Here's the actual roll call link - it was 149-141 with

132 Repubs voting "present" (abstaining). (Click Here for Roll Call.)

It certainly sounds good, & it's a very big surprise if it's what it appears to be on the surface. But I feel suspicious about this, because only 9 of the abstaining Republicans would have had to vote "Yes" to pass the funding measure. Why would they have given up so easily? I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye -- some sort of parliamentary tactic related to dividing up the spending bill into different parts.

(For details on that strategy -- a plan by the Dems to grandstand as though they "oppose" the war, without really intending to move substantively to block the funding -- see this recent article.)

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1024 comments) on Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 8:12:14 PM
 

Smart guy.

...Republicans withheld support for the bill in protest against extra measures added on by the Democrats, including a "millionaire tax" on wealthy Americans to pay education fees for US veterans of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts...

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/53EA481C-A741-45E3-93DF-CA94772D8240.htm

by Amanda Lang (21 articles, 12981 quicklinks, 417 diaries, 502 comments) on Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 9:59:22 PM
 

My guess on what happened here -- it's something that was

done by the R's, not by the D's. The Dems only voted against funding by an unspectacular 147-85. That's not unusual. Even in the 2002 IWR, more House Dems voted against it than for it, in roughly the same proportion.

What stands out in this roll call is not on the Dems' side; it's on the Repubs' side. They voted 2 against funding, only 56 for it, with 132 abstaining. THAT'S where the action was, here.

So what are the Repubs up to? Maybe they want to let the bill go to Bush, be vetoed, & force the Democrats into a position where they either have to vote for funding or be accused of "not supporting the troops." My guess is that it's some kind of game like that.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1024 comments) on Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 10:00:23 PM
 

Watch Boehner...

This piece might help you further flesh out your theory...

Boehner: ‘We’re playing political games on the backs of our troops.’»

After directing his caucus to vote “present” on a $162.5 billion proposal to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — a move that effectively killed the bill — House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said on the floor of the House today that, “we’re playing political games on the backs of our troops.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/15/boehner-were-playing-political-games-on-the-backs-of-our-troops/

One thing for sure.  It's going to be a bloody campaign.  Historical in terms of its ugliness.

by Amanda Lang (21 articles, 12981 quicklinks, 417 diaries, 502 comments) on Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 10:17:57 PM
 

No need; I accept your theory (the Al Jazeera link above)

without argument, as far as the Repubs' motivation here. As I said in my 2nd post, the roll call numbers showed that today's vote was driven by unusual behavior on the part of the R's, not the D's.

I'd still say that my WSWS link above explains the Dems' strategy, as well. And I'd further bet that when all is said & done, in a few weeks, Bush will get everything he wants -- with the Dems capitulating on the only points of difference, which after all are relatively minor.

The Dems have no problem allowing the war to be funded; their only point of difference is trying to tack on a few "extras," like the tax on wealthy Americans to pay for vets' education benefits, & maybe an extension of unemployment insurance, or stuff like that. But that's just grandstanding. When Bush says they can't have those "extras," they'll submit without further ado (hoping simply to use it as a campaign issue in November).

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1024 comments) on Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 10:54:18 PM
 

War Funding

Obviously, the Repubs voted against it because of the "millionaire tax."  Pelosi hit them where it hurts, their wallets.  That was smart to attach a "tax" to the war funding bill.  I'm sure Pelosi knew the Repubs would vote against any tax (that would affect them).  The Repubs are showing their true support for the troops!

by Viki (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 38 comments) on Friday, May 16, 2008 at 6:35:15 AM
 

Oh sure....

And pigs are flyin'.  Like the above comments point out, the only change was in the way the Republicans voted.  Democrats?  Same as always, no solidarity there......

by Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 300 comments) on Friday, May 16, 2008 at 8:15:48 AM
 

THE PEOPLE ARE STILL THE SHEEPLE!

 Read this and see how influential WE are!

 Global Research E-Newsletter: US war plans in relation to Iran

The Decision to go to War: Not a Rational Choice 

The decision to go to war is not made by the Military high command.

The decision to go to war is taken by civilians.

The US Military is characterised by a hierarchy and command structure.

Orders come from above, emanating from the "civilian government", namely

the Bush administration. They  are transmitted downwards through the

military command structure. Once the order to go to war is taken, it is not

discussed or debated, it is carried out by the military. Moreover, in all

likelihood, in implementing a "preemptive attack" on Iran, the Bush

administration would bypass the US Congress, in blatant violation of Article

I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. 

In practice, the President and Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush,

does not decide. He also obeys orders from above. He follows the diktats of

powerful financial and corporate interests.

This war is profit-driven. "War is good for business". It is a money making

operation. It results in billions of dollar of profits for Wall Street, the oil

giants and the military industrial complex, not to mention the institutional

speculators in the oil, currency and commodity markets.

The objective of the proposed war is to extend the frontiers of the global

capitalist economy, eventually taking control of Iran's oil wealth. The

broader implications of a war using tactical nuclear weapons in the

conventional war theater are of no concern to those who decide to go to

war.

Wolfie calls on Rinnie and  Lassie to come save the day!

by Wolfie (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 938 comments) on Friday, May 16, 2008 at 12:10:25 PM
 

Democratic Leaders

thought they could get a number of their wish-list items passed and funded if they attached them to the "must-pass" war-funding bill. The millionaire tax to fund the vets' care was only one of them, as was extension of unemployment insurance.

The tactic is a demonstration of the ineffectiveness of the Democratic majority vis a vis the large and united Republican minority. They can't get these necessary and popular bills through against the R's without resorting to extreme measures. This was an extreme measure. And even it didn't work.

Yes, I agree, the R's and Bush will come back to demand the war-funding only, and enough Dems are too craven, that Bush will gain a majority with a sufficient minority of Dems voting for it, so the war will be funded through until the new administration in 2009.

Then it'll be Obama's war, or McCain's. If the US withdraws then, the defeat will be his, not Bush's, even though the whole discussion of 'defeat' and 'victory' became meaningless sometime in 2003, when Bush had so mis-managed this chosen war that it had ceased to be a war, but a failed occupation.

by Douglas Smyth (14 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments) on Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 9:25:06 PM