Breaking: Democrats Denied Glory
By haystack Posted in Breaking News — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
According to THIS news piece, the Dems were Mitchslapped™ once again.
In the Senate, after weeks of skirmishing, Republicans easily turned back Democratic legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. The measure set no fixed deadline for completion of the redeployment, but set a goal of March 31, 2008. The vote was 50-48 against the measure, 12 short of the 60 needed for passage.
Roll Call will be out soon, but we know this:
Democrats Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson (Nebraska) and Joe Lieberman voted against the bill.
We'll be Mitchslapping™ any Republican that voted FOR this Reid nonsense shortly...
[first update: Our first Republican membership in the haystack wall of shame™ goes to Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon as the only Republican to vote with Reid...he's not going to enjoy the attention he'll be receiving]
[second update:
The Gregg Amendment (you know...THIS one - Congress should not eliminate/reduce funds for troops in the field) has passed 82–16.
The Murray Amendment (you konw...THIS one - Congress should provide funds for training, equipment and other support for troops in the field; and health care to those who have served) has passed 96-2
Here's what this should tell us peeps...
The Senate has thoroughly rejected defunding the mission.]
More as it unfolds...
« Toward an Understanding of the Obamian Language — Comments (4) | Goons Raid PWC Offices in Moscow — Comments (5) »
Breaking: Democrats Denied Glory 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It is hard to view that unique blend of hate, fanaticism, and lunacy for very long.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I can't believe they are still whining about the 2000 election
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
It's important to force a vote (26+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
qwerty, SeanF, Aquarius40, BruinKid, fumie, artebella, decitect, auditor, B man, curtadams, annefrank, Tex Kosmaniac Dem Lady, maryru, cleverblogname, kck, DanC, pgm 01, Randall Sherman, meowmissy, Mr Met, CenterLeft, dclawyer06, Rumarhazzit, aseth, GoRedSoxGo, skohayesIn order to demonstrate to the public that the Democrats are trying to end this war and the Republicans won't let them.
It's also very important to have these votes so that Republicans can't hang this war on the Democrats later on.This measure was doomed, and so will be all the rest for the next two years. But this war is unpopular now and will become more unpopular two years from now. Already "cut and run" is losing its edge.
Only a serious effort by the Bush Administration to find an end to this war before 2008 can save the GOP from getting slaughtered in the next big election. And he doesn't appear to be interested in that.
Tee. Hee.
The inseparable, rapt attention they give to their fantasy is amazing.
One wonders what on Earth could have coaxed Democrats to jump ship and vote across party lines, with the threat of electoral defeat so imminent. Maybe they had the silly idea that their country's battles were more important than their party's. Let's hope that's what it was.
As for an end to the war, I think the war will be over sooner than the Dems would like.
--
See the Academy
As for an end to the war, I think the war will be over sooner than the Dems would like.
I wish there were something more profound to write within me, but the Democrats have been so absolutely pathetic regarding the war that the above strikes me as the received Word of God. Perhaps the volatility of polls during combat accounts for the pathos (or is it bathos?), but I am at an otherwise loss to explain the lack of coherence. I truly hope it is something more heartfelt on their part, but to date I can only conclude it is raw calculation.
When Lindsey Graham said that it'd get near 75 votes, I thought he was being optomistic. Wow.
No wonder Reid didn't want a vote on the issue.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Sens. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., today voted for legislation that would have aimed to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq in the next year.
The legislation was defeated, with 48 senators voting in support.
Smith was the only Republican senator to vote for the bill.
"Setting specific dates for withdrawal is unwise, but what is worse is remaining mired in the quicksand of the Sunni-Shia civil war," Smith said in a written statement. "It is imperative that we continue to pressure the Iraqi government to govern."
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
Is that we not go after Smith with guns blazing on this one. For a guy from Oregon, he's a pretty darn good Senator.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
As long as we're able to continue to win the votes. He's generally a good Republican senator and he is certainly the best we could ever hope for from Oregon. He sure beats Packwood hands down.
Give him latitude in an election year to hold onto the seat...again...as long as we continue to win these votes.
His vote wasn't needed, and the guy is gonna have an uphill battle. He's gotta do what he's gotta do. If it's a thing where he costs us a critical vote, that's one thing, but as is, I can't get very worked up about this vote.
Sununu is gonna do some mildly irritating things over the next 1.5 years, too, and I hope people can remember that he's *stellar* for New Hampshire, and really is strong on fiscal issues.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
complain about him as a senator, and he seems to be there for the GOP on the big things.
I also have to say that he has always responded to any letter I have ever written him regarding legislation. Actually Sununu Gregg and Bass always responded. Can't say the same for my new congressman Hodes-I have written him several letters since the 100 hours began, and haven't received a single acknowledgement from him.
Packwood! Why did you remind me of that name!
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Any idea why Corker voted against the Gregg and Murray Amendments?
"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
"I think the American people recognize this debate for what it is - political posturing," said Corker. "The real debate on Iraq will occur in the coming weeks when we take up the supplemental funding bill.
"Congress has spent far too much time debating non-binding resolutions and resolutions that claim to be binding, and I plan to vote against all of them - Democrat and Republican. Though I strongly disagree with their position, if members of Congress want to oppose the war in Iraq they should vote to cut off funding, not pass more meaningless resolutions.
"I've been clear about my position. I believe we must give General Petraeus until mid-summer to see if we can turn the downward spiral in Iraq into an upward spiral so that Iraq has the ability to take over its own destiny and maintain its own security. Therefore I will be voting in the supplemental to give General Petraeus and our troops on the ground in Iraq the support they need and deserve."
I guess he's showing us his independant spirit, nice of him to give the General almost enough time to get all the troops deployed before rendering judgement though...
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Harry is busy, distracted with more Las Vegas land deals. We cannot blame him if he could not twist enough arms to force defeat in Iraq. He has money to make. And Sshumer is a bit distracted what with double dipping taxpayer money to support his Senatorial political activities.
I am sure CAIR is disappointed, as are other important dhimmiecrat constituencies, but American patriots can be pleased.
Is he away now or just too busy to be bothered?
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
There is a tradition in the US Senate when one Senator cannot be present to vote because of health issues, another Senator from the opposite party, or opposite side of the issue, refrains from voting so that any vote would not turn out differently based on the misfortune of a fellow Senator.
Hillary Clinton tried to ash-can that tradition in her first months in the Senate when Strom Thurmond had to be absent. The leaders of her party quietly rebuked her.
So, it's so much for the better for John McCain. He can observe the tradition (Tim Johnson, D-SD, is still absent because of a stroke) and campaign for the White House at the same time. Nice.
The Republican majority had problems with power, arrogance and spending. The new Democratic majority is showing itself as largely inept, whining hypocrites, oh and they spend quite a bit themselves. I'm trying to decide which is worse...and I'm starting to think it is the latter.
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism. ." --John C. Calhoun
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/15/16392/1292
Unkind as it may be to revel in others misery, this is well worth it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777