Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Is Going with the Murtha plan worth the Senate?
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, February 22, 2007

I honestly don't think it will ever happen because I really don't think Murtha will be successful in passing his strategy into law. And, honestly, other than the war, I'd guess the Republicans really don't want a "Lieberman Republican" ... whatever that is. But Joe Lieberman's answers to some questions about the war in Iraq certainly can leave you speculating:
Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.
My guess is that includes the passage of a bill which Rep. John Murtha favors which hobbles and hamstrings the military to the point that it can't do its job in Iraq. Obviously it would also mean any overt attempt to defund the war.
He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.

"I hope we don't get to that point," Lieberman said. "That's about all I will say on it today. That would hurt."
Well other than cost the Dems the Senate, which they've been mostly unable to control anyway, I'm not sure the net effect of Liberman going Republican would mean much in real terms to Republicans.

In the Senate, it would change the complexion of some committees. It could even come in handy if a Supreme Court nomination were needed. But even then Joe Lieberman's vote for the nominee wouldn't be certain, that's for sure.

Joe Lieberman is a liberal Democrat and other than the war issue, makes Lincoln Chaffee seem conservative. But the one thing I could see, if he actually did change parties, is the possibility of him ending up on a McCain ticket as the VP.

Boy would that throw a monkey-wrench into the works.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Oh, it would certainly be a slap in the face of Democrats and the anti-war lobby.
...
But the one thing I could see, if he actually did change parties, is the possibility of him ending up on a McCain ticket as the VP.

Boy would that throw a monkey-wrench into the works.
Oh what fun it would be!
 
Written By: shasta
URL: http://
Want a monkey wrench?

Dem ticket: Clinton / Obama
Rep: Romney / Giuliani
Ind: McCain / Lieberman

And the Dem’s keep the house.

Never happen, but it would make great theater.
 
Written By: Ryan
URL: http://
If Lieberman defects it will not be because of Democratic pressure or action. It will be because of a decision he made to break his promise to caucus with the Democrats almost as soon as he made the promise in the first place. The desire of the majority of the Democratic party to end the war using the power of the purse has been present (and not much of a secret) for years. The idea that Sen. Lieberman wasn’t aware of this possibility when he decided to run as an "Independent Democrat" sworn to caucus with the Democratic Party upon election is farcical.

That said, he’s bluffing. He knows that the Murtha plan is unlikely to pass and that he’d never win re-election in Connecticut as a Republican (especially if Democrats are still in the majority in 2012, which is more likely than not). He’s just doing the same "reluctant independent" role he’s been playing since he bombed out in the 2004 primary.
 
Written By: badger
URL: http://
My understanding is that under the Organizing Resolution of the Senate, nothing would happen if Joe switches teams. Majority leader and all committee chairs and assignments remain the same. The 2001 resolution contained a special provision that provided for reorganization if someone switched teams.
 
Written By: Steven Donegal
URL: http://
Am I alone in admiring Senator Lieberman? Am I some kind of dupe for thinking that he is putting principle above party? I don’t like his voting record, but I do admire his general politics. Would I vote for whatever ticket he put together for President? Yes. So shoot me.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
It is the so-called supporters of the war who aren’t serious about their support for either the troops or the war. The so-called support is only slogan deep and does nothing to help the troops or the war effort. If self-proclaimed supporters were serious they would, 1. figure out how to pay for it,2. figure out how to get the troops, and/or 3. enlist.

Murtha’s plan is being misrepresented as undercutting the troops, when in fact, deployments would be tied to adequate funding.

Murtha is taking both the war and the troops more seriously than those who insist that we can just keep on going on the same track, with no substantive change in how thhe war is funded or manned.

. George Joulway, retired four-star general, "...they’re (the Army units) in danger of beinng fractured and broken, I would agree to that."

Andrew Kreinevich, retired Army, "You really have to understand just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how longer it can continue."

Lieutenant Gen. David Poythress, Georgia National Guard, "There is a danger of breaking the Army, there is an equivalent danger of breaking the National Guard. Guardsmen don’t sign up to be fulltime soldiers. If that’s what they wanted, they’d join the active Army."

Gen Peter Schoomaker, Chief of Staff, US Army, after summarizing the current practices in the use of reserves and the reliance on individual volunteers to avoid breaking the active component (his terms), "This runs counter to the military necessity of deploying trained, ready and cohesive units."

The Democrats in the House are facing facts which many, but not all, Republicans and conservatives don’t want to face. Instead of facing unwelcome facts, too many war suporters rely on namecallinng, misrepresentations, and attacks on the motivations of people they diagree with. That doesn’t help political discourse and it doesn’t help the overstrained Army or National Guard and it doesn’t help us to deal with the reality that we can’t keep on going, one Friedman after another.

One doesn’t prove patriotism or committment by changing the suject or dodging the issue. The people who are serious about winning in Iraq are the ones that are willing discuss how to get more troops so the Army and National Guard aren’t broken, as the officers sited above fear they will be, and how to pay for it. An even betterway to contribute to winning would be to enlist.

At least the Democrats in the House aren’t all talk, like most war supporters.
 
Written By: laura
URL: http://
That said, he’s bluffing.
All-in-all I agree, Badger ... but the other thing he’s doing is giving some Democrats who don’t want anything to do with Murtha’s plan cover.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Well other than cost the Dems the Senate, which they’ve been mostly unable to control anyway, I’m not sure the net effect of Liberman going Republican would mean much in real terms to Republicans
Unless you count driving the Dems absolutely batsh*t crazy with even more rage then they had after Florida 2000 as a net benefit to the GOP....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
At least the Democrats in the House aren’t all talk, like most war supporters
Yeah! Those non-binding resolutions are really impressive...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
At least the Democrats in the House aren’t all talk, like most war supporters.
Really ... so they’re actually going to grow a pair and defund the war?

Or will they continue the ’air guitar’ approach to politics and pass more non-binding resolutions? Prehaps take the coward’s way as Murtha proposes and get Soldiers and Marines killed while they slowly strangle the war in red tape? Yeah, something of which to really be proud.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ:

I agree that a side effect of this threat is that it gives purple-district Democrats some cover with the base on tough votes with the Murtha or Feingold-style Resolutions. I’m skeptical that this is his intent. If Lieberman is so concerned with Democrats’ wellbeing, maybe he shouldn’t have spent the last 4 months equating Democrats with Neville Chamberlain, merely for expressing their doubts about the surge, and advancing the most spurious of GOP talking points. Sen. Lieberman just wants his name in the papers and to keep pretending that he’s some kind of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington figure.
 
Written By: badger
URL: http://
I’m skeptical that this is his intent. If Lieberman is so concerned with Democrats’ wellbeing, maybe he shouldn’t have spent the last 4 months equating Democrats with Neville Chamberlain, merely for expressing their doubts about the surge, and advancing the most spurious of GOP talking points.
If assigning a strategy to this move, I’d suggest that making it easier for Democrats to reject the Murtha plan does works in favor of his desire to see the war continue to be funded. I’m less inclined to believe it is simply a ploy to get his name in the papers. Just being a Democrat for the war accomplishes that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Just being a Democrat for the war accomplishes that.
Really, so you decided to have a blog post about Lieberman just because he’s a Democrat for the war, and not because of his recent comments vaguely threatening to break campaign promises and switch parties? There’s only so many stories a reporter can write about Lieberman being a pro-war "Democrat" wh o insults his colleagues on a regular basis. I mean he’s been doing this for years now. Lieberman no doubt knows that he needs to make these otherwise unnecessary and pointless defection threats in order to stay in the papers. I’m not a mind-reader and there’s no way I can prove what he’s thinking, but what other reason do you think he’d have for threatening publicly to do something he’s never going to actually do, in response to legislation that hasn’t even been formally introduced yet, and will probably never be enacted into law?

I agree that his actions also accomplishe his goal of blocking such legislation by giving cover to Democrats who would otherwise be pressured vote for the legislation (paradoxically, would his actions encourage moderate Republicans to vote for the Murtha amendment?). But his decision to make these threats in public, rather than in private, hint at additional motives.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
Lieutenant Gen. David Poythress, Georgia National Guard, "There is a danger of breaking the Army, there is an equivalent danger of breaking the National Guard. Guardsmen don’t sign up to be fulltime soldiers. If that’s what they wanted, they’d join the active Army."
Pardon me but that is a silly statement for a General to make. I see it the same as the person who built his house on the Gulf Shores. "I didn’t build the house with the expectation that a hurricane would come through. I knew it could, but I did not expect the house to get destroyed." People may have signed up for the Guard ’hoping’ they would not get deployed, but if they never thought they would, they were foolish. Let’s remember laura, they are all volunteers.
The people who are serious about winning in Iraq are the ones that are willing discuss how to get more troops so the Army and National Guard aren’t broken, as the officers sited above fear they will be, and how to pay for it. An even betterway to contribute to winning would be to enlist.
Do you drop this line into every post you make? Enlist or don’t support the war. Plain and simple for you isn’t it.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Laura:
Here we go again with the National Guard meme. Let’s look at the timeline for a moment. The Joint resolution Authorizing the Use of Force was passed in the fall of 2002. The invasion of Iraq began, as I remember, in March of 2003. In approximately one month we will be looking at the 4 year anniversary of said invasion. The maximum enlistment term, initial or re-enlistment, of any Guardsman is 4 years.

In one month, with the 4th anniversary of the invasion, every single guardsman will have either be serving out the end of his initial enlistment or have had to re-enlist to get to this point.

Now, do you think anyone in his or her right mind will continue to re-enlist in a "broken" Army or National Guard? Looks like there are some "unwelcome facts" you need to face here? Instead of watching or listening to what a few generals have to say - and guess what, they have biases also - watch what the troops have to say. Not in words but in actions ’cause that speaks louder than any words.

In the early 1970s, the Army was a broken machine and the evidence was clear to see. Two major areas pointed to the problem - Re-enlistments and Fragging Incidents. The first was almost non-existent and the second was occurring at a frightening and increasing pace.

Today? It doesn’t even take a close look to see the Re-enlistment rates today are far in excess of any of the service’s goals, even the Army and Marines. And to my knowledge there has been only one incident of Fragging and that was during the initial invasion. Those are some unwelcome facts - unwelcome for you and the Democrats.

"At least the Democrats in the House aren’t all talk, like most war supporters." There you are wrong, because the Democrats, regardless of house or senate, are nothing but talk. Non-binding resolutions - my ass! Show me where that is nothing more than talk?

The day those re-enlistment rates start to falter, give me a call. The next Fragging incident that occurs, come back and talk to me. Until then, here’s an "unwelcome fact" for your Democrats to deal with - Defund the war or STFU!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider