223 House Democrats Vote Against "Clean" Funding

As Kagro X often explains, there is a split between those who believe that motions to recommit are purely procedural and those who believe that they carry all of the meaning of a proper amendment. In this Congress, they have mostly been given the latter meaning.

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.

From my previous diary on ending the war in the House:

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    THE issue (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 10:18:31 PM EST
    and we got a worthwhile (and, frankly, unexpected) vote.


    The imprortance of funding the military (none / 0) (#2)
    by duncanld on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 06:17:39 PM EST
    It really makes you wander what we have elected. Beyond the funding for the troops this action could result in hundreds of thousands of people being laid off and the loss of military support for this country (along with the miltary support, we have several hundred thousand civilans and contractors whose liveihoods depend on the support they provide to the military. Its about more than just the Iraq War, its about the stability of a nation and its people. I would like to see what the folks who fought the bill have to say when the employment rate jumps and folks out of work because they decided to play with the President and the miltary to get what they wanted. It might be a little hard to explain that in an election year...but I guess they don't care because they will get to take thier nice vacations and not have to worry about where their next paycheck is comming from...oh that is until the need the miltary that they decided to stop funding