If somehow a "short extension" (that Bush would not veto) were agreed to tomorrow. We can't have the Democrats putting us at risk of death like this, after all.

It looks like Landrieu didn't change her vote. So 4 Dems voted for cloture. Here's the roll call: http://tinyurl.com/2fb6b6

Here's the roll call on the extension vote: http://tinyurl.com/yrwsj8

Dems have left us defenseless against Obama" club to swing, or because they didn't want to take the miniscule chance that DiFi's amendment would pass, and the further miniscule chance that the FISA court would actually secretly rule against the telecoms.

-- nicteis

Excuse me? You meant, Osama?

Some of you watch the Senate sessions more than I do, so what I saw today won't seem so strange to you. But damb. It's obvious that Mitch McConnell runs the Senate; Harry Reid is his bitch. Harry is "running" things as if he were still in the Minority Leader position, Mitch ordering him around like a particularly stupid intern or something.

Turned my stomach.

And the Dems want it this way.

Why?

Harry was worn out before he got to be "Majority Leader", and he has been a huge disappointment, not solely to the NetRoots and the Base. Feduppedness with his acquiescence to the merest flick of McConnell's little finger is rampant. Anyone who saw his performance today -- and oh, isn't it wonderful that the filibuster was sustained? -- has to ask, "Why is that man in a position of 'Leadership?' When obviously he 'leads' nothing; he is led. By the ring in his nose."

There needs to be a word that combines "sanctimonious" and "authoritarian," like one of those marvelous German compound words.

"Sanctoritarian."

How about "Santorumian"?

Cheers,

Is the media going to understand and be able to explain what the Republicans just did? Yes, that's a rhetorical question.

Based on past performance, the Post won't mention it at all, and the New York Times will run a story tomorrow entitled "Telecom VIctory in the Senate."

"Is the media going to understand and be able to explain what the Republicans just did? Yes, that's a rhetorical question."

Thanks Glenn, it is sad, but at least you made me laugh a little.

Deblacksmith

"Is the media going to understand and be able to explain what the Republicans just did? Yes, that's a rhetorical question."

my honest thought is the only likely "media" to do so would be The Daily Show. but even then, i think they'll have enough material tomorrow with just the SOTU.

I'll watch Olbermann until 9 p.m. then I'm throwing in a Netflix movie I've had for a few weeks to escape "The Scene"....(Bush lying and the Dems and Repubs standing, sitting, clapping, standing, sitting, clapping for more lies and more lies and more fear mongering etc.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk1vEuhBuEU

Here's the synopsis of my Netflix movie, "It's a Gift": The iconic W.C. Fields stars in this comedy masterpiece as Harold Bissonette, owner of a grocery store, husband of 20 years to the nagging, status-conscious Amelia and father of two bratty children. When Harold hits upon a scheme to strike it rich by buying an orange grove in California (HA!!!!), thus begins a hilarious adventure as the family sets off to the west coast. Needless to say, things don't quite turn out as they expected!

Once the movie is over I can simply log on to "Crooksandliars.com" to watch the "highlights"of the SOTU lies. It's kind of the way I look at a Sunday afternoons offering of football: Skip all the games and commercials and just watch the highlights at 11.

Plus I'll be MUCH HAPPIER than any of you who are willing to witness the whole, ugly matter.

I'm sure the President will make a very heavy-handed reference to the failure of the Senate Republicans to stop the cloture of this bill..by telling us that our "freedom and security are at a great risk" by not automatically passing this damned bill.

He'll make it plain, loud and clear, that he's disappointed that his agenda is not being met by his henchmen, and that he's going to have to take them out to the woodshed for a good talking-to..or worse.

I hope to god the entire bill dies in motion and the entire Senate goes home to ponder their excesses. It's high time we got breathing room from the goon squads posing as Homeland Security, with their obnoxious, illegal and criminal laws, such as the Patriot Act, etc.

Too soon to cheer? Let's wait and see.

How about "Santorumian"?

I also thought "authorimonious," but that almost sounds sweet.

The Brattleboro, Vermont Select Board last week approved a petition for presentation to the town's upcoming annual town meeting that will allow town residents to vote on whether George Bush and Dick Cheney should be arrested and indicted for war crimes, perjury and obstruction of justice if they ever set foot in the state.

The Rutland Herald reports the question will be taken up on March 4.

"It's an advisory thing," said one of the petition organizers.

Based on past performance, the Post won't mention it at all, and the New York Times will run a story tomorrow entitled "Telecom VIctory in the Senate."

"Bush Criticizes Dems for Blocking Eavesdropping Powers"

"Democrats block FISA renewal -- as of Friday, NSA loses key surveillance powers"

"Dems refuse to allow vote on FISA renewal"

knows how to at least thumb their noses at the bastards, unlike the democrats in the senate and house.

We must be on similar wavelengths today. I had "authorimonian" in mind. It could also be spelled "authorimoanian" if one wanted to give extra emphasis to the whingeing aspect of these folks.

Whenever Bush says "dudn't," (doesn't) "wudn't, (wasn't) or "idn't, (isn't): one drink.

Whenever Bush says "some" (democrats) want something patently wrong or evil, although none actually have: one drink.

Whenever Bush whistles an "S" like a drunk: one drink.

Whenever Bush inappropriately elongates a syllable with a petulant whine: one drink.

Whenever Bush says something that isn't true: one drink.

Better have a whole case of something ready.