Syria Strike Whip Count - No/Lean No: 124 Yes/Lean Yes: 35 Undecided: 63

[bigtree]

_____________________________

ThinkProgress ‏@thinkprogress 30m
SYRIA WHIP COUNT [UPDATED] No/Lean No: 124 Yes/Lean Yes: 35 Undecided: 63 http://thkpr.gs/15RgyxN


As members of Congress consider President Obama’s request to authorize military force in Syria, following evidence that President Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons killed over 1,400 people, a ThinkProgress analysis of the public statements of 223 Representatives found that 124 lawmakers have either decisively ruled out supporting the measure or say they are unlikely to back it.

Just 35 of the 223 members of the House of Representatives said they will definitely or likely vote in favor or the resolution. Sixty-three are undecided.

Republicans were far more likely to oppose military action in Syria, while Democrats were more likely to support it. The numbers are a contrast to 2002, when Democrats in the House provided “the bulk of the opposition” to President George W. Bush’s Iraq war resolution — though a majority of Democrats (61 percent) still backed war. Only six House Republicans voted against the Iraq war in 2002.

In 2013, just seven Republicans in the 223-person sample said the will or are likely to vote for the use of force in Syria: Chabot (OH), Coffman (CO), Cotton (AK), King (NY), Kinzinger (MI), McKeon (CA), Rogers (MI). Twelve Democrats said they will definitely back the resolution: Vargas (CA), Rahall (WV), Perlmutter (CO), Pascrell (NJ), Pelosi (CA), Lee (TX), Israel (NY), Engel (NY), Deutch (FL), Castro (TX), Bera (CA), Foster (IL) . . .

If the close to 40 Democrats who say they oppose military action all vote against the resolution and all other Democrats back it, President Obama will need to attract some 50 Republican votes for the measure to pass in the House.


Each member’s individual position, along with sourcing, can be found in this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AmXJhRgn8UhudFlwcFdEVWt5TXdCRGFPWW5Pd21Sd3c&output=html

[LuvNewcastle]

1. That's good news. Now, let's just hope they don't change their

minds before the vote. It's all going to hinge on how many bribes, I mean 'campaign contributions,' get spread around in the next few days.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. 1 bulk order of pork, comin' right up!

TRIVIA: A useless war is worth how many pointless make-work projects?

[HardTimes99]

14. Keynes said it was better for a government to pay people to dig holes and fill

them back in, than have those same workers at home idle and not consuming.

Along those lines, we could simply bomb the Mediterranean Sea and fire our Cruise Missiles at the Red Sea. (Apologies to affected aquatic life.) No fuss, no muss and lots of new jobs created for the 14% who are un- or unemployed.

[dawg]

18. King Canute, is that you?

[HardTimes99]

19. LMFAO - great pic! - nt

[morningfog]

2. Good! I hope the no column grows. But would that stop Obama?

[woo me with science]

24. The fix is in.

This is nothing if not well-planned.

[woo me with science]

3. Just as many Democrats will vote "yes" as will be needed

to ensure approval of the strikes. Obama would not be seeking Congressional approval if the votes were not already counted.




The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:

.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

This is what the Democratic Party does...They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush’s eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush’s habeas and interrogation abuses (“Gosh, what can we do? We just don’t have 60 votes).

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. You're right, of course. Villain Rotation is a ploy that has worked. No need to give it up.

[kath]

6. Thanks for this, woo. Hadn't seen that article before.

Sickening, but not really surprising I guess...

[KittyWampus]

11. How'd that work for Cameron? LOL!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. Are all those "likely to" support and will "definitely" back the use of force chicken-hawks?

Did they or any of their family members spend time in the military? Or have they just profited from war-making activities?

The following lyrics are still applicable, although they could be updated:

[Dragonfli]

34. The politically correct term for Chicken Hawks is "Soaring Eagles" please use the correct term

They are very fragile physically and emotionally and using that old name hurts their easily damaged feelings. You should treat them with special care, after all if they were tough enough to take the pain of hurt feelings they likely would have fought the wars they really, really, wanted to fight but were simply too fragile to no matter how many chances they had.

Let the Eagles soar!

That's all they want to do,

the fact that they need others to do their killing and dying for them does not negate their patriotic need for people to kill and die, it will make them feel better so please don't take away such small comforts from them after all the emotional pain they've endured. Where's your humanity?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

37. Point taken.

[progressoid]

7. Republicans far more likely to oppose military action, while Democrats were likely to support it

Bizarro world.

[LuvNewcastle]

8. There are a few in each party who try to follow their conscience,

but most people in both parties would follow their leaders straight to hell.

[David Krout]

17. Is there an estimate for the most liberal Democrats?

Or are all Democrats lumped together?

[pampango]

21. So far 35 members of the Progressive Caucus were among those included in the OP link.

Of the 35, 18 were No or Leaning No, 10 were Yes or Leaning Yes and 7 were Undecided. There are 71 total members of the Caucus so many have either not made their position public or were missed by Think Progress.

[pampango]

9. My figures are so far: Progressive Caucus-18 no, 10 yes, undecided 7; tea party caucus-20 no, 1 yes,

3 undecided.

Most members of both have not made their positions clear yet. Most of the progressive "undecided" will end up voting "No" IMHO.

[bigtree]

23. related bookmark

Ed O'Keefe ‏@edatpost 15m

A #Syria-related bookmark: Where the vote stands on Syria: http://wapo.st/1dATicc (by @aaronblakewp and @postgraphics)

[MADem]

10. What about the other 210, though? (Two vacancies, AL and MA)

This is just slightly more than half of the House.

Just 35 of the 223 members of the House of Representatives said they will definitely or likely vote in favor or the resolution. Sixty-three are undecided.

Isn't this an interesting sentence:

Republicans were far more likely to oppose military action in Syria, while Democrats were more likely to support it.


It's not like they've polled anyone, here--they're just looking at pandering, off the cuff quoted, on-the-air, or published comments ("I oppose military action"--but is a targeted strike within their definition of "military action," one wonders?) and extrapolating from them.

I think they did a lot of work for very little effect. They've only looked at half the group, too.

I think anyone who says that they will "definitely" vote this way or that, either for, or against, before they've seen the briefs, are hanging it out there in a big way.

[David Krout]

15. How do you think the House will vote? nt

[David Krout]

16. When most Democrats supported the Amash amendment on the NSA, did you think it was interesting?

Or do you only think certain things are "interesting" depending on your goals?

[MADem]

20. I don't have "goals" and even if I did, they don't make a damn bit of difference when it comes to

how Congress will vote on this issue.

This isn't about ME, you know--so why are you trying to make it so?

The points I made remain--this is not a representative sample, no one has been polled as to their views, and this article is just a mishmash of supposition.

Start calling around and getting people on the record as to their intent, then they'll have something.

[DirkGently]

12. Likely the deals regarding who's to get rich from the New War

are being frantically cobbled together as we speak.

[woo me with science]

22. This Congress knows where their bread is buttered.

They have shown that time and time again.

[backwoodsbob]

25. so we have to lay our hopes on the repukes to do the right thing

this sucks

[dkf]

28. Yup. We need Rand Paul :(. Pelosi and Feinstein are hacks when it comes to Natl Sec. .

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

[pampango]

32. Fortunately (?), Paul and the tea party caucus are not "hacks"?

Even the Progressive Caucus (hacks?) is more split on the vote so far than the tea party caucus.

[dkf]

33. I'm not talking about the progressive caucus, I'm speaking of Dem leadership.

But if even the PC is split, holy crap. Progressives for war. Sad.

[msanthrope]

36. "We need Rand Paul?" For what, precisely? nt

[CakeGrrl]

30. And the only reason you'll get the "right thing" out of the GOP

is because of their garden variety obstructionism of all things Obama.

But this time it's all good if it advances your objective.

[HooptieWagon]

26. You can bet that AIPAC and MIC lobbyists....

....are making it rain.
It sucks that 91% of Americans are against getting involved in yet another ME quagmire, yet Congress is owned by lobbyists, and has no intention of representing the people. Same as its ever been....

[karynnj]

29. Where people are depends on the question

Here is a link that shows the question asked and the poll results. This poll was from Aug 28 and 29 - before Kerry's speech of last Friday and Obama's on Sunday. At that point, either side could take a specific question and claim it backs their position. (None show 91% of the country against it - I have no idea where that is coming from.)

Here, if you look at the second question, where specific alternatives are offered, only 26 percent favor "take military action". However, if you look at the questions 4 5 and 6, you see how the way the question is asked changes that number.

If the question is: "It has been reported that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its citizens. Do you think the United States should take military action against the Syrian government in response to the use of chemical weapons or not?", then 42% are in favor.

If the question is: "Now, more specifically, if U.S. military action in Syria were limited to air strikes using cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks would you support or oppose this U.S. military action in Syria?" Asked Aug. 29 only; N=291. , then the response is 50% in favor.

If the question is: "Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The use of chemical weapons by any country is a 'red line' -- that is, an action that would require a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.," , the response is 58%.

Link:http://pollingreport.com/syria.htm

Note that this poll was taken on Wednesday and Thursday. This means that it does not reflect the success - or lack of success - of the Obama administration's actions. Kerry's first speech was on Monday - so that is likely reflected in the poll.

Now, I would say that the CLOSEST question asked to what Obama is proposing is number 5 - which had 50% approval on August 29. The two things that move people seem to be mentioning chemical weapons use and anything that limits the response.

[dkf]

27. Democrats are going to be called on to save Obama's credibility. Disgusting.

[JRLeft]

31. Thank Goodness for Barbara Lee.

[stevenleser]

35. This article is in error about the Iraq War Resolution vote. A majority of Democrats opposed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage

House Democrats vote
Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote
Democratic 82 126 0 1

Senate Democrats vote

Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Democratic 29 21 0

[AnotherMcIntosh]

38. It seems to correctly indicate in 2002 "Democrats in the House provided 'the bulk of the opposition'

to President George W. Bush’s Iraq war resolution".

The rest of the statement ("— though a majority of Democrats (61 percent) still backed war&quot apparently refers to a poll of those voters who identified themselves as Democrats but were not in the House or the Senate and did not participate in the Iraq War Resolution vote.

As acknowledged by you in the text of your statement, a majority of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution. The percentage was 58%, not the referenced "61 percent".

I'm not sure that the article is in error. Most Democrats in Congress provided opposition although most Senate Democrats favored the Iraq War Resolution. Some people believe in polls, and the author apparently does when claiming that a majority of voters who were Democrats "still backed war." Does that make him in error? Only if there is information that the poll or polls for the time period were wrong.