I wasn't even completely sure what "ballyhoo" meant, so I looked it up on Dictionary.com and found out that it can mean a "sensational or clamorous advertising or publicity" or a "noisy shouting or uproar".
Great, so we ballyhooed a bunch of Democrats into former Republican seats in the Senate, and now we'll finally get to work on ending our direct involvement in that stupid, bloody, wasteful war in Iraq.
Except...they don't seem to actually WANT to do that.
These idiots, and I use the term "idiots" equally and without political prejudice because I'm waiting to see if the Senate manages to accomplish ANYTHING AT ALL with their newfound political power...these idiots somehow seem to think that voting on a NON-GODDAMNED-BINDING resolution to call for reducing US involvement in Iraq is a lot better than Senator Dodd's plan for REAL change in our Iraq policy that was unceremoniously tossed out like a used Kleenex by our elected officials.
Jesus, are they completely brain dead?
Chris Dodd and Senator Feingold have come out and said they weren't going to support the weak-assed Warner-Levin resolution, which is about as useful as teats on a boar hog. Good on them. Let it fail miserably and maybe the rest of the Senate will see that the ONLY good resolution is a resolution that actually DOES SOMETHING!
Now THAT would be reason for some ballyhooing.
Markos has a nice overview at DailyKOS, reposted here in it's entirety:
Is there anything more pathetic than Senators fighting tooth and nail over wording over a non-binding resolution that does absolutely nothing?
Well, Feingold is done playing that silly game.I oppose the weak Warner-Levin resolution as currently written because it misunderstands the situation in Iraq and shortchanges our national security interests. The resolution rejects redeploying U.S. troops and supports moving a misguided military strategy from one part of Iraq to another. The American people have rejected the President’s Iraq strategy and it’s time for Congress to end our military involvement in this war. We must redeploy our troops from Iraq so that we can focus on the global threats that face us.Dodd will also oppose the useless Warner-Levin amendment.
Yesterday, Feingold introduced the Iraq Redeployment Act of 2007. Feingold’s bill would force the President to safely redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq by prohibiting further funding of military operations in Iraq six months after enactment.Dodd, D-Conn., became the second Democrat to say he would vote against the measure. Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisc., is also against the bill, which is expected to be debated in the Senate next week.This complicates Reid's efforts to get to 60 votes, and it's a good thing. Kill this piece of crap dead.
Dodd's central argument was that a non-binding resolution is meaningless.
What's the point of a useless amendment? Is Reid really that desperate to give Jon Stewart more material for the Daily Show.
Reid should introduce BINDING legislation. Let the Republicans vote against it. It'll give us grist to use in the 2008 elections. The American people didn't elect a Democratic Congress to waste time passing useless, non-binding resolutions that Bush can easily (and gleefully) ignore.
A successful non-binding resolution will be no more useful in ending this disastrous war than a failed binding one. So let's make a real statement on the war, not empty platitudes and rhetoric.