Of course, there's a more cynical bet than my first one: we'll get to 100 Senators denying responsibility for the hold, but the hold will still be there.
Nah. Couldn't happen. A Senator would never lie, after all...
Jesse, each house of Congress makes their own procedural rules. The Senate's rules in particular are big on "privilege", the power of Senators to be self-important asses. But people are looking at those privileges and their abuses a lot more in these days of a million media outlets, and Senators are finding it harder to protect each other out of the public eye. The public eye is everywhere these days.
Also, I don't know anything about Senate procedure, but I bet the term "secret hold" is not used by the Senate. It may merely be an anonymous or unrecorded hold in their parlance...
My first bet was Ted Stevens, followed by Sheets Byrd. My browser "Find" feature didn't turn up either of those names in the piece -- and it was up to 84 when I checked.
This is great! I wonder what the senator that has placed the hold is thinking right now.
I see it's up to 84. Makes me wonder if someone is lying.
What are the odds of picking one red ball out of a bag 100 balls. After 84 picks without replacement, wouldn't the odds of getting the red ball be 84%?
If I were a US senator, exercizing my duties and rules of office, which include the one some of you are arguing against, I would just lie to the whole bunch of you rather than let any of you back me into a corner.
And I'm sure that's exactly what they are doing right now.
There are some people who deserve to be lied to, and this is one of those circumstances.
And if I were a US voter, exercizing my right to petition my government, which includes the right to know what they're up to when there's no privacy or national security concerns involved, and I found out that my Senator was lying about placing a secret hold on a bill to require the government to end its secret spending, well, I would have to spend every dollar and hour I could spare to ensure that Senator never saw office again.
Biden's on the record as denying it.
Carper's office refuses to deny it. The aide started getting uppity when I claimed I was a "blogger" - "We've been getting calls all day on this topic."
"Whoa cowboy," I said. "I'm also a constituent from Wilmington."
Well, then you sound like an undemocratic pompous jackass.
It's our right -- and responsibility -- as citizens of this country to investigate the government to our heart's desire, especially when we thing they're screwing up.
I'm betting it's that old codger Byrd myself. Not only is he one of the Senate's biggest Pork Kings, but it's the sort of thing he'd do just to be ornery. AND, he's got enough seniority that it would be nearly impossible for the leadership of either party to strong-arm him.
I'd say that with 89 Senators reporting in, the odds currently favor that we have already been lied to.
If I'm pulling balls from a bag with 99 blue balls and 1 read ball and I have pulled 89 balls and they have all been blue, I start to suspect there is no read ball.
But Ted, that's random sampling. When you reach into the bag, the red ball isn't actively trying to hide from you. In this case, the red ball can easily hide; and at least some of the blue balls agree with you, or are at least politically driven to cry, "Pick me! Pick me!"
I never ever have claimed to be democratic, Jesse. My USA is a constitutional republic, with the powers and rights of the various segments and levels of government, and of the people, carefully spelled out. And I always take care to separate the two terms.
What you are claiming as a right conflicts with a legally adopted rule for the operation of the United States Senate, under which any particular member may hold up a specific piece of legislation without being answerable either to contituents or to other members of the same senate body. In my judgement, the rule is sensible, even if it holds up legislative progress.
To no small degree, the legislators must be independent of the daily pressure of their constituents, or they could get no work done and they become answerable solely to those who bring the greatest and most concentrated pressure to bear on them.
Arnold,
That only works when the wind is still. If the wind is blowing very strongly in one direction, the Senate completely abandons that and becomes a weathervane.
I'm going with the assumption that they will indeed be honest. For a denial would be far more damaging if it got out--and at this point, it's all but guaranteed to get out.
So it's going to be someone who's either not up for re-election or who just doesn't care. For there is no good reason to hold this bill up. Oppose it? Fine, explain why. This skullduggery should be for emergencies only, not a bill with this wide a network of support.
Dean, then Crapo is guilty: either of the hold, or of being an accomplice after the fact.
I can imagine a situation where an anonymous hold is legitimate and honorable. Say a Senator formerly served in military intelligence. Say that Senator saw that a bill might inadvertently compromise intelligence assets, but the Senator knew that only through his or her access to classified information in the service. And say that if that Senator publicly said, "We can't vote on this, so I'm issuing a hold," the resulting press scrutiny and maybe even delving into the Senator's background could also compromise the intelligence assets. In that case, the Senator would have a legitimate reason to go to the leadership and say, "I need to hold this, and I can't be seen to do so."
This is nothing like that. It's a bill to let the people know how their money is spent. It applies to future programs, not past. If someone is running a black op through that budget right now, there's time to move it. There's no national interest in keeping that spending secret. But there may be a personal interest in some Senator keeping the public from knowing just how much he's spending on self-enriching or self-aggrandizing projects.
This could wind up ending soon though. Of the remaining Senators we have guys like Crapo, who has maybe the safest seat in the entire body (he ran unopposed in 2004 and won with 99% of the popular vote--no kidding), or Robert Byrd, or Orrin Hatch, who are basically nigh-invulnerable.
That doesn't mean the heat can't be turned up on them anyway though...
Given the way so much legislation is crafted these days, that doesn't strike me as impossible--although the aide in question would almost certainly be terminated if caught, and others might be as well (basically whoever was supposed to double-check with the Senator but didn't).
6 out of 7 senators are Republicans.
You know, if the Reps are to blame this they'll have a helluva time trying to paint the Dems as "tax &spend liberals."
Byrd is a good guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Ted Stevens. He's the former Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and the current Chair of the committe that oversees commerce and transportation. He has always been a rampant spender, and enjoys controlling who, and what, receives money.
My bet: the hold will be anonymously withdrawn before we get to 95. Maybe 90.
I, too, am skeptical. But it sure would liven up a couple of ongoing conversations I'm in around the office...
Nah. Couldn't happen. A Senator would never lie, after all...
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see 100 denials.
Why the hell are they allowed to do this?
(Place a "secret" hold?)
I see it's up to 84. Makes me wonder if someone is lying.
What are the odds of picking one red ball out of a bag 100 balls. After 84 picks without replacement, wouldn't the odds of getting the red ball be 84%?
I think it's Byrd too. Also keep an eye on the "not to my knowledge" flack-deniers.
And I'm sure that's exactly what they are doing right now.
There are some people who deserve to be lied to, and this is one of those circumstances.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Get off your high horse, Arnold. You sound like a pompous jackass.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Carper's office refuses to deny it. The aide started getting uppity when I claimed I was a "blogger" - "We've been getting calls all day on this topic."
"Whoa cowboy," I said. "I'm also a constituent from Wilmington."
He settled down after that.
Democrats...
It's our right -- and responsibility -- as citizens of this country to investigate the government to our heart's desire, especially when we thing they're screwing up.
But not completely unexpected. I just hope 100 denials makes the evening news.
If I'm pulling balls from a bag with 99 blue balls and 1 read ball and I have pulled 89 balls and they have all been blue, I start to suspect there is no read ball.
What you are claiming as a right conflicts with a legally adopted rule for the operation of the United States Senate, under which any particular member may hold up a specific piece of legislation without being answerable either to contituents or to other members of the same senate body. In my judgement, the rule is sensible, even if it holds up legislative progress.
To no small degree, the legislators must be independent of the daily pressure of their constituents, or they could get no work done and they become answerable solely to those who bring the greatest and most concentrated pressure to bear on them.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
That only works when the wind is still. If the wind is blowing very strongly in one direction, the Senate completely abandons that and becomes a weathervane.
Remember the ports deal a few months ago?
So apparently more than 90% of the Senate thinks they should answer if their constituents ask a direct question.
But do they think they should answer honestly?
So it's going to be someone who's either not up for re-election or who just doesn't care. For there is no good reason to hold this bill up. Oppose it? Fine, explain why. This skullduggery should be for emergencies only, not a bill with this wide a network of support.
The 7 remaining:
Bond, Christopher S.- (R - MO)
Byrd, Robert C.- (D - WV)
Crapo, Mike- (R - ID)
Gregg, Judd- (R - NH)
Hatch, Orrin G.- (R - UT)
Sarbanes, Paul S.- (D - MD)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
Crapo has said he specifically refuses to answer the question.
I can imagine a situation where an anonymous hold is legitimate and honorable. Say a Senator formerly served in military intelligence. Say that Senator saw that a bill might inadvertently compromise intelligence assets, but the Senator knew that only through his or her access to classified information in the service. And say that if that Senator publicly said, "We can't vote on this, so I'm issuing a hold," the resulting press scrutiny and maybe even delving into the Senator's background could also compromise the intelligence assets. In that case, the Senator would have a legitimate reason to go to the leadership and say, "I need to hold this, and I can't be seen to do so."
This is nothing like that. It's a bill to let the people know how their money is spent. It applies to future programs, not past. If someone is running a black op through that budget right now, there's time to move it. There's no national interest in keeping that spending secret. But there may be a personal interest in some Senator keeping the public from knowing just how much he's spending on self-enriching or self-aggrandizing projects.
That doesn't mean the heat can't be turned up on them anyway though...
Byrd, Robert C.- (D - WV)
Crapo, Mike- (R - ID)
Gregg, Judd- (R - NH)
Hatch, Orrin G.- (R - UT)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
On the other hand, Robert Bennett's denial may not be official. So that's 5 or 6 holdouts, depending on how you count.
But ordinary citizens also have a right to understand how their government works (or doesn't work).
This hold is not over a matter of national security. It is about how the Senate spends the taxpayers' money in "pure white" programs.
The Senate has the right to play CYA all it wants. The voter has the right to tell them to get stuffed, come election day.
If we're so almighty righteous about this, then we need to start voting, not just jabbering.
You know, if the Reps are to blame this they'll have a helluva time trying to paint the Dems as "tax &spend liberals."
Dbrooks: Oh I quite agree. Stevens is one of the most shameless pork kings in all of Congress. He and Byrd probably run neck and neck on that score.
I also wouldn't be too surprised if it were Crapo, who's got one of the safest seats in the entire U.S. Congress.
TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBS!!!!!