Reid-Feingold Iraq Funding Amendment Defeated

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:12:28 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

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:

Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)

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.

< James Comey Video | DNA Frees Man After 19 Years in Prison >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Reid-Feingold Iraq Funding Amendment Defeated | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Feingold a figleaf for $95 Billion Supplemental (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by fairleft on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:20:15 AM EST

In other words, it provides cover for liberals when they go along with the Senate's capitulation to the White House and rejection of the House's short leash bill. Read my post over here: http://mydd.com/story/2007/5/16/113923/780

An ineffective fig leaf (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:37:11 AM EST

: yes, they're fooling themselves again (none / 0) (#15)
by fairleft on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:09:00 PM EST

Same old bad strategy, influenced by sympathy for what the President is trying to do in the Middle East (just that he is doing it badly).

Let's be clear (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:36:32 AM EST

These folks do not want to end the war. They want to say they want to end the war, but they will not do what needs to be done.

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.

: Couldn't Agree More (none / 0) (#7)
by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:43:03 AM EST

The Republicans will offer sucker punches to diffuse or distract in order to prolong the war, but they will never vote against it.

I see my stupid fricken Salazar voted Nay (none / 0) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:27:59 AM EST

I just keep on regretting that vote!

: I noticed the same thing (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Jeralyn on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:40:10 AM EST

Salazar's record is really troubling. He seems more interested in appeasing Republicans than in taking a firm stand for his own party.

Stupidity. (none / 0) (#3)
by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:30:43 AM EST

Bitterly disappointing. n/t (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:43:32 AM EST

: But Not Unexpected (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:46:41 AM EST

Unsurprising. (none / 0) (#10)
by Naftali on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:47:53 AM EST

The question is, what do we do now?

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.)

We work on Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by andgarden on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:50:38 AM EST

As BTD says, we will never get Republicans.


: Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:55:19 AM EST

No point in even trying. They'll flip on their own trying to distance themselves from bush only when they understand all is lost for them, to try to save themselves, still hoping no one will see through them.

: Work how? (none / 0) (#14)
by Naftali on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:06:03 PM EST

I read this on another site, and I think it's got some potential ... but it's a long-term, quasi-institutional solution, not one that addresses the immediate problem.
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 ...

pass short-term funding bush will veto (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by fairleft on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:10:57 PM EST

and then Bush has defunded the troops. That's the only way the Democrats do the job the voters elected them to do.


Also, I don't think this is about appeasing (none / 0) (#13)
by Naftali on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:56:45 AM EST

the Republicans, or being a 'phony'. I think this is an unwillingness to acknowledge exactly how much damage this administration has done to the health of our government. It's a blindness--perhaps a willful one--to the current state of politics. They cling to the hope that there's another way--a less antagonistic way, perhaps, or a more bipartisan way--to 'end' this 'war'. (And the quotes are there because there's also disagreement re. what 'ending' means, and what the 'war' entails.)

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.
