They Must Know We’re Here

Maybe it’s just a coincidence. Maybe. But there’s good news from the Democrats, today, on a few different fronts.

First, and a hit tip to Granny Doc, the Associated Press is reporting:

Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner intends to run for the Senate next year, Democratic officials said Wednesday, assuring his party a competitive race for a seat long in Republican hands.

Warner scheduled an e-mail announcement of his plans for Thursday. The seat is currently held by Republican Sen. John Warner, who recently said he will retire at the end of his current term after 30 years in office.

This should be as close to a gimme as the Democrats will get, next year. Only Jeanne Shaheen, if she runs against Sununu in New Hampshire, should be as easy a pick-up. This would also mean two Democratic senators from formerly deep red Virginia.

But the news gets even better.

From Reuters:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid vowed on Wednesday to block former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson from becoming attorney general if President George W. Bush nominates him to replace Alberto Gonzales.

Congressional and administration officials have described Olson as a leading contender for the job as chief U.S. law enforcement officer, but Reid declared, “Ted Olson will not be confirmed” by the Senate.

“He’s a partisan, and the last thing we need as an attorney general is a partisan,” Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told Reuters in a brief hallway interview on Capitol Hill.

Olson is very smart, and very connected, and his wife was murdered by the 9/11 terrorists, for which he deserves great sympathy, but he’s also a very sleazy man. Read a book about the actual right wing conspiracy that actually did hound the Clintons, and you’ll read about Ted Olson. He wouldn’t be the complete lapdog attorney general that Abu Gonzales was, but he might actually be worse. Because he can think for himself. And there is no reason to think he would be any more an honorable or professional attorney general than was Abu. Kudos to Senator Reid!

And then, there’s the sudden tough talk about Iraq…

The New York Times reports that Democratic leaders are opposed to the Petraeus smoke-and-mirrors plan:

Senate Democratic leaders today called the Bush administration’s plan to keep 130,000 or more troops in Iraq through mid-2008 unacceptable and promised to challenge the approach through legislation next week.

Several proposals were being weighed, including one requiring the American military role to be shifted more to training and counterterrorism in order to cut the force more deeply than President Bush is expected to promise on Thursday. Another would guarantee troops longer respites from the battlefield, effectively cutting the numbers available for combat.

Even if those proposals were able to draw the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster – a level that has eluded Democrats this year – any real strictures on the president would face a veto, frustrating war critics and raising the prospect that roughly as many American troops might be in Iraq a year from now as were there a year ago.

Still, the Democrats tried to get ahead of President Bush’s planned Thursday night speech on Iraq, and to press what they see as a political advantage in opposing the war during the months before the 2008 elections, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and two party leaders on military issues accused Mr. Bush of embracing “more of the same” and trying to pass off as a significant policy shift a troop drop that would probably have occurred without a policy change.

Will they actually do something, this time? Will they hold the line? We’ll see. But they’re at least saying the right things, for the moment. Clearly, they know we’re here. Clearly, they’re trembling! Not bad for our first day! And maybe they will soon get on board with Armando’s plan to defund. After that, impeach!


Skip to comment form

  1. So you saw the post about tags.

    I think the new polls might finally be putting some spine in our guys.

  2. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid vowed on Wednesday to block former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson from becoming attorney general if President George W. Bush nominates him to replace Alberto Gonzales.

  3. was quoted on NPR as saying if the Dems don’t confirm whomever the Pres sends up then they will show the public that they were not sincere in their concerns for the Justice Department. Is that the best he could come up with?

    • documel on September 13, 2007 at 02:54

    ” Clearly, they know we’re here. Clearly, they’re trembling! Not bad for our first day! And maybe they will soon get on board with Armando’s plan to defund. After that, impeach”

    If you have that much influence, and you waited so long to exercise it,……

    • Pager on September 13, 2007 at 03:10

    that is almost the kind of news that is too good to be true. I’m so happy that I’m having trouble believing it. If he runs, I honestly believe that’s a Dem pick up, no doubt about it.

    I wonder if Obama’s speech lit a fire under some of the less “resolute” in our party, regarding the war today. This seems to be a bit of a shift and a good one.

    On the other hand, I’m so desperate to see them lead, in even the smallest way, that I wonder if I am reading more into this than it deserves.

    • TexDem on September 13, 2007 at 03:10

    KO uses my talking points all the time, so I know they know I’m here.

    • MO Blue on September 13, 2007 at 03:15

    That is the 64 thousand dollar question. After the emotional roller coaster ride on the last supplemental, I think I will wait to see what the Dems ACTUALLY DO this time around before I get my hopes up.

    A lot of people have died because the Dems choose to give speeches rather than take tough action.

  4. with phone calls. Skip the laundry list, and just say you want them to cut funds after a date certain–or oppose any funding measure without an enforceable timeline. I think it might just work.

  5. From the White House web site (so you don’t have to go there) comes today’s latest bilge:

    Message to the Congress of the United States

    RSS Feed  White House News


    Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. Consistent with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register the enclosed notice, stating that the emergency declared with respect to the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, is to continue in effect for an additional year.

    The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2007, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat.



    September 12, 2007.

  6. optimism.  If in fact, these things happen, I’ll be a happy camper.  But, Reid has changed his tune before, so I’m inclined to fall back on the old ‘I’ll believe it when I see it.’  And the Dems’ plans for Iraq?  W(ho)TF knows?  As I try to be optimistic, I remember how many times they’ve burned us before.

    Now OT, but what a great site and so glad to have you as a FPer!  I’m looking forward to your posts.  I’m looking forward to everyone’s posts!

  7. I have been of the tooobz for so long, I feel like I know less about what is going on the Sean Hannity does!

  8. The FCC is considering an a la carte cable system.  Meaning we pay for each channel we want which could mean the end of Fox News in the long run and should cut our bills down considerably in the short run.

Comments have been disabled.