(I've not checked that with Riddick's, by the way. Sounds plausible, though.)

So - thence to the Daily Digest for yesterday.

Just to put you on the scent: the first thing that the proceedings don't deal with is the absolutely critical question of the vote count. It's impossible to exaggerate the need at all times to keep this in the forefront of one's mind. So much fancy parliamentary footwork is a complete waste of time if, when the final reckoning comes, the votes are not there.

Perhaps a lack of recognition of this fact is the single most galling deficiency of the lefty sphere's understanding of legislative process. (I said perhaps. And, of course, present company is excepted.)

Yesterday's bombshell was this from the Post piece I looked at:

Both Democrats and Republicans believe the only measure that could win 60 votes is Gregg's.

The Gregg text is the one which opposes defunding in any form. If Gregg was the text which ultimately passed the Senate - that would be slightly more than a tad embarrassing for Uncle Harry.

Which brings us to the second thing that the CR doesn't deal with: the order of amendments being debated and voted on.

Getting one's head round the amendment process is a pretty tricky thing (for my little brain, at least), but, unfortunately, is necessary to make head or tail of Congressional doings.

This CRS Report (PDF) on the amending process in the Senate is a useful place to start.

The general principles are that

1. there are limits to the number and type of amendment which may be pending at any one time;

2. third degree amendments (an amendment to an amendment to an amendment) are barred, as are more remote amendments;

3. within each degree (first and second) amendments of different types are prioritized;

4. not more than one amendment of the same degree of priority may be pending at any one time.
   

In the case of the Iraq res/bill, three texts were in play:

• Warner-Levin;

• McCain-Lieberman; and

• Gregg.

Warner-Levin was the base bill. The other two were substitutes - ie, they replaced all text in the base bill following the enacting clause.

Now, under the regular order, only one substitute can be pending at any one time; following debate (and assuming no other amendments), a vote would be taken on the substitute, and, if adopted, it would form the bill that was the subject of the passage vote.

If a first substitute (S1) were rejected, a second (S2), if there was one, would take its place.

Note that it is perfectly possible, in theory, that S2 could have been passed nem con but still would not be dealt with because S1 had previously passed with 51 votes.

Let's adjust our model to include cloture. If S1 only had 51 votes, but S2 had 100, one might expect that S1 would be filibustered (in the current sense of the word - very different from Mr Smith!) and would failure to obtain cloture; the more popular S2 would then naturally take its place, and 'justice' would have been served.

But that's rather a special case - suppose that, instead of 51 votes, S1 commanded 60 votes; in that case it would secure cloture, and S2 would be cast aside, despite being much the more popular text.

Returning to Iraq: the order of voting is therefore crucial - under the regular order.

But what was proposed - on either side - was a unanimous consent agreement.

In yesterday's debate, we had Reid (on page S1565) outlining the terms of the UCA which he had offered McConnell, and McConnell (same page) offering a UCA in turn - which was, of course, rejected.

Neither dealt with the essentially question of timing.

McConnell's offer was this:

S. Con. Res. 7, the Warner resolution which is to be discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee; McCain-Lieberman-Graham, regarding benchmarks; Gregg related to funding.

  I further ask unanimous consent that there be a total of 10 hours--and I will be happy to pick whatever number might be agreeable to the majority leader--of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; provided further, that no amendments be in order to any of the measures; further, that after the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to three consecutive votes on the adoption of the concurrent resolutions in the following order, with no intervening action or debate: first, McCain-Lieberman-Graham; second, Gregg; third, S. Con. Res. 7. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any resolution that does not achieve 60 votes in the affirmative, the vote on adoption be vitiated and the concurrent resolution be returned to its previous status.

Now, I don't know how unusual it is to stipulate in a UCA a hurdle of 60 votes to pass (Harry swoons at the very thought, of course!). McConnell goes on about how everything important in the Senate needs 60 votes to pass because of the underlying need for cloture (he has something of a point) - but this doesn't of itself justify a 60 vote UCA.

But, even on its face, its ambiguous: what if more than one text obtains 60 votes? what if none do, but one or more get a simple majority?

It all becomes clearer if what the Post says is right, and everyone believed that Gregg, and only Gregg, had 60 votes. In that case, Gregg would be adopted, and no question of timing or priorities would arise.

(An illustration of how important the count is to understand what's going on.)

Harry makes it sound as if he's the epitome of flexibility:

We have offered them votes, up-or-down votes on McCain, Warner, Gregg, and they turned that down. I said: OK, fine, we will have 60-vote margins on McCain, Warner. They turned that down.

See - right there, he admits the principle of a 60 vote UCA: he just doesn't want to include the text that he thinks will actually get 60 votes!

Is Harry to blame? Not necessarily: my suspicion is that senators on both sides of the aisle have been impersonating headless chickens (very, very well) over the last few days, and he has had to try to hold a stable position on top of shifting sands.

Perhaps the most wobbly have been the GOP mods facing the choice of supporting a vastly unpopular war or stiffing their prez.

I expect there to be at least one more round - this time, absolutely no morning line.