To Time Table Or Not To Time Table
By RS Insider Posted in Congress — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The RS Insider hears that we may see some new developments later this afternoon.
• Senator Nelson is leaning towards caving on the Supplemental bill, arguing that because his benchmark language was included in the Supplemental bill, he’d vote for the Supplemental, including the surrender) language that he’d opposed just two weeks previously. That’s an odd position to take, since the benchmark language was simply tossed on top of the bill without consequence or any affect whatsoever. It’s purely there to provide cover for Nelson to sign onto the Moveon.org strategy.
• Senator Pryor is still on the fence.
The RS Insider thinks the media should ask Democrats why…
Read on . . .
(a) …they were just recently opposed to timetables:
· While stumping for votes last September, senatorial candidate Jim Webb said: “Anyone who tells you we can set a timetable for withdrawal doesn’t understand war. And anyone who says that nothing can be done to speed a secure peace doesn’t understand America.”
· On March 8, Sen. Ben Nelson said: “I’m bothered by dates. I think you still have to go on conditions for staying.”
· On March 12, Sen. Evan Bayh wrote: “I, for example, am not in support of circling a date on a calendar and saying, ‘no matter what, we’re out on that date.’ ”
· Nancy Pelosi spent $28 billion last week to round up 218 votes (the exact minimum to get a majority in the 435-member House). That worked out to $130 million or so per vote.
(b) …they may flip-flop on exactly the same vote that we had two weeks ago, which failed by a vote of 50-48. Indeed, they’re voting on precisely the same language. That’s a VERY quick flip-flop. What changed?
(c) Senators Nelson and Pryor were appearing on TV talking about how bad a timetable would be.
· Q: Senator, why did you vote against this legislation?
Sen. Nelson: “Well, I don’t think you can set hard time frame, or a date, for withdrawal. Obviously, the other side is paying attention to what you’re doing.”
· Q: You’re one of only three Democrats to vote against a measure proposed by Democrats that would set a timeline, a goal for the withdrawal of US troops.
Sen. Pryor: “Very, very tough decision there, but my position on that is I’m opposed to a public timetable.”
There are consequences to flip-flopping – especially when the Moveon.org Wing of the Democratic Party is on the other side of that flip-flop.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | What Goes Around . . . — Comments (10) »
To Time Table Or Not To Time Table 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...we're incapable of keeping simple national security tactics out of the NY Times.
The good news is...we've done a fine job of keeping the lid on the Bush/Halliburton plan to blow up the twin towers. (Note to self: must *somehow* discredit that genius Charlie Sheen. But how?)
--
"We can all do our part to save the planet by dying." - R.E. Finch
Smith voted against the amendment; Lieberman voted for it.
thanks. So, we could have blocked it if all Repubs had wanted to do it. sad. Lieberman has been good on this.
Molon Labe!
I think it not un-likely that this was "run for cover" vote.
When the president vetoes the bill, and its time to fund the troops or let them starve, one or two wayward souls may come back.....because then they will have their excuse: "I had to vote to support our people in harm's way."
If I'm right (and I hope I am), it'll be too bad they didn't have the guts to vote for victory in the first place.
...that he would be OK with a classified timetable, which he trusts that Congress would not leak.
Stifled laugh...