I have to admit that I underestimated the stunning incompetence and incomprehensible stupidity of Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic "leadership" with regard to Bush and the Republicans on Iraq.
Big shot Dems look askance at the blogs and treat the anti-war progressives like an embarrassment. But if they'd read the blogs for the last four years they'd understand, like we do, that to Bush and Republicans, leaving is losing. They'd know that there isn't now and never has been any chance that any change would come in Iraq policy until some one else takes office and, presumably, the blame for whatever happens next.
If Pelosi wants to make assumptions, she should assume that the Republicans will be corrupt, dishonest and utterly unconcerned with the fate of anyone but themselves.
She can also assume that we will never forget what a complete failure she has been as the leader of the supposed opposition.
Posted by James E. Powell at December 19, 2007 12:47 AMActually, i surpised too. they are very low on the polls and it seems that they will lose big in 2008. I do not know why sacrife their own party for the sake of Bush.
A Democratic president will sign the bills that bush vetoed. All of their agenda will not be implemented for a generation.
Posted by mje at December 19, 2007 04:11 AMSenators voting Nay against passing the omnibus bill:
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Seators not voting:
Present - 1
Hatch (R-UT)
Not Voting - 6
Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feinstein (D-CA)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)
Senators voting against the removal of restrictions:
NAYs ---25
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Aye:
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
And lastly:
Not Voting - 5
Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Obama (D-IL)
What a fucking shame.
Posted by idiosynchronic at December 19, 2007 04:50 AMThis latest Democratic capitulation dance with Bush was easily predictable when the Democrats failed to shelve the vetoed supplemental bill back in early 2007. When the Dems capitulated and sent Bush a "clean bill," they threw away the only opportunity they had to force Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq with few political risks. In short, they blew it.
In July, I posted a comment here laying out the scenario of Reid's next mistake:
Tying the Iraq funding to a timeline for withdrawal works best politically when the funding vehicle is a supplemental bill, rather than a mandatory Defense Appropriations bill, because a successful veto of the latter - and any continuing resolution - results in a partial shutdown of the government, rather than just the operations in Iraq.
This is a high-stakes tactic, and I don't think the Democrats have a strategy or the determination to make it work.
If Reid poisons the Defense Appropriations bill with a timeline for withdrawal, the regressives will blame the Democrats for pulling another “stunt“ by shutting down the government. Predictably, the Democrats will not sustain the onslaught, choosing instead to again withdraw the timeline and submit a “clean“ bill to Bush.
I am angry, but I'm not surprised. Although the Democrats' capitulation is a pitiful spectacle to behold, it is symptomatic of far deeper problems within the party and about the shady corporate/political system that sustains them.
Posted by fafnir at December 19, 2007 05:27 AMagain, when it really matters, the "really solid" group of Dem presidential contenders failed to do their current job. It gives you a good idea why Edwards is showing up on more and more lists. And Pelosi....she turns out to be as crazy as she looks. The conclusion is pretty clear, the majority of elected Dems actually support the war. I think we can stop waiting for them to do something.
Posted by T2 at December 19, 2007 06:19 AMthis is not so much a Democratic collapse or loss or a Bush Victory, the budget bill is a victory as usual for the real power in Washington, large corporate interests and their lobbyist armies, while a few years back these interests were almost deliberately turned into a sole GOP constituency, they are driven completely by profits and not ideology, and our elected representatives are free agents as well. count me as not surprised that a President with under 30% popularity can get his will done.
Posted by leftymn at December 19, 2007 06:37 AMWell, golleee, of course we ain't a'gonna do nuthin' 'bout that war now, Sergeant Carter, we's WINNING! Shazam, those shee-ites, stunnis and kards is the best friends ever now! They love our heroes more ever day! All becaus'a the surge! Maliki fer president, or sumthin'.
Isn't this about it for "ending" the "war"? There can't be too many more Iraq funding "requests" left before the end of the Bush Era and the beginning of the next Repub clown show.....THEN we'll show 'em!
Posted by euzoius at December 19, 2007 06:43 AMI guess she mis-underestimated the willingness of Republicans to stand behind President Bush’s Iraq policy despite the drubbing the GOP took in the polls in 2006. Maybe she mis-underestimated the reasons for change coming out of that election. Or she just mis-read her "mandate". Anyway, we appreciate the support the majority has given our troops. We appreciate all the nice things our majority has done with this admins concurance.
Posted by peter at December 19, 2007 07:01 AM