I go to watch a little league game and come back to find that the House Dems have sold out their base and funded more mayhem for our troops in Iraq. I could rant about it, but I’ve known this was coming for a while. Some people see it as a total betrayal. I don’t. Not really. I see it as a decision to not to let get things get really ugly…which is what would happen right now because we have not succeeded to splintering the Republican caucus. Whether it is ending the war or impeaching Bush and Cheney, we first must splinter the GOP caucus. They held firm this time. A lot of people think we’ll see the same story play out in September. I don’t. I really think the GOP pulled out their last hurrah on this bill. They’ll rue this day for years to come.
The vote was 280-142, with eighty-six Democrats voting in favor and 140 voting against. Two Republicans voted against. The ‘Yes’ votes were very predictable. For Philly readers, Patrick Murphy, Chaka Fattah, and Bob Brady voted against. Allyson Schwartz and Joe Sestak voted for.
Update [2007-5-24 21:40:30 by BooMan]: Senate caves, too. The count was 80-14. Enzi, Coburn, and Burr voted against it, presumably because it had extraneous spending in it.
NAYs —14. Boxer (D-CA), Burr (R-NC), Clinton (D-NY), Coburn (R-OK), Dodd (D-CT), Enzi (R-WY), Feingold (D-WI), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Obama (D-IL), Sanders (I-VT), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR).
Not Voting – 6. Brownback (R-KS), Coleman (R-MN), Hatch (R-UT), Johnson (D-SD), Schumer (D-NY), Thomas (R-WY)
I see it as a decision to not to let get things get really ugly…
I have to disagree with the above. As the violence/death continues, any political ugliness that happens will pale by comparison.
Yeah. You can use that argument very convincingly, as Olbermann did. But I mean something different.
The ugliness would have been more than political, it would have been institutional, it would have messed with the Pentagon, forcing them to cancel contracts, and generally move around crap…break commitments, change plans…it would have led to a major stand-off with the troops funding in the balance…messing with strategy…
If we were going to do that we needed some bipartisan cover and we just couldn’t muster any. I’ve said it a lot recently…I am surprised at how suicidal the Republicans are. I don’t think the Dems entered into this in bad faith. Their strategy was aimed at peeling of Republicans. But when that strategy failed, this outcome was inevitable.
“It would have led to a major stand-off with the troops funding in the balance…messing with strategy…”
What is this “strategy” you speak of wrt Iraq? There isn’t any.
I really think the GOP pulled out their last hurrah on this bill. But what if they hold firm again in September? What then? Most of them are not rational, remember.
Deciding not to let things get really ugly right now is one thing, totally caving in is another. The Dems completely gave up everything they had accomplished in getting momentum going for winding down the war and got nothing in return. Totally caving in is never a good idea: all it demonstrates is that you are weak and that you do not honor your commitments to your main supporters. Even Kos understands this, and sees this as a “betrayal”.
What the Dems should have done is at least, if they didn’t want to stand firm and send the same bill back as Edwards advocated, send back a watered-down bill that still put some kind of conditions on Bush, however minimal. That would have been a compromise, and would have restored some kind of normal governance to this country. As it is, they caved in to a rogue President, which simply means that the end to the slaughter is not a day closer, and democracy in this country has become further undermined.
Or they should have given funding for only two months, as Murtha proposed and you favored in April. As it is, they gave Bush exactly what he wanted.
This is the first victory and accomplishment that Bush has had since January. He was on a steep downward spiral, but now that spiral will be stopped, for the time being at least. Even though the emperor has no clothes, the Democrats have allowed Bush to demonstrate that he is still the President, and not a pathetic lame duck.
I really don’t see how you can say that this wasn’t a mistake. You are throwing all your eggs into the basket of the scenario that the Rethugs will splinter in September. Building your strategy around only one contingency is never a good idea.
The point I’m trying to make is that there is a distinction between what the leadership tried to do and what certain Democrats were willing to go along with. The Dems didn’t veto the first bill and they didn’t promise the veto the second. The Republicans stood firm, and several Dems in the Senate were unwilling to follow a hard-line strategy. So, Reid and Pelosi were stymied. In all the calls for them not to cave, I haven’t seen anyone lay out exactly how they thought that would play out. I’ve tried to think about how it would have played out and I have to admit that it would have gotten extremely ugly.
As best as I can tell, Reid’s only real alternative was to recess without offering a bill, since he couldn’t pass one that was acceptable. He could have reintroduced the old bill but I don’t think it would have passed again and Levin would have balked.
Tell me what would have happened if Reid had decided he simply would not introduce any bill.
Had they gone on recess without a bill? Hmm.. As sick as it sounds, I could even see Bush taking the current supply problems in Iraq that Larry Johnson reported on yesterday, and blaming them on the Democrats not passing a funding bill that suited him. Bush treats the troops like toy soldiers as it is… would he let them be shortchanged on something and blame the Dems when it’s Halliburton or whoever simply fucking up logistics? Yes, he would.
Still, the Dems not only caved, they have let the White House spin machine control the narrative — meaning that they’ve essentially not even put the weight of all this on the right side of the aisle successfully.
Not happy with them at all right now… Sigh. We still have a very long way to go to turn things around. Though at least Edwards’ strong position against the bill helped pull Clinton and Obama over to the Nay column. I’m not so certain she would have voted against otherwise… but neither of them want to alienate the grassroots base, and they knew their vote wouldn’t change the outcome.
They should have been able to figure out how to come up with a bill that was unpalatable to Bush, but sufficiently weak that it would have been politically difficult for him to veto it. When it was clear that he would veto the first bill, that’s what the Dems said they would do, and then they just stopped putting up any sort of fight, for some reason.
Whatever happened to Murtha’s idea of only funding for two months, to at least keep Bush on a short leash, for example? I wouldn’t call that particularly hard-line. That would have put Bush and the Rethugs on the defensive when it comes to “funding the troops”, so I don’t see why it was rejected.
The point is that politics is a struggle, and there is never any excuse for just stopping fighting, and outright capitulating. Especially when your opponent is weak, as Bush is with a 28% approval rating, and when two thirds of the population wants timetables.
You still talk about impeachment, but impeachment is significantly less likely now. To make impeachment conceivable to most people, the president must be viewed as isolated and with little real authority, but caving in to Bush has made him much stronger. It will also be easier for Bush to hang on to Gonzales now.
Politics is largely theater. The Dems should have figured out a way of ramming something down Bush’s throat that he didn’t want to swallow. He is so unpopular now— the only thing he has in his favor is the corporate media—that it should have been possible to do that. What this outcome shows is that Bush and Rove are still much better at the political game than the Dems are. Bush’s unpopularity more than offsets the advantage he has from the bias of the corporate media.
Either the Dems are very poor political players, or they do not really want to end this war. I think it’s a combination of both.
I’m not saying I’m not disappointed. I’m putting myself in Reid’s shoes. He did poke and prod and try to splinter the GOP caucus, but he failed.
Given that, he had to convince his caucus to go along with a strategy that would probably result in a funding gap for the troops. The people responsible for the military, people like Carl Levin, said they were not going to go along.
At that point, what were Reid’s options?
They weren’t good.
See, you’re betting that he could have forced Bush to sign something. I don’t think that is true. And even if it is true, we would have damaged the Pentagon in the process. If it were my choice to make, I’d play chicken. But his own caucus wasn’t going to back him up. So, how do you go to war with the White House when you are defeated before you start?
His only real alternative was to not pass anything.
I guess you’re saying that only funding for two months would result in a “funding gap for the troops”. I find that pretty hard to believe, given how autonomous the Pentagon is. Still, that argument could have been what got Murtha’s proposal shot down.
It would be nice to know why it was shot down. But the negotiations weren’t very transparent, were they? There’s been a lot of that going on lately with the Dems. That’s another thing I don’t like about them.
My basic point is that there must have been some degree x > 0 of conditions/unpalatability that the Rethugs would have been willing to pass and Bush to sign. Reid couldn’t find it, so he went with x = 0. By not accepting x > 0 (no matter how small), the Republicans stood on principle. Our side didn’t. Why is it that the other side stands on principle but not ours, when it is we who are in the right?
Bush is pathological. He is not rational in any sense of the word. He is THE DECIDER, like some messianic force of god. He literally decided who lives and who dies on this planet, in his own mind. He does not have to listen to anyone who disagrees with him. He truly believes his power is both divine and absolute by his own public admission. And at every step of the way the GOP has smiled and nodded and agreed wholeheartedly with the fuhrerprinzip.
Exactly what piece of insight makes you believe that these same enablers are going to abandon Bush in September? Even better, what magical illumination makes you think after EIGHTY VOTES FOR THIS TRAGEDY by the Senate that they will suddenly do the right thing 4 months from now?
Soldiers will still die. Bush will still preen. And between now and then, should you be correct, then the Cheney junta has every reason to push the button on Iran over the summer (Won’t $5 gas be fun?)
I’m glad somebody still believes there’s hope. But I’m looking at the proverbial crap in my other hand, and it’s rather more full than the hand with hope in it. Empirical evidence seems to indicate no desire by our lawmakers to do more than to politically posture and go “We we tried, but Bush is just too crafty for us!”
Screw that. This was our best chance to end this war and now it’s over. Bush knows that no matter what the Democrats SAY, he knows in the end their ACTIONS will be to capitulate to his divine right of Shrubness.
The next time Bush will trot out the same speech. The GOP will trot out the same speech (We need to wait until the spring to see the results!) And the vote will be largely the same. There will be no peeloff. There will be no fracturing, not while Cheney and Rove are making it clear anyone who isn’t with the program is with the terrorists, and there will be no end to this war.
And we will move on to Iran.
Politicians are still politicians, even when they are rubber stamp Republicans. They do make mistakes, like the 1995 government shutdown, but they aren’t totally suicidal. I admit, they are more suicidal than I thought possible, but still, there must be a scintilla of self-preservation in there somewhere.
Take a look at the roll-calls on these votes. The safest pols were the most likely to make the difficult vote. Voting against funding the troops never sounds good in a teevee commercial. Enzi, Burr, and Coburn don’t care because they consider themselves safe.
Meanwhile, Hillary, Obama, and Dodd joined the liberal rump of the Senate, not because they have courage, but because they don’t. They are afraid of those Iowa anti-war caucus goers. Otherwise, they would have been cowardly, like almost every other Senate Dem and voted in favor because they fear being painted as unsupportive of the troops.
The House votes were also predictable. Patrick Murphy almost stands alone as voting funding from a conservative district. McNerney stood tall too. The rest? They voted their districts (as they perceive them).
But many of them have miscalculated. They aren’t looking to the future (which is when the election will be held). Voting for this war sounded good at the time, but it’s a heavy load to carry now.
There’s another reason I believe the Republicans will splinter. They will be looking to nominate a new standard bearer. And that standard bearer is going to be looking at polls, and those polls are going to tell them to distinguish themselves from Bush.
So, what happens in September?
If Iraq continues in its death spiral, things will look bleaker than ever. We’ll have 18 reports that detail how pathetic Iraq’s progress and prospects are. Petraeus will say that he needs another 18 months to know for sure if Iraq is doomed. And we’ve been hear before.
Remember September 2003, when Kerry was forced to flip-flop and vote against funding with no strings attached? It’s the same logic. But this time it will apply to the Republican candidates.
As for Cheney starting a war with Iran? That could happen. If it does, all bets are off.
I said he wasn’t a true progressive at the time of his response to the SOTU and got dipped in a vat of acid for it.
I based my statement at that time partly on Webb’s “no” vote against Senator Feingold’s bill on 16 May 2007. Feingold’s bill would have provided for the redeployment of troops out of Iraq by October 1, completing withdrawal and cutting funds for the war by March 21, 2008.
In other words, Webb voted against cutting off funds with a timetable. In doing so, he parroted Bush’s nonsensical rhetoric about “abandoning” the troops in the field.
Has Senator Webb redeemed himself by voting “no” on this compromise bill that strips out the much-needed timetable for withdrawal?
Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Dodd all voted for Feingold’s bill on 16 May 2007 (actually on amendment), while the “Kos progressives” Senators Tester of Montana and Webb of Virginia voted NO.
This time around, 24 May 2007, Clinton, Obama, and Dodd voted NO on this bill (which was the correct thing to do, given that it was a Vichy compromise), Biden voted YES, and the great “Kos progressives” Webb and Tester voted…
Of course they voted “YES”. Both of them. What did you expect?
But the Webb worshippers will still tell you that, overall, he’s a PROGRESSIVE and you can’t judge him by this one little vote.
Pure and utter bullshit. If there’s one guy who had political cover for a “no” vote on this bullshit bill, it was Webb, former Marine, former Republican, former Reagan Defense Secretary.
I don’t want to hear his reasons. If Webb’s this walking-tall, straight-talking John Wayne hero, let him prove it.
His May 16th and May 24th votes show that the great hero has feet of clay.
and one of the clearest thinkers and speakers we have.