i should remember not to contribute to the anti-evolutionists’ confusion.

anyway, please feel free to post it around if you think it might be of interest or use. but please remember that this is, imo, still just a theory… until i’ve done the necessary work of going through the record in a careful way, i’m not comfortable calling it anything more than that.

Selise,
Thanks for this! It deserves to be top-posted on FDL!

I’m sorry that this thread got cut short by the Mukasey hearings, because EW’s post deserves to be spotlighted all over the country. Anyone who checks back, please do so!

Bob in HI

Thanks for the insight selise.

JohnJ @ 5: “Moisture Questioning!” I love it!

ThereaP @ 6: Amen! to your sentiments, too. EW et al are national resources.

modified from an email i sent to hugh a couple of days ago:

… I still think the most likely explanation of recent events is that Reid pulled the bill in Dec. and the republican’s call for a cloture vote on their amendment (blocking consideration of most other amendments) was because of Dodd’s objection on dec 17 to the UC for a 60 vote requirement to pass all amendments. He objected, claiming that his amendment was germane and therefore did not require, by senate rules, 60 votes to pass – a simple majority of senators present and voting would do according to senate rules. I don’t this this was foreseen – Dodd’s objection clearly surprised everyone, maybe even especially Dodd himself (this is clear from the youtube he released the evening of the 17th, where he partially described what happened…. that his objection was based on his long experience in the senate, that no aides were with him at the time). I think this was such a surprise that the senate parliamentarian was consulted on the afternoon of the 17th and various people made their case… The rules must have been confirmed to be as Dodd remembered them from the days when one party (even if in the minority) did not rule with an iron hand as the republicans do today. This last bit is, of course, sheer speculation.

The reason, I think, this was such a surprise to everyone was that these UCs to require 60 votes on even germane amendments are the way this congress does it’s work. Dodd’s objection shows that it need not be this way… That the Ds could have all along made it much more difficult for the Rs to block everything in sight.

Dodd’s objection meant that unless the Rs had done a whip count on getting a majority on all the amendments they cared about (doubtful, I think, that they would have done so if they had no expectation of this outcome), they were going to have to filibuster Dodd. What a delicious turn of events – for Dodd’s anticipated filibuster to instead become a republican filibuster. This explains the otherwise crazy assertion by Dodd’s staff the afternoon of the 17th that Dodd’s filibuster had not yet begun. Of course it had – but, I don’t think there was any intent to deceive. I think this was done because Dodd and staff finally “got it” – that the Rs were going to have to fillibuster if they wanted a 60 vote requirement to pass germane amendments. Dodd’s staff were preparing the way for this possibility – so they could draw attention to the fact that it was not Dodd filibustering, it was the Rs. However, this never came to pass, as Reid withdrew the bill, protecting the Rs from the pain of having to filibuster (a consideration he did not give Dodd).

So, I think, the republicans told Reid to pull the bill in order to avoid the necessity of a filibuster. And as Reid is used to doing what McConnell tells him to do, he complied.

Then the republicans had the delay they needed to do their whip counts and to plan how to deal with Dodd’s surprise objection. But something caused the Rs to change tactics. I wonder if they were worried about some amendment that they thought might pass if only a simple majority was required to pass it? I do think they wanted to avoid, at all costs, being the ones doing the filibustering. Or did they, in their study of how to approach reconsideration of fisa this month see the opportunity of the SOTU address to once again call the Ds “soft on terror”? I wouldn’t be surprised if it was some of both. It will be interesting to go through the amendments that were to be offered to see if any of the ones that might pass could be considered a poison pill to Cheney.

I wonder if, last week, when the Rs blocked consideration of all the amendments (I think this happened first to Feingold’s amendment?) and then submitted their cloture petition how much, if any, was a surprise to the Ds. It did seem as though something (not sure what) pissed off the Ds in a way that all the assaults on our constitution did not. For awhile, I was concerned that Dodd didn’t realize that he finally had a lever of power beyond his willingness to piss off his colleagues and filibuster for a delay. But I think it’s pretty clear that’s not the case. Would love to know what was going on behind the scenes.

this analysis ties in directly to marcy’s statement:

I’m pessimistic that we’re going to be able to win on the immunity provision, though I’m looking forward to Dodd’s filibuster of it. Though I do wonder whether we can “win” via other means.

The latest story is that the Senate will consider some of these amendments (hopefully all of them), and some will be allowed to pass with 50 votes. Depending on which amendments get to pass with 50 votes, we may be able to include a poison pill in the bill, one that appears innocuous (like DiFi’s exclusivity provision), but which would make Bush’s real plan on this spying illegal. If that happens, Bush will either be forced to veto the bill, try to “signing statement” his way out of the prohibition on activities he’s doubtless already authorized, or have key parts of his program declared illegal again. Given the stakes on this issue, I think he may well veto the bill.

Which would put us in a much stronger position.

i completely agree with this analysis – imo, the best chance for success is to not give an inch on the amendments – i don’t think any senate rule supports saying that 60 votes are required to pass these germane amendments. therefore there must be NO UC on that – for any of the amendments. the republicans do NOT want to filibuster and they do NOT want to vote on the amendments without 60 votes being required for passage – just look at everything they’ve done to block a simple majority vote, without being willing to fillibuster.

if dodd (and feingold) are willing to hang tough and continue to object to any UC that requires a 60 vote majority for passage of any of the amendments, and we (the DFHs) can continue to lobby our senators (but now in support of the amendments) to increase our chances of getting passage of some of these amendments… well, i think there’s a real chance to win this thing.

……

gotta run, but will stop back here to see if there is any feedback.

“moisture questioning”

Can there ever be enough question marks???????

The fact that you and other bloggers are respected enough that Senators ask to meet with you says a lot about the power and responsibility of the blogs.

As a citizen I appreciate the work that you, EW, and others – here and elsewhere – are doing for the sake of the Constitution and the Republic.

It cannot be said enough how vital is the work you are doing and how thankful so many are, whatever role they play in this work. For those in the Congress trying to do the right thing, the attention we are paying to their work makes a huge difference!