for the Middle East on Monday, his warning of a "dark picture" emerging, and increasing chances of regional conflict, should not be taken lightly.

(Remember right after Bush's second term, Cheney talked about Iran being at the top of the to-do list.)

Kinda explains this:

This morning on CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) strongly advocated preparing for a strike against Iran.

"I think we have to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. Host Bob Schieffer followed-up: "Let's just stop right there. Because I think you probably made some news here, Senator Lieberman. You're saying that if the Iranians don't let up, that the United States should take military action?" "I am," Lieberman responded.

Lieberman added that "if there's any hope" of stopping Iran's nuclear program, "we can't just talk to them.... We've got to use our force and to me that would include taking military action."

What does he think he's doing? Does he really think Iran will just cower and take it? We're talking a whole different type of country here...It's huge and well armed.

Bryan of Why Now? has this quote:

IRAN has threatened to launch a missile blitz against the Gulf states and plunge the entire Middle East into war if America attacks its nuclear facilities.

Admiral Ali Shamkhani, a senior defence adviser to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned that Gulf states providing the US with military cooperation would be the key targets of a barrage of ballistic missiles.

Update: fixed moronic grammar. That's what I get when outrage mixes with sleepiness!

Igor battles off the charge of the pitchforks and torches

And lives for another day:

...the no-confidence measure on Alberto Gonzales came up seven votes short of a procedural hurdle, passing 53-38. The vote was largely down party lines, except for seven Republicans who supported the measure (Coleman, Collins, Hagel, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Sununu) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), who opposed it.

To focus on the children apparently. To really really focus on the children:

GONZALES: You know, I’m focused on protecting our kids. I just left a conference in Miami earlier today where we were talking about the threat of nuclear terrorism. That is something that really concerns me.

I was in Mexico the end of last week meeting with my counterparts from Mexico, Central America and Colombia. We were there to talk about violent crime and gangs and guns. That concerns me. That’s what I’m focused on.

I think that’s what the American people expect the attorney general of the United States, is to be focused on making sure our country is safe from terrorism, making sure our kids are safe from predators, making sure that the public trust is being upheld. And that’s why we go after public corruption. Making sure our neighborhoods are safe from violent crime, from gangs, from guns, from drugs. That’s what I’m focused on.

Oh, great. Thanks, Senators!

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Yea Alexander (R-TN), Nay Allard (R-CO), Nay Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Nay Biden (D-DE), Not Voting Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Bond (R-MO), Nay Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Yea Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Bunning (R-KY), Nay Burr (R-NC), Nay Byrd (D-WV), Yea Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Clinton (D-NY), Yea Coburn (R-OK), Not Voting Cochran (R-MS), Nay Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Nay Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Craig (R-ID), Nay Crapo (R-ID), Nay DeMint (R-SC), Nay Dodd (D-CT), Not Voting Dole (R-NC), Nay

Domenici (R-NM), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Yea Durbin (D-IL), Yea Ensign (R-NV), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Nay Feingold (D-WI), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Nay Grassley (R-IA), Nay Gregg (R-NH), Nay Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Nay Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Nay Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea Levin (D-MI), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lott (R-MS), Nay Lugar (R-IN), Nay Martinez (R-FL), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Murray (D-WA), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Not Voting Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Present Sununu (R-NH), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea Thune (R-SD), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay Warner (R-VA), Nay Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Something to look forward to on Monday

The Senate will hold a vote of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this Monday. Time to keep track of the votes.

Anyone who has confidence in Abu Gonzales at this point is beyond saving and should lose the next election. They're for torture, for infesting partisan politics into the judiciary, against the quaint Geneva Convention, against Habeas Corpus, for an unitary government.

They are against the Constitution and our system of government.

Remember their names.

They've been waiting a long time for this

And time is of the essence. looseheadprop at Firedoglake:

I suppose we should not blame the GOP too much: look at the example the President has been setting, treating the most important work in the world like a no show job. Which may explain why during the first quarter of 2005 the Republican dominated 109th House was in session a grand total of 164 hours over 27 days. By contrast Nancy Pelosi has kept the House members nose's to the grindstone for 407 hours over 49 days.

These folks were not just punching clock. The Pelosi-led Democratically controlled House of Representatives has already held 213 roll call votes and passed a total of 176 measures as compared to the 90 roll call votes held in the House during the first quarter of the 109th Cong. which managed to pass only 61 measures during that period. Can you say SLACKERS?

Over on the Senate side of the Capitol there are similar improvements. For example, Give 'em Hell Harry has presided over a Senate which has held a total of 230 oversight hearings in the first three months of 2007 (including appropriations and hearings devoted to the Iraq war), but the 109th Cong Senate held only 111 oversight hearings during the same period in 2005.

Has anyone considered that Abu Gonzales

Has spent the last decade completely bombed out of his mind?

"I now understand I was involved in a conversation with the president."


Wait a minute... was that the president?

Him or the Cheshire Cat, Abu.


Update: Jurassicpork of Welcome to Pottersville offers an excellent overview and the video of Jon Stewart's take on Abu's ... performance at the hearings.

The idiot announcer called it a heated exchange

But I'd call it an extremely polite rolling over with the steam roller.

Barbara Boxer never raised her voice.