What ever happened to the Republican's rallying cry?

The rules may change at anytime in my favor.

Unfortunately they always kick first.

Reid should make 'em filibuster.  Let them go - all through the holidays, through the winter, and into spring if they have to.  Not one damn thing gets done, courtesy of the Republicans.

It's astounding how little the Democrats can get done despite winning both the House and the Senate and having a lame duck President who is as popular as syphilis.

Some House Democrats are saying the same thing.

Someone has got to stand up to these obstructing Republicans.  

It's pathetic to hear Democratic Senators whining that they tried by holding the Senate open for one night.  They even pulled out the cots.  Whoopie-fucking-doo, a lot of people pull all-nighters.  That ain't a big deal.  

How about make them filibuster for three straight months?  That would send a message.

but the travesty of an Iraq spending bill without any withdrawl timelines can get passed with 51?

The GOP filibusters everything it opposes while Democrats don't.  Hence GOP-supported bills only need 50 votes (not 51 - remember Cheney breaks the tie) while Democratic-supported bills need 60.

The senator put the vote on hold until he learns if it contains a "portfolio standard that is bad for Virginia".  The woman who answered the phone confessed to not being an energy guru.  She did not know portfolio from standard.  The call is worth while!

Warner is being totally spineless on this energy bill.  If you oppose it, fine -- just say so.  But saying he wants to "put the vote on hold" or "he doesn't oppose the bill, he just opposes cloture" is just ridiculous.  Man up and say you hate clean energy (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Big Oil).

Warner is all bark, no bite; all hat, no cattle; all talk, no walk, &c. He's found some nice stenographers at some of his cocktail parties to write about how "green" he's becoming, and how moderate and bipartisan he's become, but it's all fool's gold. He is what he always has been -- a lazy, partisan hack. Torture, war funding, energy bill, you name it -- he'll talk a good game, and then fold and carry George W. Bush's water.

It's Lucy and the football. Don't be Charlie Brown!

Considering many states are not blessed geographically with exposure of the elements, a national RPS may cost those states too much.  It appears to me this may be the big issue not only to consumers in those states, but politicans, and those states' utilities.  Also expanding transmission would further be required if the delivery of renewables across the nation or if the over-implementation of low efficient renewables in less favorable geographic areas is mandated w/i an RPS to the states.  

It is great states like TX, MN, ND, etc, can have plenty of wind turbines, for example; but where the wind isn't as reliable and more turbines or transmission has to accomodate those defiencies for the sake of an RPS, although clean, there is a big hurdle which will be faced, and that is the seizure and the devaluing of private property.  Furthermore, there is an increased cost per kwh, as much as 3x higher, for low efficient renewables.  

The nation's power grid is already a huge concern.  Growing high demand, overdue upgrades, and the shutdown of aging infrastructure has already been posing a great deal of stress w/o the issue of climate.

Its not that I am for private property owners, or against renewables, Al Gore and Democrats.  And, I am not related to Senator Inhofe.  Some may reply (again) with comments addressed to me (here and at other blogs) as though I am some doubter or a denier on GW.  To me that just reflects their prejudices.    

Safe nuclear technology and up and coming new clean & energy efficient technologies, from my perspective, have to be incorporated w/i any sweeping energy & climate legislation.  No such provisions appear in the current legislation, correct?  And, such added measures would not only be more reliable to the grid compared to solely adding renewables, for example, it would also reduce C02 just as effectively.  And if thorium is accepted by the DOE and allowed to be involved in nuclear, it maybe very safe to the public.  

Renewables, and clean coal, and safe nuclear, and efficient delivery systems should be maximize wherever and whenever.  And because some states can do more to reduce C02, while others may not, the inclusion of a broader energy approach including the above, appears to be more a reasonable option to states less gifted than others.

I called 202-224-2023.  I urged Sen. Warner to allow the energy bill to come to a vote, and to vote for it.  

I then asked the woman staff person why Warner blocked the bill today.  She asserted that Warner generally favors the energy bill.  I responded along the line 'So he favors it, but votes to block it?'  She tried the usual spiel on me by saying that the vote today was not actually a vote against the bill, but I politely told her that that is a technicality, and I don't buy it as an excuse.  So I pressed her, and she said that he is concerned about the Renewable Portfolio Standard, thinking that that provision will hurt Virginia, and that he is concerned about a $41B tax increase in the bill.  The RPS concern sounds to me like influence from Dominion Power (evidence suggests that Dominion owns the VA legislature, and maybe they own at least one of our Senators too).

I asked why Warner is against the Energy bill.
The staffer told me he voted against cloture, a procedural motion that...blah blah blah.

I interrupted her and I told her I understand Senate rules and know what a filibuster is, and if Warner supported the bill, he would have allowed it to have an "up or down vote," so that the 59 Senators who supported it would pass it.  So why did he oppose the bill?

She said he was against the "tax increases."  I said the only tax increase was ending corporate welfare for big oil companies. I said that Exxon/Mobil made more profits last year than any other corporation in the world, and why do they need MY tax dollars?

I said, I don't get it.  Is it because of donations?  She said he's not running for re-election.  I said, I know, so why is he taking Virginian taxpayer dollars and shoveling it to Big Oil Companies if he doesn't need their money for re-election?

She then passed me to the staffer in charge of energy issues.  I left a message on his voicemail.  I'll let you know about our conversation if and when he calls me back.

I'm very curious to hear if you receive a return phone call.  Warner's action today was truly inexcusable.

episode on this matter in our future...

Great work Mark.

As Ron1 and Mark Levine and the others who think alike have known, it's about time that ALL finally get through their heads that despite Warner's great craggy face and gray shock of coif, and his air (carefully cultivated) of gravitas to the nth, he's at heart a Republican!  He's not a neutral voice interested in America the Great.  He's interested in legacy.

From his earliest days of achieving his life goals, his activities involved acts that were very morally questionnable, as I've said before, in some diary or comment.  Look up his marriage and divorce, the details(!), and especially the settlement he received from a member of one of the wealthiest families in America.  Then his next marriage.  You'll get a good picture of the man.

His action on this legislation shows that he is not what he tries to get his public persona to represent.  In a pinch he'll pander to Bush and screw the country.  He'll go along with those who try to pass of that bunkum that the oil companies need those multi-billion dollar subsidies to get America rolling, while the cos. do nothing to increase their capacity, only continue to use their profits to buy up more coal fields and natural gas deposits/companies.  That's Warner!