24 senators, mostly democrats, vote not to move the Feingold bill on Iraq to the floor.

[Mass]

Obviously, the GOPers who pushed the bill will not vote for it, but it is sad to see so many Democrats, including Webb and Tester, be so afraid of being smeared in the media and not want to do the right thing.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00033

NAYs ---24
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Hagel (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Salazar (D-CO)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)

[saracat]

1. Carl Levin? Wow!

[SharonRB]

4. I'm really shocked

See my post below. It's exactly the opposite of what I would have expected from my two senators. Stabenow voted yea.

[UALRBSofL]

9. This is kind of unusual

My senators here in Florida voted opposite of what I thought they would.
(D)Nelson-Nay
(R)Martinez-Yea

[Mass]

10. See #7 for the explanation.

[UALRBSofL]

13. When I look at my Senators of Florida and how they voted

on this bill to place a time line and cut funding the constituents of Florida could be inclined to vote for (R)Martinez because of his vote. I'm not saying democrats will do that but it sure doesn't help (D)Nelson's popularity voting nay.

[atreides1]

2. I've e-mailed Senator Webb several times

And I've gotten no reply from his office, and yet everytime that I have e-mailed Congressman Tom Davis his office has always replied.

Something is wrong with this picture. I get answers from a Republican but not from a Democrat!

[beachmom]

12. Webb has been consistently opposed to the Feingold amendment

He does not want any funding cutoff.

I mean, definitely continue to e-mail him as a constituent that you disagree. But he never promised in his 2006 campaign that he would cut off funding. And his votes in the Senate on Iraq are pretty consistent with what he said during the campaign.

[SharonRB]

3. I'm really confused

Levin voted Nay and Stabenow voted Yea? That's the opposite of what I would have expected. Sounds like they had enough votes to move it to a vote, though, right?

[Mass]

7. With the GOP votes, it will move to a vote, and it will not pass.

Levin has always been opposed to a bill that states that any type of funds will be cut. He is also opposed to having a bill that would set a fixed date for withdrawal, and favors goals and sense of the senate bills.

I am not surprised he and Reed would not want this bill to go to the floor.

[gateley]

5. What's up with that, do you think?

I'm chagrined to see Biden is among the 'nays' - I don't get it.

Even my senators -- Dole and Burr!! -- voted Aye.

Are we missing something here?

[Mass]

8. The GOP voted YES because they consider it is a gotcha vote for the Democrats.

Vote NO and their voters will be angry. Vote AYE and they can say it will cut funds for the troops. THE GOP senators will NOT vote AYE for the bill itself, obviously. They are trying to embarrass the Democrats because they know some are uncomfortable with this vote.

This said, I still think it is better to stand on principle on these types of bills.

[gateley]

15. I just read a little more about it,

and I understand Biden's (and probably Webb's) votes.

Biden will NOT vote to cut off funding as long as there are troops there, even if it would be more popular to do so.

Not saying I agree with him, but just presenting a possible explanation.

[Window]

19. I would like them to bring my nephews home...NOW.

[gateley]

21. Oh, God -- Do I agree.

For what it's worth, Biden (when discussing his funding votes previously) said that Bush would get the money from somewhere even if Congress voted not to re-fund, and he wasn't going to let Bush use that as an excuse to short-change the troops even MORE than they are already.

But DO know that as along as they are there, there are people in the Senate and Congress fighting to give them the best support possible. I know that falls far short, but...

Biden's son is heading over there soon, too.

[Window]

23. Thank you for that. I'm going around in circles.

Me and my family are very depressed. I don't generally mention this on DU, but every time I hear about stopping funding I get upset.

Thanks again.




Peace:thumbsup:

[gateley]

26. Watch this -

And I hope it gives you SOME sense of comfort. And Joe's not the only one who feels this way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vxWwZA9gk4

[knixphan]

6. oy!

We need a REAL majority of democrats.

And some balls would be nice.

[shaniqua6392]

11. Hopefully if we get a majority of dems

they will do their damn job. We always have to remember that they are all out for themselves too. There are a few good ones, but they all do need those balls you referred to!!

[RichardRay]

14. Several good reasons

There's a lot of other legislation queued up for decisions right now including the economic stimulus package. If the Iraq funding measure goes to the floor the R's will run the debate out interminably and then blame the D's for the delay in the stimulus package. The funding cut off isn't going to pass with a veto proof majority no matter what happens, so it's more a matter of keeping the issue on the front burner right now than it is one of actually changing anything. While it's VERY clear that nothing substantive has changed in Iraq in the last few monthes, and also VERY clear that the 'surge' is stalled with only a faint hope of extricating troops any time soon, it's also clear that this is probably NOT the right time to have an extended debate on the floor on the topic.

I think the D leadership got out maneuvered on this one and they're just doing the best they can to dig themselves out of the hole.

[Arkansas Granny]

16. If they had let this go to debate, it was going to be hijacked by

the Republicans and Bush has vowed to veto it anyway. They have avoided Republican grandstanding on this.

------

Senate Republicans on Tuesday helped advance a Democratic bill that would cut off money for the Iraq war, saying the debate time would let them hail progress there.

Majority Leader Harry Reid said "a civil war rages" in Iraq and shouldn't be the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers. "Americans need to start taking care of Americans," he said.

But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said the discussion will let the GOP cite "extraordinary progress that's been made in Iraq over the last six months, not only on the military side, but also with civilian reconciliation beginning to finally take hold in the country."

The White House said President George W. Bush would veto the bill anyway.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080227/NEWS07/802270388/1009

[Mass]

17. The debate will happen. This debate needs to happen.

This is things like that which make Dems look weak.

If they think the bill is bad, the can vote AGAINST it, but voting against bringing it to the floor and prevent debate on Iraq is BS. It was BS when it was the GOP doing it and it is still when Democrats try to.

[UALRBSofL]

18. That's how I feel as well

Even though Bush stated he would veto the bill, democrats should take a stand on a bill they wrote. Voting against a bill by Feingold shows how weak the democratic party is.

[mudesi]

20. DINOS who all need to be replaced (nm)

[Muttocracy]

22. help me out here -

so the GOPs (except Hagel, Enzi, Barrasso) voted to stop debate = get the bill to the floor where they would vote against it?

And Dems were split - some voted for it to go to the floor (could be either to vote for it? or to get voting against it over with?)

others voted against it going to the floor - presumably because they opposed the bill itself?

Do I have that right? (so odd bedfellows on getting it to the floor?)

edit to add - just read this in NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/washington/27congress.html

"And on Monday a coalition of Democratic advocacy groups, with support from John Edwards, who ended his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, announced a $20 million public awareness campaign to highlight “the crushing cost of the war.”

“We have to send a message here,” said Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a West Point graduate and former Army paratrooper who has emerged as one of the Democrats’ most authoritative voices on the war."
...
"The war issue had faded from focus on Capitol Hill early this year as lawmakers spent the first weeks of the term negotiating an economic stimulus package. But it came gusting back onto the Senate floor on Tuesday with debate over two bills sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.

The first bill would restrict the financing of military operations to fighting terrorism, protecting American troops and training Iraqi forces. The second would give the Bush administration 60 days to report to Congress on its global strategy for defeating Al Qaeda and would limit the length of troop deployments.

On war-related measures last year, Republicans repeatedly blocked Democrat-backed bills outright. But on Tuesday, Republicans appeared so confident and so eager to talk about the war that they voted overwhelmingly to bring Mr. Feingold’s first bill up for 30 hours of debate.

That vote was 70 to 24, with 43 Republicans joining 26 Democrats and one independent in favor of debating the bill, while 20 Democrats, 3 Republicans and one independent voted against it.

Mr. Feingold’s bills, which are certain to be defeated, are the first of several efforts by Democrats to press the war issue."


So is the 2nd bill (report) still in play?

[From The Left]

24. Wrong Category

[saigon68]

25. Why is Joementum (traitor) Conn on the list ??