Senate minority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) invoked "Rule 21" which cleared the Senate of all cameras and everyone not actually elected to the Senate. He did this to protest footdragging by the Republican leadership on the investigation of the Plame/CIA leak. While a dramatic gesture and one that will embarrass the Republicans greatly, I doubt it will really force any accountability on the White House. The Republican base will be just as energized by this as the Democratic base. So Republicans will be ready to fight this. But at least the Democrats are trying. That could get the vote out in 2006.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Alas, Sen. Reid's gesture will not embarrass Republicans at all. When it comes to protecting Bush, they have no shame.
The point of the measure, I think, was to demonstrate Democratic unity and a willingness to use Senate Rules in advance of the Alito nomination.
// posted by LTG
I heard on NPR that any Senator can call for a closed session, so unity is not required. Was Reid's willingness to use Senate rules ever in doubt? If you are correct, LTG, did it succeed?
It only takes a majority to go back in open session. That took Republicans 2 hours to muster, i.e., they had to bring in 50 Republicans.
// posted by Anonymous
Rule 21 or no rule 21, the Democrats have failed to define what they stand for, only what they stand against. Tonight, I was listening to an NPR show about Democrats' foreign policy vision. And the bottom line is they don't have one. And the Wilson Affaire is deeply embedded in discussions about foreign policy. I don't hear the Democrats talking about a new vision for countering threats, working with our allies, turning enemies to friends, playing fair on the international stage, etc. So for me, Ried's stunt, while nice, doesn't really speak to the average voter. It doesn't answer fundamental questions. It was an inside message to Republicans. I agree with LTG there.
// posted by USWest
Clinton had a foreign policy vision! It was great. It was based on expanding trade and simultaneously engaging with China while containing them by establishing better relations with Vietnam, India and Iran.
Now, I know there are those on this blog who oppose free trade but at least it's a peaceful foundation for foreign policy. The Republicans talk free trade but walk protectionism and war.
The problem the Democrats seem to be having is that the one coherent foreign policy they've had since Vietnam is based on free trade and the left wing of the party won't have anything to do with that.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Post a Comment