I'm really tempted to make a Chinatown joke here ("My mother! My sister!") but the situation is funny enough as it is. Will he or won't he? I guess no one is sure. Now that's Leadership! Reid denies, says the AP lies!

I almost feel sorry for Burris. AFAIC, he's not really that bad, and Blogo hasn't been convicted of anything yet. Seems to me the rather lazy IL lege needs to come back from vacation and do their jobs. Clearly, making this a national issue has only made the Dem party as a whole look even more stupid and clueless.

[Hello. I'm new here. Been reading the legacy. Something I've posted elsewhere still in an emacs buffer -- so, I'll just jump in.]

I, a progressive voter since 1963, am incensed with Dean, Pelosi, Reid, et al., and find them to be contemptible a55h0l35.

Nancy Pelosi's most notable achievement was to take impeachment off the table. Two years later, and Bush has been allowed to continue virtually unobstructed. The Bushit clock will have run out soon, and we can start marking Democratic Friedman units (at least, 180 coalition and 10 thousand Iraqi deaths per F-unit).

Glenn speaks for me:

There is some (understandable) confusion around about what is going to happen tomorrow with the FISA vote and Dodd's promised filibuster... I shared this confusion until earlier today when these matters were clarified.

Contrary to the emphatic promise Dodd repeatedly made during his presidential campaign to lead a filibuster on the floor of the Senate to stop any bill that has telecom immunity in it (a promise which, incidentally, led to hundreds of thousands of dollars being donated to his campaign), there isn't going to be any actual filibuster tomorrow. Under the Unanimous Consent framework agreed to by all Senators (including Dodd), there will be a 60-vote requirement to invoke cloture on the FISA bill and for ultimate passage, followed by an allotted 4 hours of post-cloture "debate," but there will not be any real filibuster to prevent cloture. When Leahy says that he will "join" Dodd's filibuster, what he means is that he will merely cast a vote against cloture.

Dodd's efforts against this bill have been quite commendable, and the UC Agreement isn't completely worthless. It means that Democrats do not need 60 votes, or even 50 votes, to stop this bill. Rather, they only need 41 Senators willing to oppose cloture (which everyone knows they're not going to get).

Still, Dodd is not, after all, going to lead an actual filibuster on the floor of the Senate to stop the bill. Worse, the Republicans are going to be permitted to impose 60-vote requirements on key Democratic amendments without actually having to filibuster at all -- exactly the situation which Harry Reid vowed just two weeks ago he would not permit.

Reid to DFHs: "you talk too much, you nevah shut up" early hip hop groove track

[I]f people think they are going to talk this to death, we are going to be in here all night. This is not something we are going to have a silent filibuster on. If someone wants to filibuster this bill, they are going to do it in the openness of the Senate.

Go read the rest at Glenn's where Reid explains what he 'really meant' by that. I think you already know.

Matt and his crew are rapidly becoming my newest heroes. Please read his excellent work on the not-quite-legal activities of some of your favorite political players as the citizens of NV struggle to bring some common sense to our drug regulation laws. I am not qualified to speak at length on what seems to be happening there, but it seems pretty basic to me: public officials should not have the right to condemn initiatives put forth by the general public while on the clock and while using resources bought with your taxdollars. Yet that is exactly what's going on here, and like Matt, I wonder why the Democrats aren't following up on very similar and possibly related lawbreaking on Rove's part. Harry? Nancy? Anyone?

I just got off a conference call with Senator Reid, and his office has given the go ahead to blog on record about what he said. Other bloggers were in on it too, so look around for other reports, as mine is going to be a little strongly worded.

Good news: Harry Gets It. To quote: "The insurance industry is the Enemy." This was part of his response to questions about health care. Although he won't oppose it, as it's "something," he's not impressed with Arnold's bill, because he's worried about the Mass. example, that is, forcing the poor into plans doesn't really help anything and in fact hurts those who can't afford ridiculous premiums. If Harry had his way, people in this country would enjoy "the same plan as [he] has." Mmmm!

Some excerpts from the text of their letter to Bush on Iraq:

This is the open letter Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California sent to President Bush on Friday:

Dear Mr. President:

See?! Already they're too nice! [joke, dammit]

The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country.

Here comes the anvil...

Oh, joy. Look who’s in the news again:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the longtime Democratic senator from Connecticut running for re-election as an independent, says the party leadership has assured him he would keep his seniority if he returns to Congress.

The excellent Bob Geiger explains. Long story short: Reid can't strip Whiney Joe of his committee assignmnets because that's not how the Senate works.

While many of the calls for harsh action from Reid may be righteous, bloggers castigating him for not stripping Lieberman of his committee assignments -- especially his standing as ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee -- and urging their readers to call Reid's office to harangue him about this, are simply wrong and not reporting accurately on what is or is not within Reid's authority.

Based on the way the Senate works procedurally, this is simply not something that Reid even has the authority to do.

Let me break down why that is.