The failure of the Senate to achieve an open debate -- at least -- and the political commitment of each senator through a vote is really shocking. The New York Times has, in tomorrow's edition, an analysis of what took place in the Senate -- thank goodness. Enough with the tangled argument of EJ Dionne and similar efforts at understanding the playground politics of the Senate yesterday. I'm with the junior senator from Minnesota and probably many others who are appalled that a debate has been avoided.
Both parties are going to suffer from this . But the Democrats may suffer the most simply because they've managed to convince many that they have neither smarts nor balls. They have failed to defeat Republican machinations and get the necessary debate. If this is any indication of how effective Harry Reid can be as Majority Leader, we're in big trouble.
Okay. The Republicans are now at the level of steaming poop on the pavement. But the Democrats seem to be standing on the curb, on their tippy-toes and without a shovel, screaming "dirty! dirty!" Neither party can afford to lose any more respect. According to NPR this evening, the House is scheduling a three-day "debate" in which each member will be given five minutes for a statement. Not a debate. Face it -- a droning, CSpanned, 36-hour series of posturing speeches in the House just isn't going to compensate for the way in which the Senate has disgraced itself.
Republicans had laid a bit of a trap for Democrats, seeking a 60-vote threshold for competing resolutions on the war. They knew that the bipartisan plan by Senators John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, did not yet have 60 votes. But the plan calling for no reductions in spending, written by Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, was likely to get at least 60, meaning the only resolution that would have passed would have been one that essentially backed the president. Most Democrats are not yet ready to begin the politically charged discussion of restricting war spending. “There isn’t a Democrat here that wants to take monies away from the troops,” Mr. Reid said.
Idiots. All you needed to do was to make it clear you weren't taking monies away from troops currently deployed in Iraq, just stopping additional monies, troops, and support. Cenk Uygur and many others have got it: the Iraq's solution can only be found through diplomacy -- through political efforts. The White House and Republicans in the Senate have boxed Democrats into supporting a military solution. Do the Democrats see this at all?
“We have the high ground here,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “We have the high ground substantively. We have the high ground politically. We’re not going to give it up.”
Your "high ground", Mr. Schumer, is your proximity to that steaming pile. Don't look now, but I think you've got something sticking to your shoe.
