Only in Washington

That's the only place where blocking a vote to end debate--thereby keeping debate open--can be construed as...ending debate and it made for interesting discussion this morning:

WALLACE: Senator, I want to show you something that you said back in 2005 when you and the Republicans were in charge, and you were being sometimes stymied by Democratic efforts from the minority.

Let's put it up on the screen. This is you talking. "I don't think obstructionism sells very well to the American people. It's not a great political tactic, in my judgment."

Fair or not, Senator? Doesn't it hurt your party, and especially the candidates who are up for re-election in 2008, to be portrayed as blocking a vote on a resolution a lot of the American public cares about?

Silly question alert. How is "blocking"--assuming for a second that that's what actually happened (which it is not)--a meaningless resolution, obstructionism?

The Democrats and like-minded Republicans don't need a resolution to make their positions on Iraq or the Surge known. Anybody with a working television knows what they think.

A resolution with no authority to cause or accomplish anything is simply grandstanding. If these men are serious about what they say, they need to step up and act like it. I'm with Chris Wallace on this point:

If you really disapprove of the policy, if you really think it's wrong to send the troops in, you're in the majority in the Senate. You're in the majority in the House. Pass binding legislation to stop it.

My good Senators, it's time to put up or shut up.