The Amendment to cut off funding for the Iraq War went down to defeat today. Here's the roll call vote. 67 to 29, with 4 not voting.
[Via Think Progress.]
Update [2007-5-16 12:34:35 by Big Tent Democrat]: The Democratic (imo we will never get any GOP votes) No votes:
Here's the question for this list - you say want to end the war, tell me how you are going to do it. Jim Webb, you were going to show the way, so show us, what's the way? Carl Levin, what's your plan?
Let's be clear, when this people say they want to the end the war, they do not mean it. They have no serious proposal for ending the war. They do not even want to end the war by next April.
How are they different from Republicans? Answer, on this, they are not.
Make a new
This is who they are. This is where the rubber meets the road.
Carl Levin is a phony. Jack Reed is a phony. Jim Webb is a phony. etc.
Are we more likely to get the 'Shadowy Sixteen' Republicans to override a veto or the 'Terrible Twenty' Dems to vote for Reid-Feingold?
What are our options now? (Not the options of the Democratic party at large, but of the 'netroots'--to whatever extent we're a monolithic entity.)
A weekly cross-posted diary (at the top leftie sites) in which people vote on the Democrats against whom they are most eager to fund primary challengers. A running tally is developed, over time, of the top targets, and a database of people willing to pledge cash to as-yet-undeclared challengers.
And every time a politician appears on the list (with X number of votes), or rises in the ranking, he or she gets an email (or dozens of them), explaining that because of such-and-such a vote, or statement, or whatever, $X has been pledged to a primary challenge.
Then, at the end of whatever set period, we take the top one or two or five or ten (depending on the number of pledges) of the targeted Dems, and we call in those pledges.
But funding a few primary challenges isn't the main point. Really this is about exerting a small-but-constant pressure on a large number of Dems. An online institutional program to try to keep Dems on notice, using one thing they all hate--well-funded primary challenges--as a threat.
Um, is this total topic drift? Sorry if it is ...
I heartily disagree that Reid-Feingold will force Bush to withdraw troops--and I think the expectation that it will reflects exactly the same mistake these Dems are making--but clearly, clearly it's the right first step ... if you acknowledge that all other normal avenues of responsible governance are clogged by the Republicans.
Which, I think, most of the no-voters don't.