Saxby Chambliss is yielding to ?. Dunno because "due to the absence of a quorum, the Clerk has to call a Roll". The friggin' Senate is an Echo Chamber. Nobody there.

Curios. Same outcome - zilch, zip, nada.

The latter felt better, though. And was a tad more honest.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Bush_opens_wiretap_documents_to_Hou_01242008.html

http://tinyurl.com/37865m

Glenn, if this is a breach of protocol, please remove.

Reid Challenges GOP to Filibuster Anti-Immunity Provision

By Paul Kiel - January 24, 2008, 11:50AM

So here is where the FISA debate, which kicked off in earnest this morning, stands.

The first vote today will be on the Senate Judiciary Committee's version of the surveillance legislation, which contains no retroactive immunity for the telecoms who collaborated with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. That will be at two o'clock this afternoon. There is no agreement that such a vote meet a 60-vote threshold, so when the Republicans move to block that bill, the vote will be held on a 50-vote threshold. If they win that vote, then the bill will revert back to the Senate intelligence committee's bill, which has a retroactive immunity provision.

After that will come a number of amendments, among them Sens. Chris Dodd's (D-CT) and Russ Feingold's (D-WI), which contains a provision to strip the immunity from the bill. Reid says that he supports such a bill. And he said today that Republicans will have to actually filibuster if they want to stop any of the amendments from getting a simple majority vote:

"As I have said before, if there are Senators who don't like these amendments and think they should be subjected to 60-vote thresholds, these Senators are going to have to engage in an old-fashioned filibuster. These amendments are by and large germane, and I believe they should be adopted if a majority of the Senate supports them."

You can Reid's entire statement here.

When Reid said something similar yesterday, a number of people interpreted it as in reference to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) who has said that he would filibuster any bill that contained retroactive immunity. Now it seems as if that remark was meant for everyone.

As for what happens next, I think we'll just have to wait and see. We'll keep you updated.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005130.php

On substituting the JC Bill (no immunity) for the IC Bill (immunity).

10 traitorous Dems

Buddy of mine sent me this. It's "funny" at the end.

The unintentional humor of 'A Charge to Keep'

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14358.html

Enjoy.

(Fellow) Blognerds...

Are there any plausible theories as to why the 12 Dems who voted to table the SJC Bill voted as they did?

I intend to call all 12 On Monday. It would be helpful if I could address their concerns whilst imploring them to oppose cloture.

You might want to consider that to be more of a reflection upon you than 'bop...

I am myself often befuddled/bemused. And I think even if I weren't, the allure would all be lost in translation anyway.

I'm irritable today, and in 'n out, so apologies for any unwarranted testiness.

Occassionally, stuff like this

wildly and fervorously. I love to witness a happy beast.

Those gestures into the air make me wonder why do 'um just

love to grovel, grin, snarl, belch, and keep sniffing ooze?

especially given the history, just makes me laugh out loud. I'm still laughin'!

"Sniffing ooze"? 'bop, old man, how's the leg? 8')

Didn't you used to have some incrediblt intricate (Aztec?) artwork nefore you entered your site? Donde esta?

Not sure I buy that blackmail theory. Not that I'd put it past the GOPers, but what the hell can they have on so many people that its disclosure (in itself proof of illegal behavior by the admin.) would be so unthinkable?

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/26/mukasey-orwell-and-bradbury/#more-1726

or

http://tinyurl.com/2b6d8b

That's it. What is that? Some hallucinatory take-off on the Mexican flag? Did you create it?

Kagro X is something. I'm faxing that piece to 12 Senators tomorrow.

As evidenced by much of the commentary here, HRC is a quite divisive figure. The Clinton's will also say/do "alnost anything" to get HRC elected. Witness her latest push to have the Delegates from FL & Mich seated - after all the candidates agreed not to campaign there, and HRC herself was the only candidate in the Michigan ballot.

What happens in the General? If it's HRC, I, for one, write-in, or go 3rd party.

WT -thanks for that post.

Kitt, you nailed it, at least in part. Because that's what w do here... I don't know about you, but my $0.02 isn't all that welcome in too many other places.

I'm not too incensed about Obama as the "black candidate" for this simple reason (I've said it before, and I'll say it again)-

The VAST majority of those who will not vote for Obama because of his race, would never vote for a Democrat, anyway.

Perhaps overstated, (but only slightly): All Republicans are not bigots, but all bigots vote Republican.

From here (UT)? Or, there (FDL)?

GG's appearing on Democracy Now! tomorrow. (See Post Updates)

I might even buy everybody within arms' reach a round or two...

I know an excellent Irish Pub.

I used to watch DN! every single day ("taped" it) just so I'd be better informed about [whatever her topic of the day happened to be]. It got to be too darned depressing, frankly.

But I'll definitely cue up the DVR for your appearance, Glenn. She rocks! A true journalist, in the highest sense of the term. Here's hoping you can discuss next steps post cloture vote (Mconnell NO!, Reid YES!)