GOP shows how to end the war with 41 votes not 60

[yurbud]

The one thing you can say in the GOP's favor is that they are willing to go balls to the wall, bet it all, then when they lose, double down.

The Democrats by contrast have gotten a little bolder in their words since gaining the majority but seem convinced the Republican minority can hamstring them with a filibuster if they try to do anything substantive.

I wish to fuck they had thought of borrowing some of those tactics the last six years.

But then, I don't think they are being careful of Republican feelings but of the money interests behind the scenes that choose the range of choices we get:

• Would you like your war with humanitarian window dressing?
  
  
• Self defense window dressing?
  
  
• Democracy spreading pablum?
  
  
• or would you prefer bare-faced looting and slaughter?
  

It's like going to IHOP. You have your choice of syrup, but you're going to get pancakes, and you better damn well like them.

It Only Takes 41 Senate Votes to End the War. Republicans Show the Way.
Filibuster to End the War Now!

By JOHN V. WALSH

We hear over and over again that it "takes 60 votes to get something serious done in the Senate." That is a lot of malarkey. It takes only one senator to begin a filibuster against any bill. And then it takes only 41 votes to uphold that filibuster and prevent any proposed law from coming to the floor.

Thus, the present authorization for defense funding in the coming fiscal year can be stopped cold if it contains funds for the war on Iraq. And this can be done by just one courageous Senator, backed by 40 colleagues.

Let me propose the following scenario. Just one Senator, Ted Kennedy or Russ Feingold or Robert Byrd, arises in the Senate and declares that he will filibuster the present defense authorization bill if it contains funds for the war on Iraq or Iran. That bill is then dead unless there are 60 votes (3/5 of the 100 Senators) to end the debate, i.e., to invoke cloture. That is it. Bush no longer has the funds to prosecute the war. He has to come back with a funding bill acceptable to the 41.

At the same time the filibustering Senator could put forth a resolution similar to Congressman McGovern's in the House, which is aptly named "The Safe and Orderly Withdrawal Act." It provides funds to ensure the withdrawal of U.S, forces from Iraq in a way that guarantees their safety, and no other funding for the war. If the opponents of our hypothetical, courageous Senator wish to oppose such legislation, let them go on record in so doing. They are then on record as refusing funds to bring the troops safely home.

THE REST:
http://counterpunch.com/walsh02082007.html

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Makes sense to me!

[Dogmudgeon]

2. At Counterpunch, Democrats are the bad guys

Man bites dog. Good is evil. Everything you know is wrong. They are consummate intellectuals but they don't even know How A Bill Becomes A Law.

Worth reading -- but not uncritically.

IMHO.

--p!

[yurbud]

3. if you know the nuance, why is the process different for GOP?

and when they controlled congress and Clinton was in office, they figured out how to jam him up but good and go through trumped up impeachment charges to boot.

[yurbud]

4. do you want us to just be happy Dems won and have faith they will do right?

I get sick of the mindless football team mentality. It's not about which team wins, but what they DO. If they do nothing, they are still better than GOP, but not by much.

[bemildred]

5. That whole "we can't debate" scenario was bullshit.

They MAKE the rules that they say won't let them debate. I like Mr.Walsh's argument here too.