"Do-Nothing"
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Democrats | Featured Stories — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Congressional majority now has a problem. To its partisans, it appears the majority cannot govern.
Read on . . .
The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008.
The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and other Democrats who want to end the war. But the effort picked up support from members, including presidential hopefuls previously reluctant to limit war funding - an indication of the conflict's unpopularity among voters.
The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance. Of the 67 senators who opposed Feingold's proposal, there were 19 Democrats, 47 Republicans and Connecticut Independent Joseph Lieberman. Of the 29 supporting, 28 were Democrats and Vermont Independent Bernard Sanders.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential front-runner, previously opposed setting a deadline on the war. But she said she agreed to back the measure "because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war."
Sen. Barack Obama, another leading 2008 prospect, said he would prefer a plan that offers more flexibility but wanted "to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the president and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course."
The proposal had been expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance under Senate rules, but was intended to gauge the tolerance of members on anti-war legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid staged a series of war votes Wednesday to inform negotiations with the House on a war spending bill.
"We stand united.... in our belief that troops are enmeshed in an intractable civil war," said Reid, D-Nev.
Feingold's measure, co-sponsored by Reid and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., proved divisive for Democrats.
Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he opposes any measure that cuts off money for the war.
"We don't want to send the message to the troops" that Congress does not support them, said Levin, D-Mich. "We're going to support those troops."
But other Democrats said the move was necessary.
"I'm not crazy about the language in the Feingold amendment, but I am crazy about the idea that we have to keep the pressure on," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who also wants the Democratic presidential nomination.
Behind all of the commentary concerning "an indication of the conflict's unpopularity among voters" is the stark reality that the defunding proposal itself is quite unpopular and has divided the Democrats in their effort to craft an effective alternative to the White House's reliance on the surge and the implementation of the counterinsurgency plan. It is also an indication that the Democrats can do nothing in the future so long as they are confronted by a united Republican opposition and a White House that will veto attempts to undermine the reconstruction effort.
Evidently, the majority is also having trouble imposing its will in the House. Which leads to this:
After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.
The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.
In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.
You wouldn't know it, but once upon a time, the very people threatening to do this complained that they were being treated like an "oppressed minority." They swore up and down that things would change when they got to be in charge. I guess we know better now.