Just Hold your Nose and Hope we Survive Until 2009 !

[Laura PourMeADrink]

On Monday, if we can't get through a simple, non-binding resolution
denouncing the President's war approach, it will be totally
apparent that we won't be able to get anything else through.

If we can't get a non-binding resolution through, there will be
no way in hell we can get peace, withdrawal, impeachment or censure.

If we can't get a non-binding resolution through, there will be
no way in hell we will be able to stop Commander Bananas from
bombing Iran.

Sure the resolution does nothing - C.B. will ignore it anyway. BUT,
what it does mean is that we can not reach critical mass consensus !

[noamnety]

1. I'll add to this

"If we can't get a non-binding resolution through, there will be no way in hell we can get peace, withdrawal, impeachment or censure." <-- or begin to combat poverty, health care problems, reconstruction in New Orleans, or racism, or global warming - because they are ALL tied to the war in one way or another.

Congress won't reach critical mass unless we meet critical mass - which means sending our congress critters a firm message that if they continue to support the war in Iran or Iraq, we will not continue to support them. If we can't do that, we're as much to blame as they are.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. We can stop the money, maybe. That doesn't require 60 votes in the Senate.

In fact, it only requires a majority in the house, because all spending bills must originate in the house.

So, don't despair, yet.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

3. Well, I hate to profess my ignorance on this issue - but is it

true that absolutely anything (bill/amendment/debate/resolution) can be
tabled if there are 60 people who are willing to filibuster (so it never
makes it further) ???

So, I would think the funding would be part of a larger funding bill. If it was less than all the Repukes wanted, couldn't they filibuster if they had 60?

Repukes are mad becuase Reid tied the Resolution (I assume the compromise Warner/Levin one) to legislation - so it could be amended. Once approved or rejected, it would revert back to being a
non-binding resolution and not a bill. I have yet to find out what this means in reality - why this approach is making Repukes mad. Except that they want McCain on stage to debate his crazy ass off.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. In the Senate, it takes 60 votes (out of one hundred total) to stop a filibuster.

The is no such provision in the House. In the House majority rules. And all spending/approriations bills must originate in the house.

The House can write a funding bill any way they want, and majority rules.

So the House can write a bill to fund anything they want. If they don't put in the bill that the funding is for Iran, or Iraq, then those are not funded.

The Repos could fillibuster any funding bill that passes the House and goes to the Senate, if they have 40 votes.

[OneBlueSky]

4. if we have to wait two more years to stop the insanity, we may have no nose to hold . . . n/t

.