When Ned Lamont whipped Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senatorial primary in August and became the Democratic party's nominee for U.S. Senate, I began a campaign of contacting the offices of Democratic Senators and seeing how fast they would be willing to go on the record and support Lamont over the Bush-hugging Lieberman.
Some pledged support for Lamont quickly, while others took a while to come around to the earth-shattering notion of being a Democrat and actually supporting the Democratic nominee. And some failed the gut-check entirely and chose to support Lieberman -- who, at that point, had abandoned the Democratic party -- over Lamont, who had won the support of Connecticut's Democrats fair, square and convincingly.
This one should be easier.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), with the strong support of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), will come back from the Senate recess next week and propose legislation that will challenge any veto made by George W. Bush on the war-funding bill that's just passed both houses of Congress. The Senate and House measures include provisions calling for a complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by March and September of 2008, respectively, and Bush has promised to veto whatever legislation he gets that contains language about bringing the troops home.
The Feingold-Reid measure matches the bill that just passed the Senate by ordering Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 120 days of enactment but will up the ante considerably by putting Bush on notice that funding for the war will stop in less than one year.
In other words, the tough, tenacious Feingold and former-boxer Reid are looking Bush straight in the eye on his veto threat and doing the legislative equivalent of saying "go ahead, make my day."
Being too stubborn to back down and with a track record of caring little about the welfare of the troops or what the American people think should be done, Bush will, of course, veto the supplemental bill within two seconds of it hitting his desk. At that point, Reid has vowed to bring the bill he is cosponsoring with Feingold to the floor for a vote and we will be off to the races in seeing who has the guts to do what's right for the country and the overstretched military.
So let's start tracking again... We have at least a couple of weeks before the House and Senate versions of the supplemental funding bill go to "conference" to reconcile differences, which gives us plenty of time to canvas Democratic Senators and find out how they'll vote when the time comes.
I'm guessing some will say they have no comment because voting on the Feingold-Reid bill is hypothetical until it's formally proposed and until Bush actually vetoes the supplemental. Some may also tell us that they need more time to study the Feingold-Reid bill.
I hope we don't hear either, because both assertions would be utter nonsense.
It's important that Bush get some advanced notice of what he will face when -- not if -- he vetoes the supplemental and every Senator in that chamber knows that Reid will indeed bring the new legislation to the floor if he needs to. And my nine-year-old son could digest and analyze the 187 words of the bill in question in less time than it takes him to watch an episode of SpongeBob SquarePants -- and that's if he hadn't already seen almost identical language in other bills as each of these Senators so often has.
So I start contacting the offices of Democratic Senators today, along with Republicans Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon, both of whom voted with Democrats last week on the troop withdrawal. For some, it should be easier than others... Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama are running for president in 2008 and what could be easier than to pledge a vote that matches the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of the American people?
John Kerry (D-MA) has already agreed to cosponsor the bill and I predict Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) will be next. The gut-check may be more severe for some red-state Democrats but, hey, doing the right thing is what's supposed to separate Democrats from most Republicans.
As of this moment, we have Senators Feingold, Reid and Kerry prepared to force Bush to bring our troops out of a bloody civil war and focus on our country's true security imperatives.
Sen. Obama Admits Congress Will Continue Funding War
"Senator Barack Obama has admitted Congress will continue to fund the war in Iraq even if President Bush vetoes the supplemental spending bill that sets a timeline for the withdrawal of troops. In an interview with the Associated Press, Obama said "I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground."
As if that weren't bad enough, the language of Feingold's "tough bill" has giant loopholes in it, as the "Exceptions" section ("d") of your own text clearly demonstrates. It says that US troops can still be used to fight Al Qaeda, engage in counterterrorism, protect US assets in Iraq, & train Iraqi security forces. In other words, US troops can still be used for any damn thing Bush might want to be doing over there!!
That's some "antiwar" bill! What a joke.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 11:34:14 AM
Feel free to ignore those for whom seeing the words "Democrat" or "Democratic" in a post is equivalent to lacing their tea with a combination of strong doses of PCP and Amphetamines.
by
Steven Leser (212 articles, 45 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1397 comments)
on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 1:33:46 PM
Good morning, Steven! I have some questions for you.
Unlike you, I made several actual points in my post. All you are doing is trying to cheerlead for your pathetic Democrats.
What do you think of Obama's admission, quoted above? Doesn't that amount to a surrender, & an acknowledgement that the Dems are just posturing, with their "antiwar language" about pullout dates? Here's an article on CommonDreams that complains, "What kind of organizer confides to the media that when push comes to shove, his side is going to back down?"
Do you see the "exceptions" section in the text of the Feingold proposal? Isn't it basically saying, "We Democrats propose taking some troops out of Iraq -- EXCEPT those troops involved in 3 or 4 kinds of activities, which are pretty much what they are doing, & have been doing the whole time"? Doesn't this strike you as fake?
Finally, yesterday you stated in another thread that the Dems' Senate supplemental bill was "binding." Unfortunately, you're wrong. Look at today's NYT article:
The House and Senate are preparing to send Bush a bill by the end of the month ... The House wants to order troops out by September 2008, whereas the Senate wants troops to begin leaving right away and set a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations on March 31, 2008.
Any comments about your mistake, here?
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 2:02:50 PM
I regard what you write as shrill and non-credible.
I saw Bob's article first before any response was posted and without reading too much of the details, I immediately said to myself, "Rich is going to post a response saying something negative about the Democrats". You are THAT predictable.
Your entire identity on this site is tied to your negative feelings about the Democrats. Since no one and no group is completely bad and completely evil, your treatment of Democrats as such is wrong on its face. In addition, because Democrats range in ideology from Kucinich and the Progressive Democratic Caucus on one side to Lieberman on the other, your generalizations are the political equivalent of racism and also wrong on their face for that reason.
There is just no reason to respond on point to someone who behaves like that.
by
Steven Leser (212 articles, 45 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1397 comments)
on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 2:29:36 PM
It is a step in the right direction although I am sure it has some wiggle room. If Congress was responsible then Articles of Impeachment would already be introduced.
Like the big announcements of the money raised by the candidates. That money isn't for doing their job. It didn't primarily come from "WE THE PEOPLE". It came from interrests, mostly from artificial entities or those who can spend the money of Corporations, Organizations and their Political Action Committees. The candidates who truly speak for "WE THE PEOPLE" are left way behind at the money feeding trouth and therefore WE have only a little voice and wonder if our votes even are counted.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 276 comments)
on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 2:18:55 PM
Edwards money came from many more SMALL contributions
Please note that John Edwards (who is rarely mentioned in the mass media in comparison to Obama and Hillary) raised QUITE a substantial amount and did NOT receive NEARLY as many large donations as the other two.
Gore/Edwards in 2008: The Karma Correction Ticket -- two candidates who have already been elected to the positions they seek, but somehow were cheated out of serving.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 676 comments)
on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 6:42:17 PM
That's OK, Steven. If I were a Dem apologist, I'd be scared
of discussing matters of substance, too. I'd probably just stick to shallow content-free cheerleading, just like you.
BTW, it's not that the Dems are "always evil." It's that they are servants of a corporate culture; slaves of the poisonous effect of money in politics. Every time they should be opposing great wrongs, Big Money taps them on the shoulder, and reminds them that if they don't cave in to it, they'll be gone. So they cave.
Unfortunately, that is what's truly "predictable."
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 4:58:06 PM
Whenever they talk about passing "withdrawal" provisions, know it is a ruse. Congress can exercise a withdrawal any time it chooses, by NOT passing anything. One thing that I find to be very revealing here is the way Bob points out that Feingold and Reid are pressuring Bush into signing the WAR FUNDING bill with a pseudo-withdrawal provision, by threatening something supposedly more restrictive.
Why, pray tell me, we should be cheering on the passage of a war funding bill? Once you accept that there is no military solution, to delay the date of withdrawal, throughout the duration of which there will be more casualties on both sides, is treacherous. Furthermore, the withdrawal provision from the bill Bush is going to veto is a ruse.
by
Mark Anderson (8 articles, 2 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 46 comments)
on Wednesday, April 4, 2007 at 12:14:54 AM
Like John Kerry once said in front of Congress. How can we ask one more troop to die for a mistake? I agree that we should get out as soon as possible.
My thinking is that the versions that passed each house have a withdrawl date. The Senates is earlier, but it is less enforcable. An acknowlegemnet from the whole Congress that it is vital to withdraw is valuable.
80% of Congress is deeply imbedded in the Corporate Warchest building program and are quite unwillingly surrendering a little voice to "WE THE PEOPLE". Thats the way it is, yet I see a little victory in an announcement that this treacherous rip off has an end date. I also hope the heads will roll far and wide when it comes to those responsible for this great deception with the sole purpose of profiteering. The rip off of our taxdollars and the blood of our youth demand justice.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 276 comments)
on Wednesday, April 4, 2007 at 12:10:36 PM
This plan will work to get the U.S. out of Iraq. Just don't vote on any spending bill for Iraq. Nothing, no problem. Then the U.S. can pay their United Nations dues which will reinforce their troops in Afganistan. When Bush, Cheney, Gates, Pace and Congress get their act together, go after Osama. I believe that Iraq will also get it's act together with the help of other Middle East countries and they will throw Osama's people out. Then the U.S. focuses on Osama's people all over the world, which is what we are suppose to be doing. No more occupations. We said we learned that.
by
Sue (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Thursday, April 5, 2007 at 3:24:32 PM
If congress wanted to they could simply declare this "war" is over -- withdraw authorization and force all the troops home. The president is commander in chief when troops are in service -- at war -- but it's congress who has the authority to make war -- or not -- and to make the rules, and the laws. It's all in the constitution.
The problem is that congress wants this war and refuses to abide by the will of the people, or to be honest about it. It's a runaway oligarchy. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Wednesday, April 4, 2007 at 10:22:25 AM
11 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
When Ned Lamont whipped Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senatorial primary in August and became the Democratic party's nominee for U.S. Senate, I began a campaign of contacting the offices of Democratic Senators and seeing how fast they would be willing to go on the record and support Lamont over the Bush-hugging Lieberman.
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
