Jim Webb's 'sufficient rotation time' bill only got 56 votes. Therefore it failed.

[Stinky The Clown]

This bill would, effectively, reduce substantially the number of troops available to be fodder du jour. Not a direct 'end the war' measure, but a good step in that direction.

But it failed to get the needed/magic/sacred 60 votes.

Do we call out the dogs on Webb because he failed to pass the bill? How can we punish him? Should we run a real man against his wimpy ass in his next election? Should we hold our breath and turn blue unless he passes it tonight?

The above is entirely saracsm. Answers to the question are, of course, welcome.

[MadMaddie]

1. No We need to out the people that voted against the bill.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. "Out" them?

They're out. Its a public vote.

And for what its worth, every Dem and 6 Repubs (Smith, Snowe, Coleman, Collins, Sununu and cosponsor Hagel) voted for it. Holy Joe voted with the Repubs.

[MadMaddie]

10. Yes...but their negative votes don't seem to get traction

that's what we have to change....we need to embarras them and put them on the spot...

[Cha]

7. Exactly! Webb is brilliant..

It's the other assholes who don't support giving our troops their needed rest. Every death is on them.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. The "other assholes" are all Repubs

(The snark/rant to follow is ***NOT*** aimed at you)

The 'other assholes' will suffer very little for their votes because they're Republicans. Particularly around here. It is so much more fun to eat our own, dontcha know.

[Cha]

19. Repukes and

the party of lieman.

[Zhade]

2. Nope. Just stop sending funding bills to the floor.

It's that simple.

[OzarkDem]

4. Its real easy

and the troops support it, too.

[babylonsister]

3. What is up with the number 60? Who made that rule and can it be changed? nt

[dflprincess]

8. 60 is the number needed to end a filibuster

The vote taken was actually on ending the filibuster against Webb's bill, not on the bill itself.

[babylonsister]

11. I need more education about filibusters, but especially why Dems

apparently can't use one.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. A technicality

The bill's dead right now no matter the actual, technical reason.

[babylonsister]

21. But every time a vote is to be decided by a# 60, or 67 majority,

how is that determined? I'm wondering where this rule came from. I'll google.

[IdaBriggs]

27. So, who the hell is doing all the talking in this ongoing filibuster?

And why isn't it getting more news coverage? How is it that the REPUBLICANS can stop important legislation, but the Democrats "couldn't"???

[AndyTiedye]

5. Because the Repiggies Will Endlessly Filibuster to Go On Abusing the Troops

[Robson]

9. Actually only a simple majority................

is needed to start impeachment proceedings against George Bush. That's what is really needed if the Democrats want to gain and use leverage and expose the corruption.

Too bad because Pelosi literally doesn't have the cajones to do it.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. This thread was about a Senate vote .....

.... and this thread had nothing to do with impeachment, or the House, or the Speaker.

See my sig line. I am an impeachment hawk. I'm right there with you. :hi:

[Robson]

25. My point was.......

the only thing that the Democrats in Congress have the power to do is to impeach Bush. Everything else that fails makes them look more impotent and reduces their stature with the public and wastes time.

Based upon this vote the Repubs are too partisan to even support the troops and their families. My point is not to derail your thread but to express an opinion that Democrats need to go for the full monty and impeachment for all the reasons that Bill Moyers discussed previously.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Point taken

The culpa is entirely mea.

[FrenchieCat]

15. I'll say it!

REPUBLICANS HATE OUR TROUPS!

[rucky]

16. They may hate our troups...

but they love their toupees.

[Bonobo]

17. May I interrupt to ask you to join this thread for just a minute?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1851710&mesg_id=1851710

It's kind of the same topic and I am trying to understand the Parliamentary issues better. I see others here are also wondering the same kind of questions.

What can we do about this 60 votes crap and what we should demand of our reps.

Thanks. I just don't want to rewrite everything.

[annabanana]

18. We have to counter the "failed" and "Democratic" words in the same sentence.

Republicans obstructed it.. They have dragged Congress to a halt. They are keeping our troops from getting the help they need. THEY ARE HURTING OUR KIDS!!

(they did not "succeed" in blocking it, they failed to allow Congress to vote on it)

words matter

[ShortnFiery]

20. EXCELLENT! We need to chant in unison: "Up or down vote! We demand an up or down vote!?!"

Remember all the right wing hype about judges?

Let's fire their tactics back at them?

[ShortnFiery]

22. A democratic kick

:dem:

[Cabcere]

23. I really don't understand how people who claim to "support the troops"

voted against this bill. :( I don't claim to have any military knowledge/experience, but it seems to me that our troops are being stretched pretty thin and I would imagine that going back time after time after time with very little rest in between is bound to have negative effects on morale, health, etc. :shrug: Am I being stupid here? Is there some great overarching reason why "sufficient rotation time" is bad for our troops? Or are the people who voted against this measure more concerned about the war than the men and women fighting it? :shrug:

[losthills]

24. Democrats have the votes to stop the war

by blocking funding for it.

That's the only way. All they need is the cojones to do it.

The rest of this shit is just a sideshow...