Supplemental Vote

The disappointing-but-still-worth-voting-for Iraq supplemental passed the house. Dems voting "no" from a left perspective are Michaud (ME), Woolsey, Lee, Lewis, Kucinich, Waters, Watson, and McNulty (NY). Dems votin "no" from a right perspective are Taylor (LA), Marshall (GA), Matheson (Utah), Boren (OK), Lincoln Davis (TN), Barrow (GA). Only two Republicans -- Gilchrist (MD) and Jones (NC) -- voted yes. This is the crux of the matter. Unless Congressional Republicans fear that continuing to vote for the war will cost them their seats and therefore turn against the White House, congress realistically can't force Bush to end the war. If you happen to be represented by someone who voted "no," you should really call or write in.

3/23/07 1:01PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

Maybe the current situation is the best we can hope for. Democrats are trying unsuccessfully to end the war, and Republicans are trying successfully to keep it going.

Politically, Democrats will be hurt if 1) the perception is that they are not trying to end the war, or 2) they successfully end the war, but the pullot becomes even more disastrous than the war itself.

Also, on a substantive level, wouldn't we be better off if we waited until Bozo the Clown leaves office before we try to successfully pull out from that country? I mean, to do it right will require a lot of diplomacy, intelligent planning, and flexibility.

Posted by: Jim W on March 23, 2007 01:23 PM

I look forward to all the "reasonable" centrists- Broder, Kinsley, Klein- saying how this is the greatest bill EVAR because people are criticizing it from both the left and the right and therefore it must be correct.

Posted by: SP on March 23, 2007 01:32 PM

If you mean Gene Taylor, he's from MS, not LA.

Posted by: Scott C on March 23, 2007 01:34 PM

Also, I'll be waiting for the attacks on Republicans, saying they voted against funding the troops and they want all our soldiers to die of thirst in the desert because they won't pay for shipments of water.

Posted by: SP on March 23, 2007 01:35 PM

Note that at least one Republican also voted no from the antiwar side.

Posted by: Tim on March 23, 2007 01:39 PM

We should also call to support the folks who voted yes. Even though this bill will never become law, it's important that we keep standing up to Bush and making sure Democrats are associated with wanting to end this war.

Posted by: alex on March 23, 2007 01:48 PM

Unfortunately, no bill would be enough with Bozo the Clown still in the White House. Even if Shrub wanted out of the war, he'd do it just as incompetently as he ran the war. Sad to say, but the only thing the Democratic congress may be able to accomplish in that regard is setting the table for the next President to pull us out (i.e. get a democrat in the White house, larger majorities in 2008, etc). There's no way way Bozo is pulling out.

Posted by: Erick on March 23, 2007 02:01 PM

Actually, McNulty of New York is a moderate who has even been endorsed by the Conservative Party in the past, so it wouldn't surprise me if his "No" was from the right. (On the other hand, his constituents are probably very anti-war: Maybe he's trying to have it both ways?) Michaud of Maine has also been conservative on some social issues, but I don't know about on war-and-peace issues.

Posted by: James Kabala on March 23, 2007 02:05 PM

Was Michaud opposing from the left? He's a Blue Dog, like the representatives listed as voting "No" from the right.

Posted by: Matt Weiner on March 23, 2007 02:07 PM

I'm still waiting to hear back from Maxine Waters.

Posted by: dj moonbat on March 23, 2007 02:23 PM

Collin Peterson, my Congressman (and PZ's) came around at last. Of course, if the Blue Dogs had voting against the bill after gutting it, that would have stunk a little too much.

Posted by: John Emerson on March 23, 2007 02:24 PM

DC residents, by the way, should be calling Louie Gohmert to complain about the bill.

Posted by: Dan Miller on March 23, 2007 02:36 PM

Why is it not OK for most of the Democrats to vote "no," but it's OK when Boren does it? This is some kind of double standard.

Posted by: minderbender on March 23, 2007 03:13 PM

Here is McNulty's statement on the vote. He's pretty clearly coming from the principled left.

http://www.house.gov/mcnulty/pr070323.htm

Minderbender, the issue with Boren is that his district is one where someone could run a campaign accusing him of not supporting the troops and he would lose in 2008 to a more conservative Republican. The previous representative there was Tom Coburn, so we shouldn't have high hopes for the electorate to choose a progressive champion. Now I'm not sure Boren is the best example of this "red district" excuse, because his district is heavily Native American and one of the last true Yellow Dog Democrat parts of the south, and I think he'd win either way. But there is a sense that he faces an electoral cost to his vote that 90% of other Democrats wouldn't. And maybe he believes in what he's doing, too.

Posted by: Brittain33 on March 23, 2007 03:18 PM

A fair number of the Dem "no" votes came at the very end of the vote time, after the supplemental had already gotten enough votes to pass. This leads me to believe that a fair number of these were the "vote of conscience" progressives, and that they wouldn't have voted "no" (likely abstaining) unless the measure had the votes to pass anyway.

There were 5 or 6 early "no" votes, which deserve a bit more scrutiny.

(And 2 Republican crossovers - shouldn't more attention be paid to those, and some effort spent in trying to reinforce to those Reps who have shown a willingness to cross the aisle in important issues that their constituents support it? Seems we're often more obsessed with punishing Dem crossovers than rewarding Republican ones)

Posted by: Dan on March 23, 2007 04:03 PM

Dan,

I already called Rep. walter Jones to thank him for this vote. His office hinted on Wednesday that he was leaning that way. Seems many republicans suffer from the same lack of testosterone as do many dems. I'm tired of hearing that Boren gets a pass because his is a red district. Sounds like some believe reps should whore themselves for votes--even if lives are lost.

Posted by: mal on March 23, 2007 05:52 PM

My congresswoman is Woolsey. I called her office yesterday and told the polite young man answering the phone that it would be a great thing if she would vote yes. He said he'd pass it along. Evidently she wasn't persuaded.

What I'm wondering though, is what happens when Bush vetoes this thing? There's nothing saying Pelosi has to pass a bill that he likes. Really. I mean, the democrats can just refuse to act. Didn't like this one? OK then, forget about it. Find money for your war somewhere else. The administration's got nothing other than political juice to get the money they need, and their juice tank is on E and the little gaspump light came on about 20 miles back. If Pelosi can hold the line, which obviously is debatable, the war got shut down today.

Posted by: Pinson on March 23, 2007 08:02 PM

What I'm wondering though, is what happens when Bush vetoes this thing? There's nothing saying Pelosi has to pass a bill that he likes. Really.

Yeah, the only thing the Dems need to be scared of is a "why won't you fund our troops?" PR campaign, and they can say "we did, and you vetoed the funding." My guess, though, is that they probably lack the guts to play that particular game of chicken.

Posted by: dj moonbat on March 23, 2007 08:19 PM

I agree with dj moonbat and whoever he or she was quoting. The House of Representatives CAN effectively veto the war by not passing funding legislation that Bush is willing to sign. It looks like today's vote is the beginning of an extended game of chicken between Bush and Pelosi. I don't think that guts are going to decide the issue though. The last poll numbers had 59% of the public backing a deadline for withdrawing the troops. Presidents usually win these kinds of stand-offs withy Congress. But if those numbers hold up, Bush will be the one who blinks.

Posted by: Ric Caric on March 23, 2007 08:48 PM

When it comes to the Boren issue, I'd rather have an unreliable Democrat than a Republican. I just wondered how to understand this line from Matt:

"Dems votin "no" from a right perspective are Taylor (LA), Marshall (GA), Matheson (Utah), Boren (OK), Lincoln Davis (TN), Barrow (GA)."

Why is Boren "OK" but the others aren't? Is it just because he represents a conservative district in Oklahoma?

Posted by: minderbender on March 23, 2007 10:03 PM

There's no way the Dems are going to be able to play chicken with this issue. Pelosi barely got the measure through as it was. She can't possibly have the votes to really pull the plug.

Posted by: AlanC9 on March 23, 2007 10:52 PM

Spot on, Pinson! The Dems should just keep passing funding bills with strings that Bush can't accept. When Bush vetos them, the Dems can paint Bush as the war funding obstacle. Sooner or later Bush will have to accept the strings or shut down the war when the $$$ tank is empty.

Posted by: kafka on March 23, 2007 10:57 PM

If the House is preparing to veto the war by default, the Senate might be doing the same with their version of the supplemental appropriations bill. Reid could bring up a bill with a withdrawal deadline and restrictions, and then just refuse to bring up another bill if the Republicans filibuster. That might create a lot of disincentive for the Republicans to mount a filibuster.

Once the Bush people see this handwriting on the wall, I think Bush will cave. He'll just sign the bill, add a signing statement saying he can do anything he wants, and hope he has a stronger hand for the next showdown.

Posted by: Ric Caric on March 23, 2007 11:47 PM

The crazier man always wins the game of chicken.

Bush will win this.

Posted by: yoyo on March 24, 2007 12:48 AM

Bill Clinton beat Newt Gingrich at chicken, over the government shutdown. Are you saying Clinton was crazier than Newt?

Posted by: STS on March 24, 2007 02:21 AM

Can someone explain to me why Democrats are in favor of pulling out of Iraq and not Afghanistan? It would seem that the same reasons for not pulling out of Afghanistan (not wanting to leave a vacuum for Al Queda to fill) would apply to Iraq, except that Iraq is a more strategically important country than Afghanistan.

Conversely, if fears of Al Queda exploiting a power vacuum in Iraq are overblown, can't the same case be made about Afghanistan?

On the other hand, if the argument against Iraq is that "there's no military solution", isn't this also true about Afghanistan? As long as Taliban elements have a safe haven with the Pashtuns on the Pakistani side of the largely theoretical border -- and as long as we have no intention of denying them that safe haven -- the war in Afghanistan will continue to rage.

We now have more troops in Afghanistan than we have had at any time since we deposed the Taliban, and the war goes on with no end in sight. Why the open-ended commitment to the 4th world moonscape that is Afghanistan and the rush to leave Iraq? Is it just because the casualties are higher in Iraq, and the explosions are more frequently televised? Or will the rush to leave Afghanistan start once Iraq winds down and the spotlight shifts to that other war?

Posted by: Fred on March 24, 2007 04:45 AM

thanks four you flowers

Posted by: sohbet on October 8, 2007 11:26 PM

Sağır Oda Fan Club
Türk
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
youtube video
forum
downloads
Haberler
küresel ısınma
dizi izle