Got to talk with Levin this weekend

[JNelson6563]

We had a busy weekend of political events here in the north country of the mitten & I attended two events Senator Levin was at. For the first event he arrived once the program had begun so I didn't see him before he stepped up to the podium to address the crowd. I was struck with how old he looked, it seemed he had aged much since I last saw him in person in January. The word "beleagured" came to mind. I share this reflection with you to remind you all it's easy for us to sit back and toss around criticisms without any clue/consideration as to just how grueling the actual job can be.

On to the main topic: Iraq. He was quite plainspoken on just how it all works in the Senate, as he always is. Both of my Senators speak enviously of the House and how quickly it can move in comparison to how it works in their world. Levin said "I work in a wierd place" after describing the cumbersome restraints they are under.

He explained how cutting off funding was impossible to achieve due to not having 60 votes to do it. He talked about the legislation that got voted down in the Senate but passed in the House. Talked about how this would be brought out again this week (today I think). He talked about the support they thought they had for it this time around (more than last time) and how the magic number was 60, of course. When talking about the vote he said "Lieberman's not with us". Sounded a bit disgusted. I think he was nice to him in a recent episode that DU went ballistic over in the hopes of winning his support. If so I'm here to tell you all such hopes seem to be gone.

The bottom line of what he had to say was that they need so many Rethug votes to pass binding legislation and how they are just maybe getting what they need now. Having read here on DU that Reid's planning to keep the Senate working 24/7 on this issue, I better understand why Levin was seeming to put so much stock in what was to happen this week. I also saw the story in LBN this morning that Team Bush has rejected a GOP plan on Iraq. The GOPers know they need to win re-election after Little Boots is long gone and they aren't going to take too kindly to their plan to save their asses rejected by the sock puppet they have propped up for so long. I think this slight will help drive more Rs to support the D legislation this time around.

Julie

[Mythsaje]

1. We can hope...n/t

[SharonRB]

2. More people like you and I need to hear him explain things in person

I always feel so much better after listening to him and understand the process and his reasoning so much better. People are too quick to jump on him sometimes. He's still one of the good guys and he voted against the war in the first place.

We're pretty lucky to have him representing us.

:hi:

[petersjo02]

3. Thanks for the excellent report

Sometimes it's easy for us sitting at our keyboards to forget what it's like for the warriors on the ground there in Congress. We'll hope for the best and keep sending them our e-mail, faxes, phone calls. Thanks again for going to the meetings to listen and report back.

[petersjo02]

4. Dup

Sorry

[AndyA]

5. I think we'll be seeing more and more Repukes turning on Bushco now that

the 2008 elections are within sight. Still 16 months away, but no longer the magic "year and a half out" time period that seems to make the difference somehow.

And with every day that passes, it will be harder for the GOPers to hide their votes if they side with Bushco, who will be increasingly unpopular in the months ahead.

[TahitiNut]

6. "cutting off funding was impossible to achieve due to not having 60 votes"?? BULLSHIT!

If they were to initiate legislation to stop the funding, that'd be true - since the 60 votes is what's needed for cloture.

HOWEVER ...

It makes no sense to legislate a HALT in funding when it requires legislation TO PROVIDE funding in the first place!!!
If those who opposed funding merely decided to filibuster, it'd take 60 votes to CONTINUE funding and only 41 votes to HALT it!!

I get pissed at people who lie about this - and concoct a cockamamie scenario to 'prove' it - when the alternative scenario is far more doable.

[JNelson6563]

7. It's not just funding

You may recall that the legislation doesn't just include funding but also binding deadlines on troop withdrawals.

But of course I am sure you know much more than that frickin' newbie Carl Levin about how the Senate works.

:eyes:

Julie

[DancingBear]

9. The poster knows how it SHOULD work

Carl knows how it DOES work.

He is, after all, part of the game.

Glad to see you're so enamored with him however.

Maybe he could give a speech and use a lot of forceful language.

That always gets everyone here hot.

"Speak loudly and carry a wet noodle" - Carl Levin et al.

[KoKo]

8. BUT...Levin and all our Progressive Dems voted for Lieberman Bomb Iran Amendment!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1345746&mesg_id=1345746

And what's so sad about this is that Levin VOTED AGAINST IRAQ INVASION RESOLUTION! Why does Joe (Turncoat)Lieberman NOW have power enough to get through an Amendment along with ALL DEMS...vote was 97 to 0 which has language that makes Iran the NEXT TERRORIST NATION in the Axis of EVIL to be BOMBED?

I'm sick of our Dems acting like they "just don't have the votes." Where's the Senate and House Judiciary Committee's RESOLUTION for IMPEACHMENT OF GONZO, CHENEY, BUSH!!!!!

Iran is the side issue... and Iraq is a DISASTER!!! Yet they DITHER and COMPLAIN.

BTW...I have always held Levin in high esteem...I just don't get what's going on here....:shrug: