Harry Reid tried twice yesterday for cloture on the immigration bill. This move would have cut off debate on the bill and moved toward a straight up and down vote, needing only a majority of senators. But the cloture vote needed 60. He fell far short.

What this means is that unless Harry Reid pulls the bill, they are going to keep debating it and voting on amendments til the cows come home. Also if he doesn't pull it, then his threat to do so Wednesday would be revealed as a bluff.

The response to this from the immigration bill pushers was oddly upbeat. From Fox:

"I know where the votes are for final passage. ... We're going to get this done," Graham said, adding that the topic is not going to go away. "All I can say is, if you name a post office, you're going to be talking about immigration."

"There are ways we can do this," Reid said later. "There can be an agreement on the number of amendments. Hopefully we can do that in the next several weeks. We're very close." ...

"There are a lot of good things in this bill," Reid said. "I'm a creature of the Senate. I understand we live by the rules that govern this body. I accept that. We're going to do everything we can to pass this bill as soon as we can. When is that? I don't know, but we're going to work hard and try to put aside the hurt feelings that we have. The country needs and the Senate needs to do this."

Despite all the happy talk, it sounds like a couple of senators knew this setback was coming and were busy preparing some spin.

Bob Novak has an article this morning, Reid and Reform, that points out more hypocrisy by the Democrats in their efforts to "reform" Congress -- specifically mentioning the amendment targeting nepotism that Sen. Tom Coburn is introducing (called the Reid Amendment, since Harry Reid and his family made it necessary):

Coburn would tighten loose anti-earmark restrictions in the ethics bill by prohibiting senators from requesting earmarks that financially benefit a senator, an immediate family member of a senator or a family member of a senator's staffer.

The proposal follows the revelation that Reid's four sons and his daughter's husband all have been lawyers or lobbyists for special interests. While Reid has declared they are barred from lobbying for their clients in his office [yep, Reid's family was physically working out of their father's Senate office! - pjc], there is little doubt they have taken advantage of their close proximity to a powerful senator.

Senator Reid's ethics legislation differs significantly (in a bad way) from Pelosi's House version. Yet Novak only casually tells you that Republican Senator Trent Lott was joining Reid and Dick Durbin in championing the watered down ethics bill.

From this AP report

Democrats will seek Republican help to raise the minimum wage, cut taxes for working families and make health care and college more affordable, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Saturday.

"We intend to reach out to President Bush and our Republican colleagues in Congress," the Nevada lawmaker said in the weekly Democratic radio address. "The last four years ... have shown that a political party in Congress acting alone can accomplish nothing."

This is absolutely realistic and not desperate at all. The senate is a funny place where it's much, much easier to keep something from happening than to get something or anything done. As GOP Minority Leader McConnell stated in this interview, Reid needs to find 60 votes to get something done, and all McConnell needs is 41 votes to stop something.

From the article, it's apparent that Reid's priorities of fixing medicare drug benefits, minimum wage, and stem cell research are precisely those issues which have broad public appeal and are likely to attract 60 votes.

It's apparent that "realistic Reid" is going for things that can be accomplished, not red meat for his base.

What's the difference between the Republicans of 2006 and the Democrats of today?

The Senate has released its version of the emergency war and pork supplemental bill, Senate war bill features $20B in pork. Here's the text of the Senate version, S.965. It includes a few extra dandies, like $50 million for each of the party's political conventions in 2008, obviously critical in the war effort. And it includes insect infestation control in Nevada, put in for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Must be al-Qaida insects.

Like their counterparts in the House, the Senate has larded its version of an "emergency" war spending bill with nearly $20 billion in pork-barrel outlays, including $100 million for the two major political parties' 2008 presidential conventions. The $121 billion bill includes $102 billion for the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as $14 billion for Hurricane Katrina aid and more than $4 billion for "emergency farm relief."

The article also notes that if this bill goes into the Senate/House conference committee to work out differences, they only things that the Democrats' will be arguing about is who's pork should be protected.

Well it's 6AM here in Cincinnati. I checked C-SPAN before drifting off a few hours ago and they were in the midst of a long procedural vote to recall absent senators around midnight. It was really riveting stuff. NRO yesterday was wrong about the quorum by the way. After noting the absence of a quorum the majority can request all the senators appear and send out the sergeat-at-arms if need be.

Reid planned several votes on a motion to instruct Senate sergeant-at-arms Terrance Gainer to "request the attendance of absent senators," in an effort to keep members near the chamber.

On the first vote, senators rejected the measure 47-44. But it passed 41-37 on a second vote just after midnight. Having made his point, Reid announced there would be no more votes until 5 a.m. EDT and retired to a cot set up in a parlor adjacent to his office.

But at 6AM John Kerry and James Inhofe were going back and forth over the latest National Intelligence Estimate. John Kerry's hair by the way was as good as ever even after going all night. I don't think it's real.

Open Congress has a good report speculating on what's next for Harry Reid. We know there will be a cloture vote at 11am, which will fail. Then what? Probably a whole lot of nothing. This was entirely aimed at the Democrat anti-war left who have been climbing up the leadership's back to get something done. Now Reid can say he tried, but at heart I really believe that he does not want to own this war yet.

To pass the cloture vote, it's not just about getting the requisite number of Republicans. There is a significant set of Democratic senators who will need to be persuaded.

Three centrists whose razor-thin election victories in November tipped control of the Senate to the Democrats now hold potentially decisive swing votes on the immigration measure the chamber will try to revive later this week.

All three Democratic freshman senators - Jim Webb (Va.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) - voted against efforts by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to shut down debate over the measure earlier this month. The freshmen each have controversial amendments in the package that will be considered once the Senate moves to resume debate later this week. And no member is decided on how he or she will vote on the underlying bill.

I was particularly surprised by the stance of Claire McCaskill, who was recently elected back in November as well, on most issues she seemed to be a standard liberal Democrat. But on immigration, she's pretty tough.

It would appear that General Petraeus' report has done very little to sway the opinions of the Democrats in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid has blasted Petraeus' Iraq plan (which includes drawing down 5,000+ troops by the end of the year and close to an additional 30,000 by summer's end) Reid echoed the sentiment of Speaker Nancy Pelosi that was expressed yesterday in a press release that lambasted Petraeus' plan.

According to the AP, Democrat leadership would prefer a more rapid withdrawal of a significant number of troops and the remaining troops would serve in a more limited capacity.

This posturing by the Democrats may have SERIOUS repercussions if the public relations strategy they are employing fails. Within much of the public, there is a sentiment growing that the Democrats are posturing against Petraeus as a means of scoring political points in order to win in the next election. If the Democrats become pegged as a party that seeks its own agenda at the risk of causing serious harm to the troops in the field, the public will become resentful and the Democrats may find themselves in trouble with a segment of the voting population.

Like it matters, but the non-binding Iraq resolution appears to be dead. Why? Jacob Weisberg at Slate:

Harry Reid, the majority leader, called it off rather than allow a vote on a demagogic resolution sponsored by Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire that insisted Congress not "endanger United States military forces in the field including by the elimination or reduction of funds." Because most senators would rather be photographed clubbing baby seals than go on record against the troops, a roll call on Gregg's motion would have indicated sham support for Bush's policy.

Can't have that can we?

Novak says the Republicans lost this round by getting what they wanted. Huh?

McConnell's tactics resulted in no resolution passed by the Senate any time soon. The White House was overjoyed. But Tuesday's newspaper headlines indicated a public relations fiasco for Republicans: "GOP Stalls Debate On Troop Increase" (Washington Post); "In Senate, GOP Blocks a Debate Over Iraq Policy" (New York Times); "Vote on Iraq is Blocked by GOP" (USA Today). Considering that outcome from a tactical victory, the Republicans might be better off with a strategic defeat. It is unclear who won in the Senate this week.

Novak is wrong. It's very clear that the GOP won.

In an attempt to look strong while losing, Harry Reid has announced that he is joining Russ Feingold in introducing a bill to cut off all funds to Iraq in March 31st, 2008 -- if President Bush vetoes the emergency war and pork supplemental bill. That's the bill that the Senate and the House haven't even reconciled yet to send to the president's desk. In announcing his plans, Reid was forceful but confusing:

"Talk about a way to be depressed," Reid said yesterday in a talk-radio interview with liberal host Ed Schultz. "The American people, I repeat, have to understand what is happening. It is not worth another drop of American blood in Iraq. It is not worth another damaged brain."

I guess Harry's telling us that no American blood will be spilled between now and the end of March 2008? What power that man has!

This is just Harry Reid's attempt to save face. He knows that the bill that he is about to send up to the President is going to be vetoed. He knows that the veto will be sustained. Reid also is fully aware that he doesn't have the votes to pull this Reid-Feingold bill off. So it's Harry Reid trying to sound tough... and failing miserably.

Last year it was the Republicans who had the incredibly hard job of finding 60 votes to get legislation pushed through the Senate. This time it's Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats who are having a trouble getting any Democratic agenda. Of all the major Democratic initiatives, so far very little progress has been made.

In the House of Representatives, where rules make it easier to keep the minority party in check, Democrats in January pushed through the seven measures on the Democrats' early agenda. In the Senate, only three have passed: raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour; banning gifts from lobbyists; and implementing recommendations of the 2005 commission that probed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In this context, the most obvious way for George Bush to restore some morale for the GOP is to find his veto pen and learn how to use it. A scorched earth policy that leaves Democrats embittered and pointing fingers at each other is just what the doctor ordered for GOP cheerleaders.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the U.S. Senate will cut off the required funding for our men and women in uniform:

(AP) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday he will try to cut off funding for the Iraq war if President Bush rejects Congress' proposal to set a deadline for ending combat.

The move is likely to intensify the Democrats' rift with the administration, which already contends Democrats are putting troops at risk by setting deadlines.

I say this to Senator Reid: When you succeed in cutting the funding, I will place the blame for the next terror attack at yours and Speaker Pelosi's feet. We are in a battle with al-Qaida and other terror elements in Iraq that is keeping them on the defensive and we are knocking them off. When you remove our forces, they will take over Iraq, reduce the flow of oil and fight a battle between Shiite and Sunni elements that will make what we've seen thus far tame by comparison.

Once they finish battling each other, they will look for another outlet for their aggression and we will be target No. 1. The next attack will not be as elaborate as 9/11, no, it will be a suicide bomber at a mall or even a casino in your home state of Nevada. Since politics and re-election is all that the Democrats care about, perhaps I can appeal to you by saying that a suicide bomber in a Vegas Strip casino will not be good for your constituency. It may well cause you to lose your seat and the protection from the various ethical lapses you've had concerning land deals.

Sure, the far-left will sing your praises and middle-America may even feel this is the right move. That will end the second the detonator on the bomb belt is depressed. Than we'll really see what Islamo-fascists are capable of.

It's your call senator. We can stand fast and fight them over there, or we can cut and run and deal with them in New York, Minneapolis, Los Angeles and Miami. I know what's best for the country, do you?

Congressional Quarterly's CQPolitics.com has an interesting story up today by David Nather, Lieberman's New Party Line, telling us that during last week's circus over the Iraq war, Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman was found in a surprising place:

Lately, though, Lieberman has taken his alliance with GOP leaders up a notch. During the abortive debate on the defense authorization bill, he attended daily tactical sessions to help them plan their strategy for combatting anti-war amendments and their rhetorical points for use against the Democrats. And in a fitting symbolic twist, some of those meetings convened just down the hall from the office of Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who essentially owes his 51-seat majority to Lieberman's continued caucusing with the Democrats.

Lieberman was successful in getting his amendment on Iran added to the now pulled 2008 Defense Authorization Act. That amendment points out Iran's current role in Iraq in attacking U.S. troops, requiring regular updates on how we are dealing with them. It passed by a vote of 97-0. That particular vote creates yet another logical conundrum for Democrats, as Senator Lindsey Graham pointed out, because what the Democrats are ultimately supporting (a retreat from combat and combat areas) would both hand Iran a victory over us and hand a large part of Iraq over to Iran.

Good for Senator Lieberman. This shows just how tenuous Harry Reid and the Dems' hold on majority status really is. If the Dems aggravate Lieberman too much, as is happening now, the Connecticut senator might find himself forced to caucus with the Republicans. If so, hello Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Hey, no one forced the Democrats to support Ned Lamont for Senate instead of Lieberman. One act of loyalty deserves another.

You may recall earlier this month when the Democrats took over the House and Senate to much fanfare. They promised ethics were of paramount importance and cleaning up the system was among the top goals. I guess someone forgot to clue in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

In 2002, Reid (D-Nev.) paid $10,000 to a pension fund controlled by Clair Haycock, a Las Vegas lubricants distributor and his friend for 50 years. The payment gave the senator full control of a 160-acre parcel in Bullhead City that Reid and the pension fund had jointly owned. Reid's price for the equivalent of 60 acres of undeveloped desert was less than one-tenth of the value the assessor placed on it at the time.

This is nothing new. Reid has been complicit in other shady land deals in the Southwest including one in which he quietly had land transerred to private hands from the government.

New Virginia Senator James Webb tried an end run to stop the war in Iraq, by limiting the deployment options of the military. The idea of guaranteeing time between deployments made great sense rhetorically and it was hoped the idea of supporting the troops while stopping the war would enable them to pick off enough senators to get it done.

But it was not to be, as the WaPo reports, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now giving up on clever strategies and going back to the old strategy which did not work last spring:

Instead, Reid will again push for a firm deadline, this time June 2008, along with a stronger effort at cutting off war funding.

"It's all definite timelines," Reid said.

The Senate will resume the war debate today, and Reid invited Republicans to offer proposals. His spokesman said that several possibilities are being negotiated, although it appeared unlikely they will meet the 60-vote threshold to pass.

The House yesterday passed the non-binding resolution against the surge, and apparently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will try to use that momentum to push it through the Senate today. Says Reid:

"Americans deserve to know whether their senator stands with the president and his plans to deepen our military commitment in Iraq, or with the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose this escalation," Reid, of Nevada, said in a statement.

So far Mitch McConnell is standing firm on a strategy of not allowing a vote on this, unless the Democrats will allow votes on several Republican alternatives, including one that is anti-surge and has a statement that the U.S. stands behind the troops. The fear is that this version is the one that will actually pass the Senate. No one wants to go on record opposing the troops.