Lieberman and Graham Threaten Senate Shutdown

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Photo Fight: Lieberman and Graham Threaten Senate Shutdown

Senators Lieberman and Graham have just concluded a press conference held in response to a still unconfirmed move by the Democratic leadership in the House to strip from the supplemental appropriations bill an amendment that would bar the release of detainee photos. That amendment, the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act, had been attached to the supplemental by a unanimous voice vote in the Senate and with the explicit support of the White House. However, as THE WEEKLY STANDARD reported last Friday, the Democratic leadership has been unable to secure the votes necessary to pass the supplemental and is moving to strip out the Graham-Lieberman amendment under pressure from House liberals.

A senior Democratic aide tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that "the House is putting the demands of the ACLU before the interests of the troops." This aide also said that Liberman and Graham "are going to attach [the amendment] to every piece of legislation that comes down the pike." And indeed as Lieberman said at the press conference this morning, "we already actually added our original legislation as an amendment to the FDA regulation of tobacco bill that's on the floor right now."

Graham went even further during the press conference and threatened to shut down the Senate if their legislation is not passed. "We're not going to do any more business in the Senate...so nothing's going forward until we get this right," Graham said. Meanwhile, it may be premature for the left to declare victory. According to Fox News, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is apparently unaware of any deal between House Democrats and Pelosi. "I don't know whether an agreement has been reached," Hoyer said, and Pelosi herself has yet to weigh in on the matter, though reporters have quoted Democratic aides in an attempt to divine her position.

The Democratic aide I spoke with assured me that Lieberman and Graham "are not going to go quietly into the night" on this because failure to do so would "clearly put the troops in danger." This source added that if Pelosi has cut a deal with liberal members of her caucus, she is "defying the White House, and defying the commanders on the ground."

Indeed, Obama is being put in a tough position by a Speaker who has already been portrayed as running roughshod over the administration. If Obama, after backing a measure as critical to the safety of U.S. troops and securing the unanimous support of the Senate in favor of that measure, gets rolled by Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of liberal House Dems doing the bidding of the ACLU, the White House will not only look weak and feckless, it will have been proven to be weak and feckless.

Full Press Conference

[fozzie 41]

the supplemental appropriations bill

Whats the original bill about?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

the supplemental appropriations bill

Whats the original bill about?

Supplemental appropriations are for "off-budget" items, like war spending, and a general tree of special programs that didn't go through the regular appropriations process.

[fozzie 41]

the supplemental appropriations bill

Whats the original bill about?

Supplemental appropriations are for "off-budget" items, like war spending, and a general tree of special programs that didn't go through the regular appropriations process.

So, if it's to do with spending and 'off-budget' items what has photographs got to do with it? This is the problem with American politics. A necessary bill providing funds to support the troops gets held up because some amoral azz holes want to add something to it so that it will get passed. Then those that vote against it because of the unecessary and unrelated amendment get all the blame. Frustrating. If a bill does not get passed on its own then it should not get passed.

[AlHayatZween 2]

if they shut down, they should get their pay docked for every day they miss work.

[scandal 951]

the supplemental appropriations bill

Whats the original bill about?

Supplemental appropriations are for "off-budget" items, like war spending, and a general tree of special programs that didn't go through the regular appropriations process.

So, if it's to do with spending and 'off-budget' items what has photographs got to do with it? This is the problem with American politics. A necessary bill providing funds to support the troops gets held up because some amoral azz holes want to add something to it so that it will get passed. Then those that vote against it because of the unecessary and unrelated amendment get all the blame. Frustrating. If a bill does not get passed on its own then it should not get passed.

Sounds like you are in favor of line-item veto.

A line-item veto would give the President the ability to take omnibus bills that were passed in Congress, and strike out individual provisions to which he objects, while passing the rest of the bill.

As things stand, a President can either sign an entire bill into law, or veto the whole thing.

If we had a line item veto it might reduce the temptation for lots of earmark spending introduced by certain Congresscritters in the dead of night into massive bills.

[fozzie 41]

the supplemental appropriations bill

Whats the original bill about?

Supplemental appropriations are for "off-budget" items, like war spending, and a general tree of special programs that didn't go through the regular appropriations process.

So, if it's to do with spending and 'off-budget' items what has photographs got to do with it? This is the problem with American politics. A necessary bill providing funds to support the troops gets held up because some amoral azz holes want to add something to it so that it will get passed. Then those that vote against it because of the unecessary and unrelated amendment get all the blame. Frustrating. If a bill does not get passed on its own then it should not get passed.

Sounds like you are in favor of line-item veto.

A line-item veto would give the President the ability to take omnibus bills that were passed in Congress, and strike out individual provisions to which he objects, while passing the rest of the bill.

As things stand, a President can either sign an entire bill into law, or veto the whole thing.

If we had a line item veto it might reduce the temptation for lots of earmark spending introduced by certain Congresscritters in the dead of night into massive bills.

I assume a bill would be needed to pass that into law? A bill that I assume, just for Irony's sake, will have many line items attached.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't understand this predilection either. Seems an absurd way to run a country. That's how we got that stupid legislation allowing guns on National Park Land. Very conservation orientated, not.

[scandal 951]

the supplemental appropriations bill

Whats the original bill about?

Supplemental appropriations are for "off-budget" items, like war spending, and a general tree of special programs that didn't go through the regular appropriations process.

So, if it's to do with spending and 'off-budget' items what has photographs got to do with it? This is the problem with American politics. A necessary bill providing funds to support the troops gets held up because some amoral azz holes want to add something to it so that it will get passed. Then those that vote against it because of the unecessary and unrelated amendment get all the blame. Frustrating. If a bill does not get passed on its own then it should not get passed.

Sounds like you are in favor of line-item veto.

A line-item veto would give the President the ability to take omnibus bills that were passed in Congress, and strike out individual provisions to which he objects, while passing the rest of the bill.

As things stand, a President can either sign an entire bill into law, or veto the whole thing.

If we had a line item veto it might reduce the temptation for lots of earmark spending introduced by certain Congresscritters in the dead of night into massive bills.

I assume a bill would be needed to pass that into law? A bill that I assume, just for Irony's sake, will have many line items attached.

Actually, it's even worse than that. It may likely require a constitutional amendment, since the Supreme Court has ruled that giving the President unilateral ability to reshape bills is unconstitutional and deprives the Congress of its role as the Legislative Branch. George Bush tried to reintroduce a weaker flavor of it in which he would strike out undesired portions of a bill and resubmit back to Congress for "permission" to approve his strike outs.

The current status is unclear. Maybe a weaker law could pass, maybe it would take an amendment. It's a real tussle between the two branches of government - those who fear a too-powerful Executive don't want to give the President that power. Those that feel Congress is out of control with riders and earmarks want the accountability of line-item vetos. Congresscritters naturally are unwilling to voluntarily give up their power by giving the President this authority.

[Peikko 1,575]

Why not simply disallow unrelated additions? Surely that would be easier.

[scandal 951]

Why not simply disallow unrelated additions? Surely that would be easier.

Define unrelated?

Their Congress. They get to make any laws they want to make. Subject to the limits of the constitution and the courts.

Much of this omnibus stuff gets done as part of back room dealings where Rep. Suckmyd1ck from Lower Fartfalls WA agrees to support a rider added at 2 am the night before cloture to expand a military base in the district of Rep. Scratchmyb@lls from Upper Pisspool VA, provided that Scratchmyb@lls supports in committee the kill-all-gheys legislation being introduced by Suckmyd1ck.

It really is just like that. I'm not making this up.

[Peikko 1,575]

Unrelated - not pertaining to the issue on the bill.

These back room deals do not serve the public well at all and do not lead to transparency of governance at least that is my opinion.

[scandal 951]

Unrelated - not pertaining to the issue on the bill.

These back room deals do not serve the public well at all and do not lead to transparency of governance at least that is my opinion.

WORD.

And people wonder why Congress's approval ratings are at record low levels.

[Peikko 1,575]

So, a good 'change' would be to reform congress. My objection to Obama isn't so much what he does want to do, but rather the lip service he payed to this notion of 'change'. The reality is there are some real problems with the way Washington does business and yet there was never, ever a plan on the table to address these issues and yet the public is meant to believe that somehow 'change' will happen almost by osmosis? That is a big problem for me to be honest.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Much of this omnibus stuff gets done as part of back room dealings where Rep. Suckmyd1ck from Lower Fartfalls WA agrees to support a rider added at 2 am the night before cloture to expand a military base in the district of Rep. Scratchmyb@lls from Upper Pisspool VA, provided that Scratchmyb@lls supports in committee the kill-all-gheys legislation being introduced by Suckmyd1ck.

...a little of Marc is still in ya.