Senate Vote on Iraq in Line With Public Opinion

[Lasher]

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

The Senate today narrowly turned back a Democratic proposal mandating troop withdrawals from Iraq. Fifty-two Senators voted for the proposal while 47 voted against. Senate rules required 60 votes for the final measure to be voted upon.

The Senate vote closely reflected public opinion on this issue. A Rasmussen Reports survey released on Monday showed that 53% of Americans wanted the Senate to pass such legislation while 37% were opposed. At the same time, 51% of voters want the United States to wait for a September progress report from Iraq before making major policy changes. The immediate practical result of today’s Senate vote is to wait until September.

Just like the Senate, voter attitudes reflect a clear partisan divide. Among the general public, Democrats generally don’t want to wait until September and overwhelmingly favor withdrawing combat troops by spring. Republicans overwhelmingly support waiting until September and tend to oppose the withdrawal of combat troops.

<snip>

Looking ahead, it appears that the September report will trigger a new policy phase in Iraq. Unless that report is significantly more positive than the interim report, it is likely that most voters will be looking for some sort of troop withdrawal at that time. When that report comes out, it will be important to note the reactions of Republican Senators up for re-election in 2008. If it comes to a choice between supporting the President and following public opinion, they are the legislators most likely to follow public opinion. That means the White House will have to regain support from the general public or else face the serious prospect of a legislative defeat when the September report is issued.

The more aggressive approach taken by the Democrats was also in line with public opinion. An earlier survey found that most voters said the Democrats hadn’t done enough to change the President’s policy on Iraq since taking control of Congress in January.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/senate_vote_on_iraq_in_line_with_public_opinion

[KharmaTrain]

1. This WAS A Victory

In future years when we look back at the end days of this ugly invasion, it'll be this all-nighter that many of us will remembered as another big step in the return of some sanity and reason to this nation.

Remember, a year ago the GOOP ridiculed the Murtha ammendment (similar to Reid/Levin) with a poison pill and it went down by a large majority. Eeingold couldn't even get a lame "Sense of the Senate" resolution onto the floor for a vote. We've come a long way since those dark days and the game now has shifted to the other side of the aisle.

60 votes will be the next step...forcing booshie's hand, and even moreso, his Repugnican enablers. Many still think the electorate is either stupid or short-sighted or both and that they can continue to enable a little longer without lasting political damage. Let's see how much longer of a game of chicken they can or will play. Unfortunately, I suspect it's gonna be early next year when the walls really crumble...after the primaries.

[Lasher]

2. I'm thinking General Betrayus will try to put a positive spin on the September report

I don't know how successful such a deception would be, as the country in general has grown weary of the administration's 'all is well in Iraq' propaganda. But by that time I believe we'll get the 60 votes we need to end cloture, and will then send a bill to The Decider, who will certainly veto it.

Since a 2/3 vote is required to override, a veto-proof majority is 290 in the House and 67 in the Senate. I don't think we'll have the votes we need for that but hope I'm wrong. If the measure is part of an appropriations bill, the fight will then take place in the court of public opinion, with federal agencies shutting down due to lack of funds. Clinton won just such a battle against Congress but I guess time will tell how this one shapes up.

[KharmaTrain]

4. Then He'll Get Strangled In His Own Gridlock

I'm hoping Reid has the stones to follow this game out, but here what could play beginning next month. Yes, 60 votes means that boooshie vetoes, but that where we call his bluff. The veto means the bill comes back not just to the Senate, but the House as well. Pelosi passes out the same bill and refuses to compromise...Reid holds tough as well. The ball is in Junior's court...he either compromises or loses ALL funding.

They let him off the hook on this in May, but the winds are far stronger now. Also, with the fillibuster broken that mean the GOOP ranks are also very weak...the tipping point will be on the Senators who stand in the way of an over-ride. Just like its 5 "WINO" Repugnicans Senators who are obstructing us from moving forward, then it's gonna be another 6 who are targeted as doing so.

Betrayus (I like that name) is set up to be the shield as he'll kick the can and booshie and his enablers will try to do the same. This time up to the primaries. The candidates then can continue to play "tough on terrer" to the "base" and then try to pretend they're standing up to booshie as the general election season gets rolling.

What will be interesting is how things could shape up a year from now. If conditions continue to deteriorate and the popularity of this invasion gets even worse and the booooosh legacy gets lethally toxic, how the Repugnicans will try to tap dance or ignore all the damage they've done.

Cheers...

[bdamomma]

3. just remember this number of dead 3618

how many more will die in 2 months time. Shameful, those repigs are so disgusting, yea, support the troops, what a lie. :grr:

[Benhurst]

5. And remember this number of dead: 700,000.

And how many more Iraqi men, women and children will die?

[bdamomma]

12. we are committing genocide, and displacing so many people

who did nothing to us, does not feel good at all, and we will pay.

[bemildred]

6. "Senate rules required 60 votes for the final measure to be voted upon."

I'm wondering when this "rule" became the case. If I remember right, the majority party controls the Rules Committee. It might be illuminating to know when this rule was promulgated, and by whom. It's purpose would seem to be allowing Senators to filibuster without actually having to filibuster.

[Benhurst]

7. Good question, bemildred. Does anyone have the answer?

[pinto]

8. Cloture in the US Senate:

A similar procedure was adopted in the United States Senate in 1917 in response to the actions of isolationist senators who attempted to talk out, or filibuster a bill to arm U.S. merchant ships. President Woodrow Wilson urged the Senate to change its rules to thwart what he called a "little group of willful men", to which the Senate responded by introducing cloture in the form of Rule 22.<1> Cloture was invoked for the first time to end filibuster on the Treaty of Versailles.<2>

This originally required a supermajority of two-thirds of all senators (i.e. 64 out of 96). However, it proved very difficult to achieve this; the Senate tried eleven times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture but failed each time. Filibuster was particularly heavily used by senators from Southern states to block civil rights legislation.

In 1975, the Democratic Senate majority, having achieved a net gain of four seats in the 1974 Senate elections to a strength of 61 (with an additional Independent caucusing with them for a total of 62), reduced the necessary supermajority to three-fifths (60 out of 100). This allowed the Senate majority to invoke cloture, provided that party discipline held. This considerably strengthened the power of the majority, and allowed it to pass many bills that would otherwise have been filibustered. (The Democratic Party had held a two-thirds majority in the 89th Congress of 1965, but regional divisions among Democrats meant that many filibusters were invoked by Southern Democrats against civil rights bills supported by the Northern wing of the party.) Some senators wanted to reduce it to a simple majority (51 out of 100) but this was rejected, as it would greatly diminish the ability of the minority to check the majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

see also:

Rule 22
The filibuster is related to "cloture," a rule adopted almost 100 years ago requiring a two-thirds vote. At times this was two-thirds of those voting; for a limited time, it was two-thirds of membership.

In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes needed to invoke cloture to three-fifths (60) of Senate membership. At the same time, they made the filibuster "invisible" by requiring only that 41 Senators state that they intend to filibuster; critics say this makes the modern filibuster "painless."

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/filibuster.htm

[Benhurst]

9. That's pretty much what I thought. It's time to bring back the pain.

If the Repub bastards want to filibuster, let them bring out the cots and close down the Senate.

[Lasher]

10. Well that's actually what Reid just did

As Senate Majority Leader he has the prerogative to require an actual filibuster is cloture is not agreed to.

[Benhurst]

11. Yes, and he should keep it up, day after day, night after night, with

all the Democrats screaming, "Filibuster! Filibuster! Filibuster!" loud enough to overcome the misrepresentations being pushed by the corporate media.