The name problem can be solved by adding a third repetition.
? How does 'Chris! Chris! Chris!' correspond to "Nan-CY! Nan-CY!"
I think "Go [Name] Go" would also work.
Yeah, but I'm already stuck in a pattern. I'm just going to hope for good deeds from bi-syllabic legislators from now on.
4: Nice, and I did not think of that.
2: You have to change the meter, obviously.
But substantively, cool. A shot across the bow.
Would this have a chance of passing? I'm kind of sentimental for Habeas Corpus.
Eh, this is where my lack of qualifications for blogging show. I don't know whether bills have to be introduced again in a new Congress, or if this will still be around after January. But I think it, or a reintroduction of it, has a shot, if we just keep on making them defend it: why do you need to be able to torture? why are you afraid of judicial review?
Bush won't sign it though. We'd need two-thirds.
Or you could just say it with a southern accent: Cree-US! Cree-US!
I don't think we know how weak they are until we push. They've been impressively unified in the majority, but it's always easier to split people off the minority.
I don't have the Senator-by-Senator knowledge to know if this is realistic at all, but it seems possible. And making him veto it would be something to take into the '08 election.
Based on my limited knowledge of the Senate, I'm skeptical, but then I don't really know how independent the GOP senators will become now that they're in the minority. Making him veto it would definitely be a plus.
Let's Go Chris Dodd! *clap-clap-clapclapclap*
Make the sunsabitches vote for for torture and/or veto it, I say.
Of course, no way this doesn't get filibustered - who's their Holy Joe who will vote for cloture and then against the bill itself?
I'm not so sure about a filibuster; somehow I doubt the Republicans are quite as eager to carry water for Bush as they were a month ago.
And really, doesn't every bill deserve an up or down vote?
Also, their Holy Joe is probably Specter.
18: Well sure, but how many of them wanted to have been for torture before they were against it?
I'm telling you, if HJ goes, we can get Specter. I think I'd take that trade, Magic Bullet and all...
Even if they force a veto, it can be a victory if they make it a really reasonable-looking bill and paint Bush as an extremist power-monger for objecting. We might be two years out from restoring habeas, but things like this can move the ball forward.
I think their Holy Joe is probably Holy Joe.
8 gets it exactly right. Who says "Chris" isn't a spondee? Willpower, people!
Chrih-IS! Chrih-IS! Chrih-IS!
That's not really what I meant by 8, but I'll take it.
Habeas Corpus: good. Coordinated cheers and hand signals: even better
I like our priorities.
By my count, 59 of the 65 senators who voted for the MCA will be in the next Senate. (I might be off by one or two; the counting thing was never my strong suit.)
Bills have to be reintroduced.
You know, it doesn't matter if some stand-alone bill or other would get passed -- what matters is what comes out of the sausage factory. Some elements of this thing -- de-suspension (since the attempted suspension* was unconstitutional**) -- can end up as part of something mostly unrelated, like say an Iraq supplemental.
* There's an argument that the attempted suspension fails on statutory grounds. Again. It's about comparing the exact texts of three pieces of the MCA. (I'll explain if anyone is truly interested -- drop me a line.) A single sentence in some bill could 'resolve' this issue.
** Interestingly, the government isn't arguing the conditions for suspension, but instead that nothing was actually suspended because, Rasul notwithstanding, the prisoners have nothing.
29 -- Sure. But what's the count on the Specter Amendment? Out of 51 no votes, Santorum, Burns, Allen, and Dewine are out. While the men who will replace them might be somewhat conservative, it's not crazy to think that two of them could be talked into reversing suspension. One can certainly see either Leahy or Levin making sure de-suspension gets attached to the right legislation.
I don't think that, whether it fails or not, the suspension of haebus is gonna fly under the radar this time. Call it a hunch.
Of course not; I mean, now that the Democrats are in charge they're clearly going to be all over it. This bill, though, is most likely going to end up largely as a publicity stunt and the actual repeal will probably be stuck into some other bill.