Right in the middle of the Medicare cloture vote.

They broke into a standing ovation for him.

I can't wait to hear the clerk say "Mr. Kennedy ... AYE".

(Sorry about doing this as a BREAKING, but it really, truly is.  The enthusiastic response from everyone in the Senate chamber was truly amazing.)

UPDATE UPDATE -- video of the ovation (I wish they'd also captured the interrupted roll call leading into it):

The Lieberman-Warner climate change bill stalled in the Senate today, after a failed cloture vote tallying just 48 votes in favor of proceeding to debate.

Actually, by the time the bill went down, it had become known as the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill. That's a nifty little move that comes as a perk of chairmanship of the committee that's got jurisdiction over a bill you want in on, but didn't originally introduce yourself. When it gets referred to your committee for hearings, you get to tack on all your own ideas and rename the bill, with your name first.

From the beginning, reviews of the bill itself have been mixed at best, with most environmentalist thought coming to rest on the "Fix of Ditch" approach -- acknowledging that there was a nice first try in there somewhere, but that the end product was just too larded up with giveaways and simultaneously too weak in its requirements to fight for and leave in place as a baseline, lest everyone take their eye off the ball and consider the business done once some bill, any bill, had passed.

Consequently, support for the bill was tepid in the Senate. And if you didn't know that because like me you didn't follow the bill closely, 48 votes for cloture should tip you off. Not a lot of serious cloture fights end 12 votes shy of the mark.

Over in the House, the climate change news is the introduction of a bill by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), chair of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The Committee, by the way, is a new creation announced by the Speaker in March of last year, and 15 months later, this is their product.

By most early accounts, it's a decent bill and at least a good step in the right direction. But will we see it enacted by the 110th Congress? That's not terribly likely given that House Democrats aren't yet united on their approach to the issue, and the fact that Congress will be out of session for much of the summer, taking an Independence Day recess and most of August off. (Though it's true, being "off" for Members of Congress means something very different than it does for you and me.) With the FISA and Iraq supplemental fights still looming, plus any other unfinished business that needs taking care of (even if they abandon all pretense at finishing the regular appropriations bills), there's just not going to be a lot of time available for major global warming initiatives to make it through one house, let alone two.

That fact's not lost on House Minority Leader John Boehner (on whom so much else so often is), who took the opportunity to needle Democrats for, well, not acting on something he really doesn't want them to act on, anyway.

For Republican global warming deniers and enablers, the best bet for surviving the environmental issue in the 2008 elections is hunkering down with their fellow deniers and enablers and convincing themselves that the fact nothing could be done (so long as we're saddled with an insane president) is actually evidence that nothing should be done.

For Democrats, it's perhaps still too early to admit that the most climate change action we'll see is setting the issue up (and setting up Republicans as obstructionists) for the '08 elections. But the time's drawing near.

I would like to take time out of my day to thank all the capitulating/ DLC/ Bush Blue dogs who went against over 70-80 % of democratic voters that did not telecommunitcation immunity and voted against cloture and voted for immunity.

More below the fold

There's a front page diary which states that:

The procedure for tomorrow is that votes on the outstanding amendments will begin at 10:00. After these votes happen, they'll have the cloture vote. When Leahy and Dodd say they will filibuster, it means that they will vote against the cloture vote on the bill to continue debate. If they are successful in preventing 60 votes for cloture, the debate can continue for as long as 30 hours. If they fail to prevent cloture, Dodd has four hours reserved for him and his colleagues like Leahy to convince enough fellow Dems to vote against final passage.

If this is an accurate statement, then we are being lied to, the Senate is violating its own rules and perpetrating a sham.

Follow below the fold for more.

What we've been waiting for. They're actually debating the FISA cloture vote...

   

DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS DIARY.  RECOMMEND THE Mothership

Wanna watch the fireworks live?  C-Span 2

It's never too late to call. smintheus posted Dodd's speech and phone numbers earlier.

What we've been waiting for. They're actually debating the FISA cloture vote...

DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS DIARY.  RECOMMEND THE Mothership

Wanna watch the fireworks live?  C-Span 2

It's never too late to call. smintheus posted Dodd's speech and phone numbers earlier.

GO TO PART III

It's starting to look like the tide is turning in our favor on this afternoon's cloture vote for the amnesty-laden FISA bill. Keep the pressure up, folks, we might win this one!

According to the Clinton and Obama campaigns, both senators will be present to vote against cloture. Sen. Rockefeller has already said he'll vote against cloture on his own bill. This diary declares that a staffer for Dick Durbin says he'll support Dodd's filibuster, which ought to mean he'll vote against cloture. Bill Nelson (FL) supports Dodd's amendment and may be coming around to voting against cloture. We've also learned that Salazar's staff is hoping he'll vote against cloture.

It's time to assemble as much information as possible about what you've learned from your calls to Senatorial offices about where each of the Democrats stand in regard to cloture. Please use the comments here for that purpose.

And keep up the calls and emails. Below is a list of the main Democrats we need to persuade. Many of these phone numbers are either being shut down (like Mikulski's), or jammed with calls. So if you can't get through in DC, and you've tried several times already, take a different route to making your voice heard - try calling one of the Senator's offices back home. And if you do, report here what numbers you've gotten through on and how willing the home-state staffers are to take down information.

And remember too that you need to be polite but firm. Don't let staffers brush your concerns off. If they are dismissive, add a note in the comments here. The Senate offices are the people's offices as well. You have a right to make your opinion known, and I doubt many senators will want to see their own offices being singled out for treating constituents badly.

• Bayh (202) 224-5623
• Carper (202) 224-2441
• Inouye (202) 224-3934
• Johnson (202) 224-5842
• Landrieu (202)224-5824
• McCaskill (202) 224-6154
• Mikulski (202) 224-4654
• Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274
• Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551
• Pryor (202) 224-2353
• Salazar (202) 224-5852

In addition, here is a general clearinghouse for calling or e-mailing your own Senators. You can also use the tools created by CREDO and EFF if you prefer.

UPDATE 1: It looks as if Arlen Specter is going to vote against cloture. If John McCain is absent while campaigning in Florida, it may not be possible for the Republicans to gain the 60 votes they need. That remains unclear, however, so keep the phones ringing. Now is the time to press the advantage home. If the Republican side begins to slip visibly, it will be a lot easier to move the quavering "moderates" into the right column. And the more who line up against cloture, the stronger that opposition to telecom amnesty will appear to be. Appearances matter when you're trying to round up votes.

UPDATE 2: Sen. Mikulski reportedly will vote against cloture as well. The momentum on our side is building.

I see FISA mentioned on in the front page stories, but not in the current diaries searching main page on the acronym, so here is a reminder to any of you who would like to put aside the candidate hissy fits for a moment and focus on whether you care about preserving your most fundamental rights to the protections supposedly guaranteed you under the Bill of Rights.

There will be a vote at 4:30 today (unless this has changed in the past few hours) in the Senate. The Republicans are playing their usual selfish anti-American games, trying to ram through a vote on the bill they (and 10 sorry excuses of Democrats) support that will guarantee immunity for the telecoms (and of course by extension Bush administration), and in fact worsen the situation by allowing even more intrusive spying on Americans with less and less heed to due process, warrants, and the courts.

Below the fold is my FAX to Sen. Bayh at 7:15 this morning. I followed it up with a trimmed and edited version to Sen. Lugar. It was no less blunt.

I'm sorry mcjoan.  I respect you a great deal, and I understand the value of seeing the glass as half full, but I'm with edgery on this. In fact I'm throroughly pissed off.

So what if Clinton and Obama are going to vote no on cloture?  Ferpetesake even Harry Reid is going to vote no on cloture.  You want me to praise them just for showing up a couple of hours early on SOTU day?  (we've all figured out the 4:30 vs noon thing by now, right?)

Suppose they bravely vote no but cloture passes anyway?  Will they pay a price?  No. We're the ones who will pay the price.  Clinton and Obama hadn't even committed to participating until today, even though we all knew they'd be in town.  Why the hell should I be happy with the candidates when it's still up to me to lean on the following Senators?  

* Bayh (202) 224-5623 * Carper (202) 224-2441 * Inouye (202) 224-3934 * Johnson (202) 224-5842 * Landrieu (202)224-5824 * McCaskill (202) 224-6154 * Mikulski (202) 224-4654 * Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274 * Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551 * Pryor (202) 224-2353 * Salazar (202) 224-5852

Do you like arithmetic? Doing arithmetic sometimes improves my day, sometimes it doesn't. Today was a "doesn't" day.

NPR's repeated statements that the 2007 Senate set a record for filibusters irritated me so much that I decided to try to calm my mind by looking at some numbers. What I found surprised me. Many of you know what I discovered, but I hope this diary will interest a few readers.

Two-thirds of the Senate must agree to override a veto.

Two-thirds of the Senate must agree to expel a member.

Conviction on an impeachment charge requires a two-thirds vote.

Two-thirds of Senators present and voting must agree to debate a proposed change of a Senate rule.

34 Senators can block a veto override, prevent the expulsion of a member, or prevent impeachment conviction.

(Following numbers for total U.S. population include Washington, D.C., and exclude other non-state affiliates such as Puerto Rico.)

Guess what? 34 Senators represent 7% of U.S. residents! Fewer than 34 Senators can block debate on a rule change.

Reading Daily Kos is like reading the newspaper a month in advance.

Reading Daily Kos is like reading the newspaper a week in advance.

Reading Daily Kos is like reading the damned newspaper... used to be.

If you were following the FISA and telecom amnesty debate in the traditional media (even their blog versions) yesterday, you were hopelessly lost. You would have read that Dodd's filibuster had "fizzled," and that the telecoms had won a victory. And you apparentlywould have been reading this well into the evening, since it wasn't until well after the bill had finally been pulled that the media got a real handle on what had happened, even if they never really understood how it had happened, much less why. But if you stuck with us, you probably had a pretty good handle on things, whether you're a visual learner, or prefer the narrative form.

The reasons are myriad, and we've discussed some of them before. First, there's the background media narrative to overcome. The conventional wisdom was that this deal was going through, and that was that. So the stories were in some sense already written. A change of direction always catches the media off guard. But beyond that, the plain fact is that the traditional media just isn't that well suited to covering a story like this.

Second, this situation was fluid, and traditional media that have strict deadlines for going to press just can't keep up. That's why so many media organizations have made the move to the Internet, or have developed news blogs. But that overcomes just one of the many hurdles.

Third, in addition to being fluid, it was complex and arcane. It took a long time to explain exactly what was going on, or what might happen. In fact, that explanation turned my planned 15 minute interview on The Young Turks radio program into a 45 minute appearance, explaining as thoroughly as I could what the situation was and various possibilities of how it might shake out, not to mention what that might mean and why it happening this way in the first place. No traditional media organization can spend that kind of time on things. Even the radio appearance was perhaps only possible because The Young Turks show had committed to continuing to tape their show as long as Dodd kept up his fight, so we had lots of time to kill and the longer we spent explaining it, the better. As a result, the traditional media coverage of yesterday's events by and large simply got the procedure wrong, mistaking the cloture vote on the motion to proceed for a cloture vote on Dodd's filibuster of the bill itself (which we never even got to), and forgetting entirely about the 30 hours of post-cloture debate, which is what we were actually seeing yesterday.

And fourth (I was going to say "finally," but nothing is final until the comments come in), there's the matter of the time and effort that we can put into a story like this -- both individually as bloggers, and collectively as a blogosphere -- that the traditional media can't. Or won't. I don't have to remind anyone here of what that boils down to...

but I will, because it's so delicious:

I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right...

Well you know what? Neither do I. But I did it anyway, because I care what the hell happens in this country, and I want to know what I'm talking about.

I worked on Capitol Hill for a few years, so I happen to know something about procedure in general. But I never worked on the Senate side. Do you want to know how I came to understand Senate procedure? I looked it up and read about it. What a concept.

So thanks for playing along with us. Hope you enjoyed the ride. We'll be back here on this bill again in January, and we can put what we learned to good use. Until then, don't forget to put your "Stupid Internet Hayseed" costumes (or your "Vinny in the Bronx" bathrobe) back on. You don't want to spook the natives.

This started out as a comment to mcjoan's excellent front-page diary this afternoon, which got to be way to long.  Plus, in order to get it clear in my own head, I put together a visual flowchart, which I've included immediately below the fold.

In short, it appears that things are not as bleak as they might seem for the good guys at this point.  If Dodd is true to his word and is really committed to stopping telco-immunity, he still holds an very strong hand and even if the very worst case has the ability to drag this thing out all week long until right before everybody hightails it out of town until January.

For some additional background, see this CRS (Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan Congressional office that analyzes legal issues for Congress) report on "Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate".

I, like everyone else, am extremely frustrated by the inability of the Democratic majority to change the direction of this country.  And I am particularly frustrated at Senate Democrats for not illustrating clearly to the public the major reason for this impotence – the Republican minority in the Senate and their constant objecting (filibustering) of everything and anything.

The old cliché that "pictures are worth a 1,000 words" is quite true for the following chart.  It depicts the number of annual cloture votes that have been held each year from 1971-2007.  With one week left before the Senate breaks for Christmas, the Republicans will likely add to the mind-boggling 77 filibusters they have clocked up so far this year - almost double the 42 filibusters that took place last year.  You remember that year, when Republicans threatened to go "nuclear" because the Democratics weren't allowing an up or down vote and blocking the will of the Majority?  Well jump beyond the fold and take a look at what pikers the Democrats are when it comes to throwing sand in the gears of the Senate.  

You know what I think? I am tired about seeing the Democrats say that they can't get over 60 votes to break a filibuster. So you know what I think they should do? Let them. Let the Republicans get up, one after another, after another, after another, and complain, whine, moan, and side with this administration and its failed war policy over and over and over again.

Then, let them start reading cookbooks, the bible, the consitiution (it'll be the first time for some of them, I suppose), or whatever they want. The point being, let them get up and bring the US Senate to a crashing halt. Make them run those images on C-Span for 3 or 4 weeks, getting no legislation passed, and getting nothing done. They couldn't leave the chamber if the presiding officer decided to compel attendance.

If the Republicans are going to keep throwing up "procedureal road blocks," then I think the Democrats should make it as long a road as possible. It should be a road with electoral boulders too! This war has support raiting of something like 20-30%. So I say, stop the government, bring it to a halt, and see how fast it drops.

Is is political theater? Sure, but if the Republicans are going to use "Robert's Rules of Order" to help keep getting our soldiers killed, then I don't see why we can't rough up "Robert" a little.

The Huffington Post has an interesting article this morning about how the GOP is "filibustering" more than ever.

Using obstructionism to defeat or delay an opponent's agenda is nothing new in Washington. Over the past five years, there have been more than 260 threats of a legislative filibuster in the Senate. But the numbers suggest that with Democrats now in power, such tactics are dramatically on the rise. Sixty-four times this year legislation has come before the Senate requiring 60 votes or more to pass - almost twice as many as all of last year, when the balance of power was switched, and nearly three times as much as 2005.

Remember how the Republicans threatened to eliminate the filibuster a few years back?  The Democrats crapped themselves over that, and promised never to do it again.   Of course now that the Republicans are using it, the Democrats are letting them do it all they want.  

What in the name of heaven is wrong with this place?  Is everybody going crazy?  I've never seen so much ill considered spleen vented in one place before in my life.  If I squint, I can't tell whether this place is Daily Kos or Little Orange Footballs.

Kerry responsible for tazering a heckler?  Forty-seven diaries about defending some dumb-ass wording in a Move On ad?  Condemning the Senate leadership to eternal damnation because we don't agree with their choice of procedural rules?

Grow up.  There's a war going on!

Senator Jim Webb's "dwell time" amendment failed yesterday by a vote of 56-44.

Yes, it failed by garnering 12 more yes votes than no votes.

By now, though, most of us are used to seeing this sort of thing. "Everyone knows" that it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. Because that's how many votes it takes to invoke cloture, and cloture is how you break a filibuster. Right?

Sure.

But that ain't what's happening.

And it's why you're not seeing headlines today declaring that Senate Republicans cravenly filibustered legislation that would have required that troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan get recovery time at home equal to the time spent in combat.

Such a requirement, by the way, is already a tremendous compromise. The Pentagon brass usually requires twice as much rest as deployment. But Webb's compromise required only half that much rest. Still, Republicans said no. Our troops -- including our "one weekend a month" National Guardsmen -- must be required to spend more time in combat than out. So that the rest of us can all shop, watch TV, cut taxes, or take a "wide stance" if we feel like it.

So why aren't the papers reporting on the Republican intransigence in the Senate? Why aren't they telling everyone how they're ordering troops stressed to the breaking point back into combat while they busy themselves smoothing their pocket squares? Why aren't they publishing screaming headlines about the sheer gall of yesterday's Republican filibuster?

Because there was no Republican filibuster. That's why.

Instead, the reason the Webb amendment failed even though it got 56 votes was that Senators agreed by unanimous consent that the amendment should have to get 60 votes to pass, even without a filibuster.

But why would anyone agree to allow Republicans, who are already on pace to shatter all previous filibuster records, to stop an amendment this important and this sensible without even lifting a finger? And the question here is not just why anyone would allow it, but why everyone did. A single Senator could have put a stop to this simply by saying, "I object" when the unanimous consent request was made. Just one Senator.

Yet none did.

Not Harry Reid. Not Russ Feingold. Not Bernie Sanders.

Nobody.

And so the Webb amendment died quietly yesterday, allowing Republicans to enjoy all the obstructionist benefits of a filibuster, without having to stand up and tell Americans and their fighting men and women in the military exactly what they were doing. And not a moment was "wasted" on the "extended debate" that's supposed to make up a filibuster.

Everyone just politely agreed that 56-44 would be a losing vote for America's sons and daughters wearing the uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they did it on national television. And America yawned, hit the snooze button, and slept in.

In the coming days, the Congress will be dealing with the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008. President Bush has threatened to veto almost every single one of them, which would leave the United States without any spending authority come October 1. That's ten days from now. The president says he's going to veto everything, and we have ten days to see if he's serious, decide what to do in case he is, and then figure out a way to get funding passed.

But hey, since those veto threats are pending, why not just agree to unanimous consent requests in both the House and the Senate that the appropriations bills will require a 2/3 vote to pass? Since they're going to be vetoed, why not just spare poor President Bush the trouble and the wear and tear on his veto crayon, and agree up front that if a bill doesn't pass with a veto-proof majority, it shouldn't be considered passed at all?

Because that's the logical extension of what happened yesterday. And the truth is, it makes no less sense. We don't know that Bush has the will to veto these bills any more than we knew that Republicans had the will to filibuster the Webb amendment. And I mean really filibuster. Not wait out a one-day cloture petition, beat it, and then break for lunch. But really stand on their feet day in and day out, live on C-SPAN2, and tell America they think our troops should spend more time in combat, and their families should just shut up about it.

Until recently, cloture votes were the easy way out of a filibuster. Forty-one Senators had only to make their protest last long enough to make it to the cloture vote, beat it, and then bask in their victory as the majority pulled the "defeated" legislation from the floor and slunk away. But believe it or not, Senate Democrats have found an easier way to do this, and begin slinking even earlier.

Bravo.

This is a disappointment, but hardly a surprise.  Yesterday was full of distractions, whether it be the taser event in Florida or the charges against OJ Simpson in the evening, and cable and the blogs were lighting up about it (even the high browed NPR was talking about OJ today).   In my view, however, restoring Habeas Corpus, which has been with us far longer than the U.S. Constitution (the Magna Carta, to be exact), should have been the most important issue of the day.  Sadly, Republican senators have successfully blocked its restoration.  This was the act that was introduced by Senator Leahy and Senator Dodd.  I can assure you this is a temporary victory for the Republicans, and we will keep up the fight until habeas corpus and our country's reputation have been restored.