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

 
Voting to Defund the war: Feingold-Reid an attachement to a water bill (update)
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Finally, we'll get a real sense of the Senate:
Good news for war foes: Harry Reid just spoke on the Senate floor, revealing that he'll allow a vote this week on the Feingold-Reid amendment, which would cut off funding for the war by March 31, 2008.

This is a big deal for war opponents — it's the first vote in the Senate on a measure of this kind. "This is a vote that folks have been clamoring for for some time now," enthuses a staffer who works for a Senator favoring the approach.
This is the Netroots "bottom line", and, frankly, it is what those who oppose the war and think it is lost should vote on doing. It is the only constitutional way the Congress has of actually stopping the war in my opinion.

Why do I say we'll get a sense of the real support for this sort of a measure? Atrios nails it:
"I imagine there's a pretty close correlation between those who regularly prattle on about Democrats needing to stand for things and show strong leadership, yadda yadda, and those who aren't too thrilled that they'll have to actually take a stand."
And my guess is that those who are hoping for this to demonstrate once and for all that the anti-war lobby has the votes are going to be disappointed.

Kathy at Shakesville asks:
Here’s the problem with that: If it took such a Herculean effort to “allow” the full Senate to vote on a bill that would fund the war for almost an entire additional year; and if committing to a vote on that bill is considered to be such an unimaginably enorrrrrmous act of courage — when public opinion polls going back for at least a year consistently show large majorities of Americans oppose Bush’s handling of the war, think the war was a mistake, think it has nothing to do with the war on terror, and want Congress to set a deadline for withdrawal — then why is it party time when the Senate leadership finally is able to muster the fortitude, after months and months and months of dickering, to allow the Senate to vote on a bill that is exactly what the American people want? Why are we celebrating tentativeness when the American people want boldness? Why does Congress set such low standards for itself, and why do we let them?
Because it is a political body and it always has its nose stuck into the political winds. I'm sure they understand that those polls everyone likes to point to aren't that solid in their "lets pull out now" percentages as the anti-war left wants everyone to believe. And they also understand that should, by some miracle, the defunding vote actually pass and somehow become law, that what happens in Iraq as a result shifts from George Bush's responsibility to the Democratic Congress.

But fear not, they also are pretty darn sure this isn't going anywhere, so, as another in a long line of obvious political moves meant to benefit Democrats and mollify that loud and squeaky Netroots base, Harry Reid is allowing this dead pigeon a chance on the floor.

But even then, Reid hasn't the courage to let it stand on its own as a bill. Instead, in an obvious procedural move to give cover to Democratic Senators he's attaching it to the Water Resources Development Act Reauthorization.
Senator and Presidential candidate Chris Dodd today released the following statement responding to the announcement that the Feingold-Reid legislation would be attached to the Water Resources Development Act Reauthorization:

"We should have a straight up or down vote on Feingold-Reid - not as an amendment to a water bill or any other bill.

This is the most important Senate debate since the original vote to authorize the war. This simply cannot be the occasion for hiding behind procedural tactics.

That is why I am calling on all my other colleagues running for President to state clearly where they stand on this important legislation by joining me as a co-sponsor of Feingold-Reid and stating how they would vote on the bill."
Mr. Reid, would you please use some of that money you got from your land deals and buy a spine transplant for heaven sake?

UPDATE: Harry Reid in January:
I also recognize that we have a process in the Senate where bills can be amended. Sometimes they don’t have to be relevant or germane. But I think you have to be in the ballpark.
Or water park.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Feingold-Reid an attachement to a water bill
I understand that next, they’re going to attach a motion to impeach Bush to a non-binding resolution praising American Raisin farmers for doing such a swell job.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Dems refusing to allow a straight up or down vote on something they won’t shut the hell up about, and that they claim is 100% what the American people want?

I’m shocked - shocked I tell you - at this sudden turn of events.
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Dems refusing to allow a straight up or down vote on something they won’t shut the hell up about, and that they claim is 100% what the American people want?
Do you think it’s because they’re playing political games with the war, or if it’s that they’re really so divided they fear this could open up fissures in the party? Either way they need to have the vote; the Democratic party is in a position like the GOP in 1980 — they need to learn that the way to convince voters is not through focus groups or polling, but to take principled stands come what may. And if the principles of those in the party vary and the party cannot speak with a united voice, well, that’s long been the tradition of the Democratic party, and frankly I’d much rather have politicians taking individual stands that toeing a party line.

A water bill? Sheesh.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
A water bill? Sheesh.
Well, it’s not like this is something new they do - look at the pork they added to the bill that Bushie vetoed that had nothing to do with war funding.

New names, same games. Our Tax dollars at work and play.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Do you think it’s because they’re playing political games with the war, or if it’s that they’re really so divided they fear this could open up fissures in the party?
Yes to both, but it’s about an 80/20 split... They are playing games, and doing a fairly poor job at it, considering Congress’s approval ratings...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
How will Reid Feingold fund the troops that they want to leave behind to fight AQ and train the Iraqi army? What a bunch of double speak- Defund Bush’s Petreaus plan and return to the Rumsfeld era plan with how many military personnel?

Maybe that is the uber top secret plan the Dems have to look strong on defense.
 
Written By: mdetlh
URL: http://
Shhh, the uber plan is - "do it better and smarter".
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The only good thing you can say about this disreputable tactic is, it’s the same thing Republicans did to screw on line Poker Players, except the Republicans were sneaky enough to do their dirty deed in the dead of night when no one was watching.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
Well, it’s not like this is something new they do - look at the pork they added to the bill that Bushie vetoed that had nothing to do with war funding.
No that was pure bribery
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/

 
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