Another loss for the Bush Administration - Senate rejects Alaskan refuge oil drilling

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Quack! Quack!

WASHINGTON - The Senate blocked oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, rejecting a must-pass defense spending bill where the quarter-century-old environmental issue had been placed to garner broader support.

Drilling backers fell four votes short of getting the required 60 votes to avoid a threatened filibuster of the defense measure over the oil drilling issue. Senate leaders were expected to withdraw the legislation so it could be reworked without the refuge language. The vote was 56-44.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was among those who for procedural reasons cast a "no" vote, so that he could bring the drilling issue up for another vote.

The vote was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, who for years has waged an intense fight to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He had thought this time he would finally get his wish.

Stevens called the refuge's oil vital to national security and bemoaned repeated attempts over the years by opponents using the filibuster to kill drilling proposals.

Democrats, conversely, accused Stevens of holding hostage a military spending bill that includes money to support troops in Iraq and $29 billion for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

"Our military is being held hostage by this issue, Arctic drilling," fumed Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), the Democratic leader. The Nevada Democrat said the Senate could move quickly to pass the defense bill once the refuge issue was resolved.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051221...Cdyjius0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
 
Proper headline.

DEMOCRATS VOTE TO SUSPEND FUNDING FOR GULF COAT REBUILDING, HEATING OIL SUBSIDIES FOR RETIREES & THE POOR, FUNDING FOR ARMED FORCES

There, now it's correct.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Proper headline.

DEMOCRATS VOTE TO SUSPEND FUNDING FOR GULF COAT REBUILDING, HEATING OIL SUBSIDIES FOR RETIREES & THE POOR, FUNDING FOR ARMED FORCES

There, now it's correct.[/QUOTE]

Really? How does one build a Gulf Coat? Well, it's correct, so I guess that's that.

Oh, and we'll just look the other way when Republican senators shoot down an otherwise good bill because it contains something they don't like. If you had read the article, or any other article about it, there was support for the military spending. If you want to blame someone, blame the slimey sheister who put the drilling portion in. Oh, but he's a Republican, so he's ok, right?
 
For an "increasingly irrelevant party", the democrats sure are draining away Dubya's "political capital".
 
The election results last month may be an indicator that the republicans are in trouble next year. And lobbyists are trying to cover their tracks now with their dealings with republican congressmen. The democrats may be building more capital than you think as the republican party is starting to look more and more like a toxic waste dump.
 
BWHAHAHAHA!

You mean holding governor's offices in states where the sitting executives were Democrats to begin with is a stunning achievement?

You really measure success by low criteria don't you.
 
Let me get this straight.

Republican control of the house.
Republican control of the senate.
Republican control of the executive branch.
Republican control of the judicial branch.

And somehow it's the fault of the weak and numerically irrelvant Democrats that a bill can't get passed?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And somehow it's the fault of the weak and numerically irrelvant Democrats that a bill can't get passed?[/QUOTE]

Actually, it is, and its so nice to finally see them get their shit together. They've sat on the sidelines while the Republican party runs roughshod over the Constitution and the rule of law for 4 long years now. To finally see them stand up and do the right thing - its a beautiful thing.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Actually, it is[/QUOTE]

Yes, well...stop being correct. ;) Next time I'll *gasp* read the article.

Truth be told, it's a sign of the times that the Republicans can no longer turn 4 moderate democrats into patsies in order to circumvent a filibuster.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Like I said in the PATRIOT act thread, I wish these things would be defeated by consensus, rather than filibuster.[/QUOTE]

What would be even better is a consensus of never adding something to a bill that has nothing to do with that bill. I know both parties have done this in the past and will continue to do it, but it really should be stopped.
 
Someone pointed out that he said he'd quit if the Bridge to Nowhere was cut, so we all know he's full of crap.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Proper headline.

DEMOCRATS VOTE TO SUSPEND FUNDING FOR GULF COAT REBUILDING, HEATING OIL SUBSIDIES FOR RETIREES & THE POOR, FUNDING FOR ARMED FORCES

There, now it's correct.[/QUOTE]

PAD, everyone thinks you're either lazy or have no more argument. That's not true, you just have more fun when you get people all riled up.
 
[quote name='coffman']What would be even better is a consensus of never adding something to a bill that has nothing to do with that bill. I know both parties have done this in the past and will continue to do it, but it really should be stopped.[/QUOTE]

Good point. Both parties are incredibly hypocritical on this subject. The Democrats whine when the Republicans tack on stuff like ANWR to a defense appropriations bill, and the Republicans have whined plenty of times in the past when the Democrats have done exactly the same thing. It's just like the filibuster: it's "obstruction" when you're in the majority, but "a necessary check on the power of the majority" when you're in the minority...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Good point. Both parties are incredibly hypocritical on this subject. The Democrats whine when the Republicans tack on stuff like ANWR to a defense appropriations bill, and the Republicans have whined plenty of times in the past when the Democrats have done exactly the same thing. It's just like the filibuster: it's "obstruction" when you're in the majority, but "a necessary check on the power of the majority" when you're in the minority...[/QUOTE]

Genuine question here. How often have the democrats done it with something that is a major issue and, time and time again, been defeated?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Genuine question here. How often have the democrats done it with something that is a major issue and, time and time again, been defeated?[/QUOTE]

Not sure off the top of my head, but I do know they've done it plenty of times. Anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top