223 House Democrats Vote Against "Clean" Funding
In that context, the vote on the motion to recommit on tonight's Iraq supplemental funding appropriation seems especially important to me. 223 Democrats voted no on that motion, which would have given the President $50B, no questions asked. They were joined by 8 Republicans.
To me it seems obvious that the Presidednt could be in dangerous territory: the House could actually have the votes to defeat ANY clean funding bill. We might, against all odds and predictions, actually be able to end the war during this Congress.
Just look at the last supplemental vote. In the Senate, Only 14 voted against the bill. Two of those Senators who voted no were Republicans, and they did not vote no because they wanted to end the war in Iraq. In other words, not even a quarter of the majority in that body considered taking a serious step to end the war.
In the House, we see a different picture. 142 members voted no. Most were Democrats. More than a majority of the majority voted against the funding. In other words, if we can convince Nancy Pelosi to operate the House under the "Hastert Rule," which held that only bills supported by the majority of the majority would be given assistance by House leadership, then we can be much closer to defunding. To be sure, it is possible that Republicans will get a discharge resolution and pass the spending anyway, but if they do, then it least our Democratic majority will not be complicit in helping to extend the war.
Put the Senate out of your head. It's the House that matters.
I would now only modify that to say that now we might not even need the support of the Speaker at all. Rank and file Democrats could save us from paying for a continuation of the war.
|< Paul Krugman: David Brooks is a liar | Your <s>Liberal</s> Media - At It Again >|