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

 
67-29
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, May 17, 2007

As far as I'm concerned that says it all. Not only couldn't Democrats muster even a slim majority (which would then have allowed them to call Republican senators obstructionists who stand in the way of the "will of the people"), they couldn't even muster 1/3 of the Democrats to vote for defunding the war through Feingold-Reid.

Yes, that's right, 2/3ds of the Senate said now. Now where I come from, that's an overwhelming defeat.

So? So now it will become clear that a) Senate Democrats are all talk about ending the war. They haven't the cojones to vote for an amendment which would do precisely that. And b) they prefer to play political games with the lives of our men and women in uniform. They can no longer claim they haven't had a chance to end the war and, they can no longer claim their future opposition isn't rooted in plain old politics.

Anyone - tell me why my perception isn't valid.

Anyone?

UPDATE: Phenomenal. Spin, as they say, is spin:
The Senate on Wednesday voted 67-29 to defeat a resolution calling for an end to funding for the war in Iraq. Despite the lopsided margin, media analysis on what the vote means, on "who won," is curiously split. To some, it was a victory for Democrats almost a watershed moment for the anti-war forces, an indication that support for the Iraq mission is weakening. USA Today, for example, says the vote "masked growing impatience within both political parties over President Bush's handling of the four-year conflict." The Financial Times calls the vote "a reflection of the growing opposition to the war on Capitol Hill," and ABC World News said that "each time the Senate votes, the sentiment for a quick withdrawal seems to get stronger." What was "considered radical just a few months ago on Capitol Hill is now mainstream Democratic thought. Today, a majority of Senate Democrats voted to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq within four months, with all troops gone by next March." Along similar lines, The Hill reports "the Senate yesterday edged closer to a bipartisan rebuke of...Bush's war policy," with "a majority of Democrats" supporting "a hard timeline for ending the war."
"Curiously split". LOL! It's not curious at all to those of us who've followed the evolution of the spin surrounding the politics of this whole thing.

 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Basically, the Senate has said "We Wont Cut the Funding We Haven’t Given The Troops"

With more people blaming Congress (Democrats) for the lack of troop funding, I think the political strategy is going to backfire on the Democrats.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
I make it a point not to watch any of those Nightly News / World News / Perky News broadcasts more than maybe a dozen or so times a year, but I did happen to catch Gibson sweep past the vote tallies last night to focus on that growing "sentiment" for withdrawal. It just made me grind my teeth. Sentiment is news??? And not just news but the Top Story. Aaarrrrgggghhhh!!!!
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
What’s the big deal? All the Dems did was to defeat some ammendment slapped onto a Water bill...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The Hill reports "the Senate yesterday edged closer to a bipartisan rebuke of...Bush’s war policy," with "a majority of Democrats" supporting "a hard timeline for ending the war."
Yep, that certainly is one way to say 29 out of 100. Of course when 29 Repubs support a measure, these same non-partisan reporters speak of overwhelming defeat.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Rest assured Senate Democrats, when the time comes to actually pull the majority of the troops out, you can safely vote in favor then and demonstrate your firm opposition to keeping them there one day longer.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
While I too am disappointed at the low level of support for this bill, 29 is not technically less one third of 49(or 50 if you count Lieberman) so "they couldn’t even muster 1/3 of the Democrats" is not entirely accurate.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Simple....

The Democrats declared Victory (on Senate vote) and left. :P
 
Written By: Jay Evans
URL: http://
Now that it has been defeated it has miraculously become rebranded as a "symbolic measure".
 
Written By: Uncle Pinky
URL: http://
It’s "cOjones," not "cAjones." Cajones are drawers.
 
Written By: dicentra
URL: http://dicentrasgarden.blogspot.com
t’s "cOjones," not "cAjones." Cajones are drawers.
Yeah? ... they don’t have any of those either.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Review the legislative history of multiple withdrawal bills in Vietnam and get back to me.

The next vote in September will have more. Only the die-hards will be able to pretend much longer that the US presence is putting Iraq as a country
back on its feet.
.

And as they abandon ship, so will the votes. Slowly and inexorably. Especially once the Republican primaries are over.







 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Review the legislative history of multiple withdrawal bills in Vietnam and get back to me.
Yes, and we see how that worked out, didn’t we? Not the withdrawal, I mean, but rather, what happened after.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
What happened after? You mean Vietnam unified and part of the WTO with Nike factories building our shoes and tourists visiting the battlefields, like it was Gettysburg? Oh and a Hanoi Hilton featuring high speed internet instead of high voltage?
 
Written By: Retief
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