Yes to supporting the troops: All Dems (except one not voting)

[ProSense]

YEAs ---56
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR


John Kerry:

I just came back from the Senate floor, and I have to tell you, I'm pretty steamed.

Republicans who love to give speeches about "supporting the troops," and so many of whom have said they disagree with the President's disastrous Iraq policy, just voted to side with the President over the welfare of our troops.

My colleague Jim Webb from Virginia (Jim's a Marine - and I say "is" because you're a Marine until the day you die, and the Senate's a hell of a lot better to have this Marine here) - Jim introduced an amendment that set 12 months as the maximum time soldiers could be deployed in Iraq, and also set a minimum time for them to be home in the States (so they couldn't just get rotated back out).

Any one who has ever worn the uniform of our country knows what a difference that time at home makes. But of course the "operational tempo" has had to be upped so high to carry out President Bush's escalation that the Army has had to extend tours and cut leave short. We're trying to protect our soldiers by making sure that ends.

But the Republicans won't even let it come to a vote. They'd rather side with the President and the President's Iraq policy than give our soldiers the treatment they deserve. It's outrageous.

You know what? I didn't plan to do this, but our Roadblock Republicans campaign back in April got a lot of people's attention, and helped to up the pressure on the GOP caucus, pressure that has resulted in so much Republican talk about how we need a new path. Well, I certainly welcome the sentiments, but we need to make sure there's action to back up that talk. Take a minute and donate a few dollars to the funds for the challengers of a few key GOP Senators.

Let them know we need action.

Members of the all talk, no action brigade and Lieberman.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. How about that nuclear option?

[MonkeyFunk]

2. Nah

the Nuclear Option was only regarding judicial nominations, and it required the assistance of the President of the Senate - i.e. Dick Cheney.

Plus it was a bad idea when the Republicans floated it, and it's a bad idea now.

[ProSense]

6. Fallout from "Nuclear Option

05/24/2005

Fallout from "Nuclear Option

BY JOHN F. KERRY

THE REPUBLICAN leadership's "nuclear option" would eliminate the filibuster and turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for even the most controversial of President Bush's judicial nominations. The arguments can seem obscure, but there will be consequences for all of us.

Snip...

The filibuster fight is more than a beltway battle. The very foundation of our government an effective system of checks and balances is at stake. Over 200 years ago James Madison warned us: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." We must remember that warning, and remember that the greatest strength and virtue of our democracy is the protection it provides to the minority.

If the Republican leadership gets its way, America will lose the protection of a strong, independent judiciary for the first time in history. In 1937, President Roosevelt attempted a court-packing scheme to assert his influence on the courts. His own party said no. Thomas Jefferson once attempted to impeach a Supreme Court justice who disagreed with his political agenda. His own party said no. I hope some Republican senators look at history and find the courage to speak truth to power in defense of our democracy.

[Strawman]

9. Ending the filibuster altogether is a better idea

But that requires a unanimous vote to change the rules. Not gonna happen anytime soon.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. I disagree

I don't want the filibuster abolished.

[Strawman]

12. I think history shows the filibuster to be the enemy of progress

I can understand how you might worry about what a unified Republican government could do without having to worry about it. Personally, I believe we'd have achieved a greater degree of social justice if 40 reactionary Senators couldn't effectively hold legislation hostage.

Conservative governments aren't very successful at taking away social benefits that extend to every citizen. And it wouldn't be any different here. I bet we'd have passed universal national health care legislation decades ago in this country if it wasn't for the Senate and the threat of the filibuster.

[napi21]

3. It's a great idea, but they need 60 votes to pass that too!

How the hell do think they could do THAT?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Really?

Because Republicans didn't have 60 votes last term.

[napi21]

7. Apparently they thought they could get 60. As far as I know, you need 60 for

cloture on any vote.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. No

they only needed 51 votes. It was a procedural maneuver that wasn't subject to filibuster.

I'm glad they didn't do it. We shouldn't either.

[endarkenment]

4. Lieberman (ID-CT)

ID obviously stands for idiot.

[ProSense]

11. Kick! n/t