Mark Hemingway watched the Senate filibuster so that I wouldn't have to.
Not that this was anything like the kinds of filibusters that you got in the old days. Oh, no.
By Moe Lane Posted in Congress — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
And, may I give a big, hearty "Thanks!" for that? What with the new kid and everything, I simply couldn't handle the psychic trauma of paying attention to a ritualized melodrama provided by a political party that can count to sixty, but has to pretend that they can't.
By the way, if any of you reading this really thought that the Democratic Party was really going to come through for you on this one, let me give you a special message: it's your fault that they didn't. They tried, but you let them down at the crucial point. So you need to send them more money, in order to make up for your failure*.
Read on.
Anyway, the piece is Sleeping with Harry Reid - I'm telling you, it ain't your father's National Review - and it has some very nice bits in it. We start with Our Intrepid Reporter's visit to Capitol Hill in the dead of night... and prompt leaving:
The mystery vote eventually passes. Everyone files out of the gallery at this anti-climatic event. Again, I join a long line to reclaim my cell phone. The man in line behind me says, “So, wait… They voted to vote before 5 A.M. on a possible cloture vote that will happen at 11 A.M.?”
Yup, that’s exactly what happened. With all this crazy excitement, I could stay at the Senate, but why bother? There are moments in life that arrive not as we expect them. Such is tonight. I never thought I would get the call from one of the nation’s premiere political magazines to cover the endgame of the biggest war of my generation. I also never thought that I would ultimately decide the best way tackle such an historic reporting assignment is back at my apartment on a sticky summer night in Washington, basking in the iridescent glow of C-SPAN 2, sweating manfully, and pitching a succession of bottle caps into a wastebasket in the corner of the room. It’s enough to make any self-respecting reporter take their copy of Homage to Catalonia off the shelf and weep.
Some other bits:
2:05 A.M.
Cantwell begins her speech by reminding everybody at length how many of her constituents are fighting in the war, that there’s a Naval base in Bremerton, Washington, etc. Tom Harkin did the same thing, droning on about the number of Iowa farm boys he knows who’ve given themselves to the war effort. I realize Democrats feel they need to establish their martial bona fides as Republicans have more traditionally aligned themselves with the military, but this is trying way too hard. Cantwell might as well be saying, “Some of my best friends are of the soldierly persuasion. It’s a shame what they do to property values, but I’m learning to accept it when one of them moves into the neighborhood.”
10:20 A.M
Barack Obama finally graces us with his presence. He says he hasn't had a chance to speak until now because of “enormous backlog.” Backlog? What, was there was an invoice snafu at the warehouse of bloviation? Could no one just stop talking when they were supposed to? When they had filibusters in the old days, they used to resort to reading the phonebook to keep the floor debate technically active. Now you can’t get senators to shut up for the cameras even at 4 A.M., an hour when the only possible large constituency they could be addressing is meth addicts.
11:34 A.M.
Senate leaders duke it out on the floor. “The only reason we stayed in all night was to provide a bit of theater on an important issue,” Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says. This comment does not sit well with Reid who hastily retorts (or as hastily as one can retort in parliamentary proceedings) that: “This is not a movie we are involved in.” Which is a damn shame, because I would have hired Michael Bay to direct, had giant robots tear apart the Senate, and given it a happy ending about ten hours ago.
Read the whole thing. That's pretty much it...
Actually, no: I do have an observation to make. Harry Reid ended with a quote from Gladstone, apparently. "You cannot fight against the future. Time is on our side." Very pretty; but let's look at some more of the text.
Sir, we are assailed ; this Bill is in a state of crisis and of peril, and the Government along with it. We stand or fall with it, as has been declared by my noble friend Lord Russell. We stand with it now ; we may fall with it a short time hence. If we do so fall, we, or others in our places, shall rise with it hereafter. I shall not attempt to measure with precision the forces that are to be arrayed against us in the coming issue. Perhaps the great division of to-night is not the last that must take place in the struggle. At some point of the contest you may possibly succeed. You may drive us from our seats. You may bury the Bill that we have introduced, but we will write upon its gravestone for an epitaph this line, with certain confidence in its fulfilment—
' Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor.'
You cannot fight against the future. Time is on our side. The great social forces which move onwards in their might and majesty, and which the tumult of our debates does not for a moment impede or disturb— those great social forces are against you : they are marshalled on our side ; and the banner which we now carry in this fight, though perhaps at some moment it may droop over our sinking heads, yet it soon again will float in the eye of Heaven, and it will be borne by the firm hands of the united people of the three kingdoms, perhaps not to an easy, but to a certain, and to a not far distant, victory.
As I said, very pretty: it was part of England's Reform Bill debates in 1866. For those of you who unaccountably lack any interest in Victorian England, the bill was introduced by Gladstone's Liberal party; it was a measure designed to moderately increase the franchise among working men. It died, thanks to the machinations of Conservative politician Disraeli, who first split the Liberals over the bill, got the Russell government to fall, engineered a Conservative replacement - and then proceeded to introduce a drastically more radical bill in 1867 that significantly increased the size of the electorate. Gladstone and his Party got their revenge by winning the next general election; the parties traded back and forth for a few decades... bear with me, I'm about to explain why you should care.
The reason why you should care is that we're getting a bit of the mixed signals from old Harry, here. By using this quote, I can't see myself being able to conclude one of the following:
1). Senator Harry Reid is so committed to ending this war that he'd be willing to give Congress back to the GOP if that's what it would take. "...it will be borne by the firm hands of the united people of the three kingdoms," remember? Nothing in there about England's political parties, so nothing about America's in Harry mind, either. That means that all those differences between the parties wrt stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, the role of the judiciary, foreign trade, immigration reform, faith-based initiatives, missile defense, nuclear policy, ANWR drilling, gun control, everything else that's not the War in Iraq? Harry will let us have control over the agenda with a smile, just as long as we move the troops out. He'll just hand over that gavel, knowing that he'll thus be worthy of being thought Gladstonian. This is his dream**.
2). Senator Harry Reid told a staffer to find him a good quote.
You may, of course, pick either conclusion as it suits you. I would note, though, that if you picked 1). the Democratic Party really does have to insist that you get that check or money order to them ASAP.
Moe
*It's not about whether I think that you're that stupid; or even whether they think that you're that stupid. It's about whether you actually are that stupid. And whether if you're acting that stupid.
**Interestingly, there are members of the GOP that would take that deal. I note merely this for completeness, being a strong supporter of Conclusion 2).
The comments about Webb's seemingly endless forehead and permanently furrowed brow are right on the mark. I caught some of the late night "debate" as well and it was like a sick comedy....
I could not believe Harkin did not actually put himself to sleep from boredom. He was awful.
As Hemingway hinted, each Democratic Senator seemed to start out reading from the exact same obligatory script: "I love and support our troops. But [fill in number of troops from your state killed in Iraq] brave [fill in in description for people from your state, e.g. 'Iowans'] have died and enough is enough." I was waiting for one of them to slip up and have an "I, state your name" moment like from "Stripes" or whatever movie that was.
These Senators do live on a different planet than we normal folks do. Hatch ended with "Mr. President, absquatulation is not a policy." Well actually he ended with "I yield the floor," but who cares about that when you can wonder what the heck 'absquatulation' means?
For a while I thought that each Senator had his own tie, but they all shared the same suit. That thought ended with Whitehouse. He must either shop at Goodwill or the clearance racks at J.C. Penney. He had a medium blue suit with a light blue shirt and a garish orange tie. If it had been a navy blue suit perhaps it would have reminded one of an Illinois or a Syracuse football uniform, but instead it just created such a clash of mismatched colors that I could not even bring myself to listen to anything he said.
The other oblitaory part of the script for each Democrat was to stand in front of the same "Let Us Vote" sign and ramble about how absolutely horrible it is that the Republicans would use a procedural trick to force a super-majority vote on
all judicial nomineesa piece of legislation. I thought a few of them were going to break into tears, but that would have violated the script apparently. Worst in this regard was Senator Menendez, who has this amazingly pompous style of speaking that reminds one of William Shatner at his worst. He repeated the "simple majority vote for majority rule" line at least a dozen times it seemed. What else I noticed about him - and I'd seen this in some earlier debate - is that he must have some separate podium in front of this blue screen where he speaks. Is he a volunteer for some C-SPAN2 experiement where when they show playbacks later some other background is overlaid? Or are Hispanic Senators relegated to a special section of the chamber?It was all very sad to watch - I'd sooner have given up the entertainment aspect and had these guys actually trying to do some good for our country instead.