For those of you who couldn't or didn't watch CSPAN, or those of you who just want to relive some highlights, or those of you who prefer your convention in small bite-size chunks...

My work day is done, but I'm still here, catching CNN's live feed of the Convention.

I see Sen. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader, step up to the podium and I think to myself, "this'll be a good one".  I was right.

He starts talking about how oil is a major reason behind nearly every war - from WWII up until the Russia-Georgia war.  He says that Pearl Harbor was bombed for oil.  My eyes are widening, and suddenly, massive credibility is being given on a major stage to ideas that I have been afraid to truly lean into for fear of them being goofy conspiracy theories like the one about the Moon Landing being a fake.  I get excited, like the cover is finally being blown on the connections between the oil and war industries.

Then CNN cuts him off.  For a bullshit, pre-taped interview with Nancy "Useless" Pelosi.  I can't find his speech anywhere.

This smells like information control to me, and this ain't f*cking China.

Michael Moore has now joined Rachel Maddow, Darcy Burner, Bernie Sanders, Harry Reid and Arianna Huffington!

In other words, he's now joined them in the archive section of Meet The Bloggers (the new weekly show hosted by Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks put out by Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films).

I watched Moore's appearance last Friday and I think he made some really interesting points. For example, he gave his take on why Democrats are being so nice to John McCain. I totally agree with him in that it's time to take the gloves off. If the DNC last night is any indication, Moore's message is being ignored (so far).

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should tell John McCain that with all the ugliness, questioning of Obama's patriotism, lying, etc. it will be difficult to work with him after 1/20 - no matter which job he has. McCain has burned some bridges.

And how can McCain promise all that he has knowing he has to go through Congress. At least one house and probably both will be in the hands of the Democrats. If the Democrats don't believe in his ideas, they are unlikely to happen.

As promised:

So I had the chance to hear James Carville and Mary Matalin speak.  I'd asked Kossacks for question suggestions.  Thanks again to everybody who posted.

Sadly ... the Q&A was a bust.  Written questions only. I never expected mine to be read.  For the record my question was, "When will McCain, and Matalin, and the people who brought us this war start to urge young people to enlist?  And would Carville and Matalin urge their daughters to enlist?"  

Can't wait for the reply by email.  

Anyone hoping for a change of heart from Harry Reid in the next Democratic Congress is in for a Rude Awakening.

I just read an article on CNN with a statement from Reid:

"All my close votes, he's always with me, whether it's the budget or energy issues," he said of Lieberman. "No matter what it is, he's always with us. He just does not vote right on Iraq. ... Why would I want to throw away a good vote?"

Can he really be that tone deaf?  That out of touch? Apparently with ease.

See full article on the CNN political ticker
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

currently 5 stories down under: Reid: I can't stand McCain.  
Can we have a new Senate Majority Leader yet?

Senator Harry Reid can't stand McCain.

"I can't stand John McCain," Reid flatly told his hometown paper, the Las Vegas Review Journal in comments published Thursday. The Nevada Democrat also said he had recently expressed that sentiment to Democrat-turned Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, an ardent supporter of McCain who has agreed to speak at the Republican convention early next month.

It's not surprising that Harry Reid can't stand McCain. It just surprising that so many voter seem to be able to stand him.

From the Op-Ed pages of this morning's Wall Street Journal:

Hell -- otherwise known as Congress -- has officially frozen over. For the first time since the 1950s, Members will skip town today for the August recess without either chamber having passed a single appropriations bill. Then again, Democrats appear ready to sacrifice their whole agenda, even spending, rather than allow new domestic energy production.

Or even a mere debate about energy. The Democratic leadership is stonewalling any measure that might possibly relax the Congressional ban on offshore drilling. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know that they would lose if a vote ever came to the floor, and they're desperate to suppress an insurrection among those Democrats who are pragmatic about one of the top economic issues. Behind this whatever-it-takes obstructionism is an ideological commitment to high energy prices. The rulers of the Democratic Party want prices to keep rising.

Nice.

With a bitter fight raging over how to address high gasoline prices, some Republicans have intimated that the Senate should not leave for the August recess at the end of this week unless it can pass some sort of energy legislation. In fact, the Democrats have not officially “recessed” for more than a year because they do not want to give President Bush the chance to make appointments to vacant jobs that require Senate confirmation.

And Mr. Reid said he would be happy to have Republicans join the lone Democrat coming in to open the Senate during the break. “We don’t need the Republicans’ permission to adjourn,” he said, scoffing at the question at a news conference on Tuesday. “We’re going to be in pro form session. This is because of President Bush not being fair on nominations. So we’re going to be here anyway.”

But then, feeling feisty about the Democrats’ election prospects, he basically dared Republicans to stick around Washington. “We do not have a single Democratic incumbent — has any trouble at all. We’re in great shape,” Mr. Reid said. “There are 11 Republicans that we have races that they should be worried about, and they are worried about them.”

“So if they want to stay here and work during the August recess, it’s fine with us,” he continued. “I’m not sure it’s fine with the Republican senators who have these challengers with them. But we’re here. I have no problem. If they — if they think that it’s going to hurt us in any way, I’m not concerned at all, because it won’t hurt us one bit.”

Let Republicans bluster away. They're the ones facing electoral annihilation. If they want to stick around DC, let them. Reid is playing this one quite well.

In a time when Democratic Senators control the Senate and when there is not reason to cave, Harry has done it again. Heaven forbid he stand his ground on this or any other issue. Not only did Harry surrender on one issue but on everything the Right wants. Remind anyone of the FISA votes ?

Reid said Democrats would allow votes on GOP amendments that would permit new drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf; the development of oil shale in western states; construction of new nuclear power plants; as well as a vote on broader legislation Republicans have dubbed "drill more, use less," which includes offshore drilling, conservation initiatives, the development of battery technology, and language to curb speculation in the oil futures market. Reid putting offshore drilling to a vote

As a aside Mitch has yet to accept Harrys offer, he may want still more don't you know.

Gonzales Aides Broke Law, Report Says
By LARA JAKES JORDAN

WASHINGTON (July 28) - Former Justice Department officials broke the law by letting Bush administration politics dictate the hiring of prosecutors, immigration judges and other career government lawyers, according to an internal investigation released Monday. ...For nearly two years, top advisers to then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discriminated against applicants for career jobs who weren't Republican or conservative loyalists, the Justice report found. ...Monica Goodling, who served as Gonzales' counselor and White House liaison, routinely asked career job applicants about politics, the report concluded.

Nancy, Henry, this is a perfect occasion to do nothing. After all, if you prosecute these people, voters will think you're meanies. Also, future Justice Dept employees who are thinking of breaking the law might get the right impression--not to.

I had the privilege of participating in a panel discussion on a new online show called Meet the Bloggers. Here's the introduction post I did yesterday all about Meet the Bloggers.

Also on the show was Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV), someone who has been trying very hard to tackle inflated gas prices and get America on the right track when it comes to its 20 million barrel-a-day oil addiction.

Look for Harry Reid to start the ball rolling today on the "Coburn Omnibus" (what's an "omnibus?") today:

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is planning a "Coburn Omnibus" for July that would wrap most if not all of the bills held by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) into one large measure to be voted on by the Senate, according to a Coburn aide and two Democratic leadership staffers.

Coburn is blocking roughly a hundred bills that are generally non-controversial or have broad support. By placing a hold, Coburn prevents the bills from passing quickly through the Senate under a unanimous consent request. With floor time at such a premium, Reid would have trouble bringing up each bill for an individual debate and vote.

But in a stroke of legislative creativity that may have no precedent, Reid could lump all of the bills into one package and bring up the Coburn Omnibus for a single vote. Coburn can still object, but the broad popularity of the bills means that there would likely be more than enough support for veto-proof passage.

Reid will likely start with a motion to proceed and an immediate filing of a cloture motion on that motion to proceed. It will take two days for the cloture motion to "ripen" so that there can be a vote.

By the way, do you want to see some seriously crazy Senate-ese? Look at how they express the fact that it takes two days to get to a vote on cloture:

[O]ne hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, [the Presiding Officer] shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question....

One hour after they meet on the following calendar day but one.

Or to you and me, "two days later." But because both the House and the Senate will sometimes play with the time-space continuum for procedural reasons, creating "legislative days" that don't coincide entirely with the "calendar days" you and I recognize as being the standard measurement of time, we have to have a definition like this one.

So that means it will take until one hour after the Senate convenes on Wednesday before they can even vote on whether or not to end debate on the question of whether or not to begin debate on the Coburn package (that is, a vote on the motion to proceed to consider the omnibus bill). Should there be 60 votes for cloture, Coburn (and any allies, if he has any left) will still be entitled to 30 hours of post-cloture debate. The number of allies Coburn can round up will determine how far he can push it:

Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more than one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, the amendments thereto, and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty of the Presiding Officer to keep the time of each Senator who speaks.

After no more than thirty hours of consideration of the measure, motion, or other matter on which cloture has been invoked, the Senate shall proceed, without any further debate on any question, to vote on the final disposition thereof...

So if Coburn has 29 other supporters, that could bring us into late evening Thursday or even Friday before we get done with post-cloture debate on the motion to proceed, and get to the actual Coburn package itself. Then, the package too is subject to yet another filibuster by Coburn, if he's so inclined. Reid will likely file immediately for cloture on that, too. But that will take two days to come to a vote also, meaning they'll still be waiting to vote for cloture until Tuesday of next week, barring a weekend session (which we may actually see) or Coburn's early surrender. Should cloture be invoked, Coburn and any allies get another 30 post-cloture hours, possibly dragging the vote on final passage out until at least Wednesday or Thursday of next week.

If it's literally only Coburn, the chances of him staying on his feet long enough to get to "the next calendar day but one" is virtually nil, and the moment he sits down, an opponent can ask for unanimous consent to proceed right to the bill, and Coburn will be unconscious and unable to object.

More likely, though, is a scenario in which very few of Coburn's colleagues are willing to join him in chewing up the clock. If it's Coburn and just a handful of allies and no alternative arrangement is agreed upon by unanimous consent beforehand, then Coburn and each of his friends get an hour after the cloture vote on Wednesday. That would mean just a few hours of post-cloture debate thereafter, and then on to the omnibus bill, with the second cloture vote able to be scheduled on Friday, and a final vote after each member of the Coburn gang uses up his or her one hour of post-cloture time late on Friday.

 Let's get some things straight right up front!

We Are the United States of America.
    We decide who does what, when!
    We are the wheels on the bus, and the engine, and the transmission!
    We The People!

  That being said, how many people on this forum want a New Congress, State Senate and House, and local government?

You know those people we VOTE for every 2 to 4 years, the ones that we pay the big bucks to. To do our bidding and represent our voice in matters that concern OUR Welfare and Security?

In an associated press article yesterday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called Bush a Total Failure. Not his policies, but the man himself.

"You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject"

Well now we have our smoking gun.

We now know why impeachment has been off the table, and why they pushed for (torture & surveillance) immunity from lawsuits. All this while, we've been accusing them of supine fecklessness when it's been nothing of the sort. It's just plain old craven, dirty CYA Washington politics as usual.

But they forgot to immunize themselves from prosecution, and Chimpy's not likely to pardon them like he would his buddies.

A multi-count federal criminal indictment against Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Rockefeller and the rest for criminal collaboration and conspiracy in war crimes, illegal surveillance and torture would garner substantial well-deserved attention to their crimes & complicity and send a clear & resounding message to current and future elected officials and their appointees.

There have been moments when I have liked Harry Reid. And I've always tried to understand how tough his job is with the thinnest of Senate majorities- it's hard work! So my heart has gone out to him and I've cheered on those occasions when he's done something unexpected, bold, and effective. As my memory is weak I can't remember what they were right now, but I distinctly recall that there were occasions when I thought, Bravo, Harry! Well done! Then there was the FISA bill, and, well, what can one say: a grand slam for Harry. Just when it looked like underling Congressional Democrats had obstructed the FISA bill, Harry, the leader, stepped up and created a teaching moment for us all. I'm not so sure I just like him anymore.

Harry Reid laid it out on the Senate floor:

"[T]his legislation needs more work. That is why I oppose it, and why I am committed to working with a new President to improve it.

"Congress should not wait until the 2012 expiration to improve this bill. I will work to ensure that Congress revisits FISA well before 2012, informed by the oversight that will be conducted in the coming months by the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees and by the reports of the Inspectors General.

"Next year, for example, Congress will be required to revisit a number of provisions of the Patriot Act. That may provide a suitable occasion to review the related issues in this FISA bill.

He'll be joined by Russ Feingold:

This administration, despite its weakness, somehow is able to raise the spectre of being as they say "soft on terrorism" and unfortunately Democrats who can be so strong on domestic issues somehow collapse, and that's exactly what happened. This is a terrible piece of legislation. It's one of the greatest assaults on the Constitution, I think, in the history of our country. We are going to have to fix it but it is a dark hour for the Constitution....

[T]he telephone company immunity is a terrible thing, and Senator Dodd and I and others fought hard to get rid of it. It's bad on the merits because it undercuts the rule of law and it also potentially blocks our ability to find out in court what we believe, which is that the President's warrantless wiretapping program was illegal and a terrible violation of the law. But even more serious is the Title I of the bill, and that's the part where the government is given the ability to potentially to suck up all bulk communications, all international calls, all e-mails, all text messages that any American might make to their daughter who's on her junior year abroad, a daughter or son who's in Iraq, a reporter, a business associate. This is a frightening intrusion and it has no court supervision whatsoever.... It simply allows this amazing expansion of federal power into an area that really has never been allowed before. And that is the most shocking part of the bill, but either one of them is a sufficient reason to say this legislation is a catastrophe and needs to be fixed at some point....

Having a Democratic president, and particularly Barack Obama, should allow us to greatly change this mistake. Barack Obama believes in the Constitution, he's a constitutional scholar. I believe he will have a better chance to look at these powers that have been given to the executive branch, and even though he'll be running the executive branch I think he will understand and help take the lead in fixing some of the worst provisions. So this is a huge setback, and it would have been much better for Democrats to stand together and not let it happen in the first place because it's much harder to change it after the fact, but I do believe that Barack Obama is well-positioned, both in terms of his knowledge and his background and his beliefs to correct this. So I do think that people have a right to be disappointed, but they also have a right to hope for change....

Hopefully they'll be joined a large cadre of new members of Congress committed to fixing this. We can help with that part right now, by working to elect these folks.

But primarily, echoing Reid's and Feingold's thoughts, they need to be joined by President Barack Obama. There are a number of things he can do as president to mitigate the worst aspects of this new law.

Primarily, he can require that his intelligence agencies operate under the old FISA law and obtain warrants for all surveillance of U.S. persons and require that that surveillance be targeted rather than blanket. He can ensure that the IG report that this law requires is carried out and carried out completely and effectively. He can go even further in mitigating the damage done by the immunization of the telcos and the resulting cover-up of the scope of the illegal program by the Bush administration by ordering the declassification of all the documents relating to this--and other--secret programs.

In doing that as president, Obama can actually provide the most fundamental of changes that he's been promising--a government and an executive that doesn't put itself above the rule of law.