Call Your Congresspersons: Vote No On Supplemental

Jane explains why:

Leadership needs 18 votes out of the 51 Democrats who originally voted against the supplemental in order to pass this bill. Since 35 of the 51 are members of the original Out of Iraq caucus, and several freshmen (including Alan Grayson, Eric Massa and Donna Edwards) ran as strong anti-war candidates, I don't think that challenge will be easily surmounted. In addition, 33 members subsequently signed on to a letter expressing concern after the Senate added the IMF funding -- and 12 of those originally voted "yea" on the supplemental. Add to that the Democrats who will bristle at being forced to sign on to Lieberman's civil liberties nightmare and I think opponents of the war have a very good chance of defeating the supplemental, or forcing conditions on its passage.

Jane has a neat action tool for letting the Congress know how you feel. Use it.

Speaking for me only

< Obama Abandons Transparency | Friday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#1)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:48:44 AM EST

    Practically speaking (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:52:24 AM EST
    what result, do you think, if the supplemental is defeated?  Obviously something will end up passing, but what do you think will get removed along the way?

    And how many of the Republicans are actually going to switch their vote to oppose the supplemental?  Is it really all of them?

    My druthers (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:54:43 AM EST
    Strip the secrecy provisions.

    Leave in the IMF funding.

    Set conditions on the funding - especially timelines on withdrawal from Iraq.

    But that's just me.

    Others may want more definiteness of Afghanistan. I do not hold that view.


    On/Off topic - state secrets privilege (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 12:43:50 PM EST
    hearing now on C-SPAN re legislation to rein in the executive branch's propensity for secrecy and more power.

    Asa Hutchinson's testimony is exemplary.  Not to mention Judge Wald's and the ACLU's.

    Oops...just ended.

    Next...hearing on the Special Ops budget!


    Sweet Jesus (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 01:10:29 PM EST
    Watching those two hearings back to back will probably fry your brain right now.  For several different reasons I can think of right off the top of my head the special ops budget should be replaced by the military sociologist budget.

    The second hearing was (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 02:02:56 PM EST
    mercifully short and dull but the former was very entertaining and informative, reinforcing my view of the wrongheaded power grab by the executive and the continuing need for opposing Obama on this.

    A most revealing moment came as it was pointed out (more than once) that the executive AND THE AG had both declined to send anyone to give testimony re the proposed legislation before the committee.

    What the Hell...?


    Asa Hutchinson? Excuse me? (none / 0) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    Asa Hutchinson??!  WTF?  I'd think more than twice about being on the same side of anything as Asa Hutchinson, I gotta tell you, particularly when it involves a Democratic president.

    I know...I was shocked at his (none / 0) (#15)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 07:15:59 PM EST
    testimony.  You probably will be too if you listen in.  He says he's the kind of consedrvative who doesn't want any branch of government to have unfettered power...or words to that effect.

    Not every conservative, nor every Republican, is nuts on every issue, you know.  Some have strong libertarian leanings...some, thoughtful views of government and genuine concern for justice.  I used to know more 'then' than I do now.


    Agreed, but (none / 0) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 09:07:15 PM EST
    Asa Hutchinson ain't one of them.

    More than likely (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:56:39 AM EST
    Hoyer will use his old trick of dividing the question, giving everyone something to vote for.

    Call made (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:55:39 AM EST
    Though I think Fattah won't change his vote back. I also think that Frank makes a decent point.

    Dailykos diary here too (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 12:01:34 PM EST

    A reason to smile, the net has jumped right into the middle of this.  I like this "happening" very much!  Thanks for being a part of that BTD!

    My rep (none / 0) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 12:02:57 PM EST
    is Reichert, so I have a fat chance of changing his point of view.

    However, I did write -- not call because it's probably a waste of time since I'm not in their distrct-- the reps in other Washington State districts.

    I exercised the nuclear option.  If they pass this, I'm throwing my 2010 ballot away (we vote by mail).

    It ought to be self-event to real Dems (none / 0) (#8)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 12:08:41 PM EST
    in Congress that an amendment with Lieberman's name on it is not a measure that Dems ought to approve.

    cx: make that self-evident (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 12:09:28 PM EST
    <sigh, typing too fast -- 'cause I'm too p*ssed about this>

    question (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    do we know when the vote is supposed to take place?

    Mainly I just want to know if I can wait until after work to call.