How did your senators vote, and how does that reflect the opinon of their constituents?

[calteacherguy]

I realize asking whether or not a majority in your state support cutting off funding may be partly a matter of opinion, but irregardless of your own personal feelings please do try to be as objective as possible if you wish to participate in this little poll of mine. Thanks.

Also, if you quibble about me saying "cutting of funding for troops" as oppossed to "cutting off funding for war," well, too bad. That's the political reality of the message that would be sent.

[More Than A Feeling]

1. My representative voted no, my senators voted yes.

The state probably does not have a majority in it to support cutting the funding, but my district is the blue-est one in it, so a majority of my district most likely does support cutting the funding.

[calteacherguy]

2. Well then, the constituents were well represented.

Chalk one up for representative government!

[More Than A Feeling]

4. Sadly, yes, but my senators will still be receiving irate phone calls from me.

[calteacherguy]

5. As well they should. nt

[uppityperson]

3. Just voted and misread. 3rd choice should not have my vote.

Majority of people support cutting of funding for war. I know of minimal people who want to cut off the troops. That is the reality of what they want. And no, I disagree with the message that my fellow constituent would receive. We would receive "cut off war funds".

[IndianaGreen]

6. "Funding the troops" is a GOP meme. The issue was funding the war.

The troops have plenty of money in the pipeline from the DOD budget.

[calteacherguy]

7. How do you differentiate the two?

Convincingly.

[More Than A Feeling]

8. The difference is that " not funding the troops" makes it sound like

you want our soldiers to be out there with plastic guns that shoot nerf darts. "Not funding the war" means that the troops will have enough funding to keep them safe and bring them home as quickly as possible, but no more than that, so they don't have the money to stay a moment longer than necessary.

[rucky]

9. The troops haven't been funded since the war began. n/t

[calteacherguy]

10. Indeed they have not. nt

[rucky]

12. Well if we want to change the "political reality..."

that's the point that needs to be repeated.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Most of the money in the supplemental will go into the pockets of war profiteers

Bush showed his support for the troops when he threatened to veto a Democratic proposal to increase survivor's benefits, and an additional .5% in pay over what Bush had proposed.

[elocs]

13. Senators are only answerable to the constituents of their states.

Not to every Democrat out there. Here in Wisconsin, Feingold voted against it, Kohl voted for it. I am not sure how people here support it. I do think that would depend a lot upon how the question is phrased. Disregard semantics as you like, they are important.

[Pushed To The Left]

14. A split vote: Boxer voted No, Feinstein voted Yes n/t

[onenote]

15. from virginia -- both senators and my rep voted yes

That Webb and Warner would vote yes is no surprise -- they've both been clear about their opposition to immediate withdrawal (the difference is that Webb would set a timetable and Warner wouldn't, at least not yet).

My rep (Tom Davis) voting yes also isn't a surpise, even though I suspect that close to a majority in my district favor defunding. In fact, Davis reportedly told chimpy that chimpy's support in parts of our district has dropped to 5 percent. But Davis is going to follow the repub leadership orders on something like this, and even though chimpy's wildly unpopular in parts of the district, there is a lot of military and retired military here who probably don't support defunding even if they dislike chimpy and think its time to start getting out of Iraq.