Feinstein Warns Republicans Not To Stop Iraq Debate

[lligrd]

Kinda funny, considering she never answered my letters and emails (aside from an occasional form letter) warning her of the consequences of supporting it.

Feinstein warns Republicans not to stop Iraq debate By Susan Cornwell
Sun Feb 4, 2:10 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) on Sunday warned Republicans not to block consideration of a measure opposing President Bush's troop increase in Iraq, saying it would be a "terrible mistake" to prevent debate on the top issue in America.

With a Senate vote set for Monday on whether to consider the bipartisan resolution, Feinstein warned that if the nonbinding measure is blocked, even tougher proposals against the president's Iraq policy will surface before long.

"It's obstructionism," the California senator fumed about Senate Republican leaders' strategy to prevent debate on the resolution by Sens. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), a Virginia Republican, and Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), a Michigan Democrat.

<<more>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/politics_feinstein_dc;_ylt=Aq2gz20Z9PbTOa_2te1JgPbMWM0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

[jody]

1. "She never answered my letters and emails"! Did you expect her to reply? n/t

[gasperc]

2. how can they prevent debate?

I thought to filibuster was to block the resolution from coming to a vote so debate would continue they would just block final passage. Am I mi-understanding something? Is there another step involved, amendments, etc that could put off opening debate of the resolution?

[crickets]

7. Yes, amendments are one of the strategies

But not necessarily amendments to the Iraq resolution itself. The tons of amendments to the minimum wage law were proposed not just because Repubs can't stand giving the little guy a break, but because the longer the Senate bogged down on minimum wage, the longer it would take to get to the Iraq debate at all. I heard at least one Senator angrily call them on it during floor remarks but unfortunately I can't recall who it was.

[jamesinca]

11. Ted Kennedy called them on it N/T

[crickets]

13. Thanks - I thought so, but I wasn't sure. Go Ted! nt

[gasperc]

14. TPM did an excellant explanation

he posted a lawyer's proposal and then explained what happened.

The argument was over have a majority or 60+ vote to cut off debate. There were three resolutions in play. Levin-Warner, then Hagel-Warner(I think) and then Judd Greg's ruse.

TPM explains it better but in the end the GOP cut off the debate and the votes on the resolution because if it finally came down to the 60+ option the two resolutions would fail but Gregg's would pass and it essencially said Congress should fund what ever the president does, that what happened. See TPM to get a better, detailed explanation.

[crickets]

15. At first I didn't know whether you meant Talking Points Memo or TPMmuckraker :)

I found it over at Talking Points Memo. You're right, that was a great explanation of what happened. (*sigh*) Thanks for the tip! I really ought to spend more time reading both blogs. They are excellent.

Somebody has probably started a thread on it, but just in case:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012302.php

[rodeodance]

3. glad to see her speak out about this.

[niceypoo]

4. Shut them out of the debate

like they did to us for six years

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. Perhaps it would have been better if she hadn't, and they then

lowered the boom well and truly.

[knight_of_the_star]

6. Thank you!

High time we started playing hardball right back at them. They've had it coming.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

8. Too Late

They already filibustered the Levin-Warner bill.

Warner filibustered his own bill!

[burrowowl]

9. Well, they just did eom

[The Stranger]

10. I'm sure you have them skeered, Difi. (They're probably laughing their asses off.)

I'm sure they are mocking her use of such big, scary words. "Obstructionism!"

Ooga-booga! :woohoo:

[zara]

12. In light of GOP filibuster, she looks rather ineffectual, no?