Here's a list of how Dems may be voting today, updated frequently~

[babylonsister]

If you see anyone on here that's undecided that needs persuading, pls. let everyone know!


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22844


Open for list of who says they'll vote No on endless war and who says they plan to vote yes.

Call Congress and help us update this list.

HOUSE

Nancy Pelosi - will vote No according to American Progress Action Fund
Jerrold Nadler - will vote No according to constituent Rusti Eisenberg, leans No according to The Hill, will vote No according to Courtney Lee Adams
Lynn Woolsey - will vote No according to The Hill
Raul Grijalva - will vote No - has released statement
Dennis Kucinich - will vote No - has released statement
Jan Schakowsky - will vote No according to a constituent
Ed Markey - will vote No according to constituent Susan Lees
Anna Eshoo - will vote No according to Lenny Siegel who found it on her website
Welch - will vote NO -- from a constituent in anonymous comment below
Barbara Lee - wil vote No according to anonymous comment below
Carolyn Maloney - will vote No according to constituent Frances Anderson
Yvette Clark - undecided according to Rusti Eisenberg, will vote no according to Sam Koprak
Lois Capps - will vote No according to constituent Dinah Mason who got that from Danielle in her DC office
Diane Watson - will vote No according to Tim Carpenter who got an Email from Jim Clarke in her office who said they'd received 300 calls about it today
Mike Capuano - will vote NO according to constituent Vicky Steinitz
Pallone of NJ 6th - will most likely vote NO on supplemental according to an anonymous comment below citing a staffer.
Tammy Baldwin - will vote No according to Joy First of Madison, WI, who writes: "I called Tammy Baldwin's (Wisconsin House) staff in DC and they told me she will vote no. We brought flowers to her Madison office where it was confirmed by them also."
Olver - will vote No according to an Email from his staff sent to Tim Carpenter.
Keith Ellison - will vote No (finally) according to Michael Perkins
Kennedy - will vote No according to Providence Journal
Langevin - will vote No according to Providence Journal
Sam Farr - will vote no according to Medea Benjamin
Massachusetts Reps - "Re our reps, we seem to have all NO votes here in MA, except perhaps Lynch." - Susan Lees
Jim Moran - will vote No according to constituent Peter Rush: "This is Peter Rush, in Virginia, and I just called Jim Moran’s office (VA-8) about 9:30 Thursday, and they told me Moran is voting against the bill. If true, this would mean that he has changed his mind, in the right direction, since yesterday. I also called the offices of the other Democrats from Virginia, Bobby Scott from Richmond (VA-3) and Rick Boucher (VA-9), but their staffs say they don’t know how he will vote, and Sen. Jim Webb, whose staffer also said he didn’t know how Webb was going to vote. Webb gave a pretty strong speech April 26 justifying his vote for the previous bill, and it would be a betrayal of what he said if he turns around and supports this one, so we’ll see."
Carol Shea-Porter 1st District NH - will vote NO according to Beth, an office staffer, according to constituent Barbara Hilton. And she just said so on the floor.
Yarmuth (D-KY) voting NO, according to Kevin Martin
McNulty (D-NY) voting NO according to Kevin Martin
Carson (D-IN) voting NO according to Kevin Martin
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) NO according to Kelly Campbell
Rep Fatah - will vote No, David Gibson reports: "OK. Just spoke with Nuku Ofori, Fatah's LD on Iraq. He told me that Fatah was not taking a position until the actual language of the Bill was released, which it was today, and that he was to brief the Congressman on the bill. He also told me that we can expect a "No" vote if there is no exit language in it, which seems to be the case."
Pete Stark (CA) will vote NO according to a constituent call, reported via email
Henry Waxman (CA) will vote NO according to a constituent call, reported via email

David Wu (D-OR) leaning NO according to Kelly Campbell
Nydia Velasquez - is leaning NO according to Eisenberg
Edolphus Towns (NY) leaning NO, according to anonymous commenter below, Rusti Eisenberg reports: "Cong Towns (D-Brooklyn) is leaning towards a "No" but is not decided. Its pretty dismaying that "antiwar" Congressional reps can't make up their mind on this "no-brainer.""

Rahm Emmanuel -- undecided according to constituent call, quotes in news suggest he's voting YES
Chris Van Hollen - undecided according to constituent Sue Udry
Maurice Hinchey - undecided according to The Hill
Ed Perlmutter - undecided according to the Hill
Charles Rangel - undecided, likely No, according to constituent Nancy Kricorian
Bobby Scott - "Undecided! Richmond office suggested he would vote no since he voted against war to begin with but suggested I call DC office. Did so and was told he was undecided, but the person that answered was unaware that the debate would be taking place today (maybe it is not?). Call his DC office at 202-225-8351 if he is your rep. Thanks, Rain"
Bob filner - undecided according to constituent Barbara Cummings who writes: "I just called again and his DC office said he has not made up his mind and is taking calls today. So I'm notifying everyone I know in this district to call now. 202 225 8045 Please ask everyone to call. They did ask for my address so don't cheat."

Mark Udall - is leaning Yes according to constituent Stephanie Westbrook, who writes: "Staff at Mark Udall's office (CO 2) haven't had a chance to talk with him about this (!) but think he will vote YES, in order to support the troops. I asked where in the supplemental there is anything about supporting the troops. No answer. I was reminded, as I am every time I call, that he voted against the war. I replied that it is much more acceptable to me someone who voted for the war back in 2002 and votes to end it now than vice-versa. I also told them that I read the statement on his web site saying he will introduce new legislation after memorial day which "implements the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and provides a foundation for the phased withdrawal of American troops out of Iraq beginning in March of next year" and instead urge him to take action NOW by voting NO on the supplemental. If there are any other people out there from CO-2, please call Udall's office!"

Joe Sestak - will vote Yes according to The Hill -- Rep Sestak - undecided and leaning Yes, David Gibson reports: "According to his Washington DC office, Joe Sestak is leaning yes, but still on the fence. Call right away and tell him not to betray his pledge to vote for a date certain and vote "No" on this supplemental unless an exit timeline to fund a withdrawl by the end of this year is reinserted. We want a 'No" vote. Here is his office number:
1-202-225-2011 Cranston Grey is the Legislative Aide on Iraq. Please call right away!"
Dutch Ruppersberger - will vote Yes according to The Hill
Larsen (D-WA)- will vote Yes according to anonymous comment below
Danny Davis - will likely vote Yes: "I spoke with him myself after hearing it from the receptionist. He needs a SWARM!" - Robin, Maywood, IL
Louise Slaughter - will vote yes: she actually claimed on the floor of the House on Thursday morning that if Congress does not fund the war, Bush will continue the war but lack money for things the troops need. She promised to always fund the war. And she bragged about the (waiverable) "benchmarks," the minimum wage, etc., etc. What a disgrace!
Brown (SC) voting YES according to Kevin Martin
Mark Kirk - will vote Yes according to an Email from David _____.

SENATE

Chris Dodd - will vote No and said so on CNN according to Rusti Eisenberg
Russ Feingold - will vote No - has released statement
Kerry and Kennedy - "Yesterday we heard 'undecided' from both Kerry and Kennedy offices.. Today's Boston Globe article now reports Kerry as a NO, and Kennedy undecided." - Susan Lees
Pat Leahy (VT) will vote NO, according to press release

Dick Durbin - undecided according to anonymous comment below
Clinton - undecided according to Courtney Lee Adams
Schumer - undecided according to Courtney Lee Adams
NJ Senators - undecided: From Susan: "Sen. Menendez's office didn't know how he plans to vote. I couldn't get through to Sen. Lautenberg's office. Will try again later."

Barbara Mikulski - will vote Yes
Reed - will vote Yes according to Providence Journal
Whitehouse - will vote Yes according to Providence Journal: Anonymous comment: "Today's Providence Journal actually said, 'Sheldon Whitehouse said he MAY also support the war funds bill.' That means UNDECIDED, or leaning, not a firm YES as your list indicates. C'mon, my fellow Rhode Islanders, call him NOW."
Biden - will vote Yes according to USA Today
Bunning - YES according to Kevin Martin
McConnell - YES according to Kevin Martin
Graham - YES according to Kevin Martin
DeMint - YES according to Kevin Martin
Sen Ken Salazar (D-CO) to vote Yes, by stephaniewestbrook, "But! plans to introduce legislation after the break calling for phased withdrawal. Ugh. Can't vote against the supplemental because then the troops wouldn't get the armor they need to defend themselves. Double ugh. Colorado voters - call his office! May take you a while to get through."
Senator Casey - will vote Yes, David Gibson reports: "I just Spoke a Legislative Correspondent for Sen. Casey. They tell me that Casey plans to vote for the Supp. But will vote for a new bill, Salazar - ? I didn't get the other name on the bill, that they tell me will implement the Iraq study group recommendations. I have not heard of this bill till now. They did tell me, after I lobbied them to tell the Sen. how disappointed we were in that position and in his vote against Fiengold, that they cannot say for sure and doesn't want to quote him. They seemed to indicate that it was possible that Casey could still change his vote, but it sounded like a heavy lift to me. They went on to say how the Sen. agrees with us in principal. I told them that he should vote his principals and put them into practice then. They thanked me and told me to call them anytime. Here's their number. Send to your networks. 202-224-6324"

[magellan]

1. Mostly No so far, including Pelosi

So if true, the point of this whole exercise in capitulation was WHAT precisely?

[mzmolly]

6. To show Bush his "request" has no support?

:shrug:

[magellan]

7. Then why capitulate in the first place and say it's to protect the troops?

[mzmolly]

13. They likely knew where people stood before

opening this up for a vote?

[lazyriver]

2. Congressman Mike Michaud (D-ME) will vote no

according to his DC office. I told the staffer I was proud of the Congressman and he would continue to have my full support. Staffer: "Thank you. That is exactly what we want to hear".

I'm going to call Sen. Snowe's office now...


Edited to add: Staffer said "Sen. Snowe has not released her position on the bill at this time but we are taking comments". I politely told her I strongly urge the Senator to vote against the bill.

Edited again to add: I know Snowe isn't a Dem, but she's the Senator I'm stuck with. ;(

[Zodiak]

50. That still weirds me out

my name is Mike Michaud......maybe I should run for office in Maine when he retires or loses.

I am a social libertarian, populist type and a hell of a fighter. 36, and not too scary to look at.

Think I got a chance?

[lazyriver]

52. If we can have Snowe and Collinslieberman as

senators, anybody stands a chance!

[eleny]

3. I contacted Perlmutter and Salazar

I only have some hope for Ed Perlmutter (D-CO).

[Lone_Star_Dem]

4. Thank you

This is the best list I've seen so far.

[leftupnorth]

5. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) 1st district

SAid he is still undecided in an interview on Ed Schultz at 2:30 pm today.

[lazyriver]

8. Congressman Tom Allen (D-ME) will vote no

according to his DC office staffer.

[spooky3]

9. Here's an email Rep. Moran just sent his constituents:

Dear Friend,

Congress will pass a supplemental bill today to fund the Iraq war for another four months. The President’s request for almost $100 billion will finance the war for the remainder of this fiscal year ending September 30th.

I am opposed to this extension of the war. While the Iraqi Parliament prepares for a two-month summer vacation, our soldiers prepare for more violent battle referreeing a Sunni-Shite civil war. Is this a mission worthy of their sacrifice?

Congress passed a war supplemental bill a few weeks ago that contained a deadline to begin withdrawing our troops out of Iraq. It also held the Iraqi Parliament accountable for making progress resolving key political and security issues. Failure to do so would have resulted in the immediate withdrawal of our servicemen. Unfortunately, it was vetoed by the President and neither the House nor the Senate have the two-thirds majority support needed to override that veto.

Today's vote is disappointing, but it is not the end of the game for opposition to the war. There will be many more opportunities to bring about a course change in Iraq. As public sentiment against the war grows stronger each day, the time will come in the near future where the House and Senate will have veto-proof majorities to bring our troops home.
Sincerely,


James P. Moran


H.R. 2206 -- (House of Representatives - May 24, 2007)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party and the President are making it clear to the American people that they own this war hook, line, and sinker.

The President and his Republican colleagues will be successful today in continuing the Iraq war, but this is a pyrrhic victory at best.

The Democratic Leadership is allowing this bill to pass because unlike the President they will not leave our troops unprotected in battle. Because it is our troops and their families that are the only ones being asked to make any sacrifice in this war.

And this President's policy is unworthy of their sacrifice.

The only sacrifice requested of the rest of us has been to go out and spend our tax cuts at the mall.

Meanwhile the Iraqi Parliament is preparing to take the summer off. Probably using some of the missing $9 billion to sunbathe along the Mediterranean.

Our soldiers risk life and limb to secure their home country which is in the midst of a civil war and they go on vacation. Ask yourself if you think this is a war worthy of our soldiers' sacrifice?

We will do everything -- legally and legislatively -- to bring our troops home as soon and as safely as possible. That is our pledge to the American people and we will keep it.

[mzmolly]

11. Very important point:

....the time will come in the near future where the House and Senate will have veto-proof majorities to bring our troops home. :toast:

[CRH]

46. Just curious as to your statement, care to expand?

....the time will come in the near future where the House and Senate will have veto-proof majorities to bring our troops home.

Is this opinion, the law of lame duck politics, rats abandoning a listing ship, ...? Or did I miss something?

[mzmolly]

47. It was a quote from the party I responded to.

Check out spooky's post. :hi:

[firefox_fan]

10. When is the vote? Later today?

[Gregorian]

12. So it was all strategery?

This is why until a few moments ago, I was reserving judgment on the Democrats in Congress.

We may be somewhat surprised. I know I will. I'm already losing my patience.

[mzmolly]

14. Very well could have been.

If so, I'm impressed. :evilgrin: if not, I hope they'll claim it was. ;) Of course, this is assuming the measure doesn't pass.

[babylonsister]

18. What do you mean? It's expected that the rethugs are going to

balance out the 'yes' votes that the Dems don't cast. That, from what I've read, is the strategery.
But I do love surprises.

[Marr]

21. How could this possibly be interpreted as strategy?

A portion of the Democratic leadership (at least), is attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

[firefox_fan]

37. Yes, they think long-term about their own job...

if they play nice now, they may ask for some favors later, when they are back in the minority (which may happen sooner than they think).

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Mikulski a yes?

that's surprising.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. Yeah .... that's what I thought, too.

Wonder what Cardin's doing?

I *know* what Mfume would be doing.

[EFerrari]

16. Why does today feel like an episode of "Fawlty Towers"

and not like sober policymaking on a catastrophic "war"?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. "Don't mention the war!!"

[glitch]

31. OMG thank you for that. Sometimes you need a laugh and today is definitely one of those times. nt

[EFerrari]

41. LOL!

:rofl:

[Gregorian]

39. Don't blame Congress- They're from Madrid.

I think it takes a huge volume of information to not be bowled over by what's happening.

I mean, like the 500 emails that Greg Palast has. He's not fooled. But I sure am.

[Blue_In_AK]

17. I'm not going to waste my breath

calling my Congressional delegation -- Ted Stevens? Don Young? Puh-leeze! And Lisa Murkowski has completely rolled over since her visit to Iraq a couple of months ago. They're all useless Republican tools.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

19. Gabrielle Giffords in Dist. 8 for AZ will not divulge her position.

Please call her to sway her opinion. 520 881-3588

[frazzled]

22. Just called Durbin and Obama offices in D.C.

Both report "no decision" yet, but the staff sounded kind of disheartened when I asked them to find the courage to vote no (even though I know how difficult that will be for them). So I'm not feeling too optimistic.

At least they both have super nice staff. Unlike my experience back in 2002, when Senator Kerry's staff hung up the phone on me before I could even finish my (polite) request for a no vote on the Iraq War Resolution.

One thing I can say for Durbin and Obama: neither of them voted to start this war. As for those who did (including some of our current and past candidates for the presidency): whatever you vote or claim you would vote on this bill seems irrelevant today. This vote wouldn't even be happening if you hadn't aided and abetted the invasion.

[Solly Mack]

23. talking out my ass a minute

Enough Democrats will vote Yes with the majority of the republicans so that the measure passes
The rest of the Democrats will vote no.

By voting NO, those Democrats doing so are then going to say "I stood up to Bush and voting No proves it" (with the inherent message, please cheer me and I'm with you)

Those Democrats voting Yes are banking any anger directed at them will be short lived. And besides, excuses will be made by some as to why they voted Yes anyway.

This way, they can say they stood against Bush by voting No and they hope this appeases the anti-war members of the party.

See..the hope is...and naturally I'm just talking out my ass here...is that if they can paint the measure as having majority republican support (since the comment was made "it will take republican votes to pass this"), then the war remains firmly in the GOP/Bush camp. Or so they hope

Course, it does require people embracing that framing and running with it.

At the same time, no one can say the troops aren't funded (even though that's just a fear tactic) since the measure passed.

Folks on the right will attack Pelosi as not supporting the troops because she voted No - and not just her...but the right has been making that claim from the get go, so...

Now, one does wonder why the whole stand off about time-lines to begin with if this was what it was going to come down to...

but those time-lines and the resulting clash between a threat of a veto and Democrats saying their own version of bring it on allowed Democratic voters to cheer and feel good...so it wasn't wasted from a purely political calculation. Didn't you feel good to know Bush would be forced into a veto? And didn't it feel good to think that they could keep forcing the issue? Sure, you're disappointed now, but weren't you on cloud nine then? See? It wasn't wasted.

So now the time-lines are removed, people are upset...so a new calculation comes into play

Majority Dems vote No - you cheer them and forgive them
A few Dems vote Yes, you're angry but you get over it eventually
GOP votes Yes by and large - it's their war

and it might just even work out that way

But again, one is still left wondering why the months of time-line standoffs and the eventual compromise if this was going to play out this way in the end

As stated, I'm talking out my ass on this

[mzmolly]

26. I think that's good analysis.

Here's to your ass! :toast: ;)

[Solly Mack]

35. I'm often told I don't understand the political process

because I'm one of those naive fringe lefties.

I do understand - I just don't like it. Nor do I think the way it is is the way it has to be

I was describing political manipulation of the voters - not the system.

I just don't want anyone to think I embrace that framing - I don't. I just think that's how it will play out..well, my ass thinks that. :)

[mzmolly]

40. I do not take your statements as an endorsement of what "stinks" in Washington.

;)

[Solly Mack]

63. My ass and I just needed the comfort of a disclaimer

:)

[glitch]

29. "I can't hear you from Uranus"

Sorry, you may be right, I just wanted to say that. Heard it on DU and for some reason it tickled my funny bone.

[Solly Mack]

32. sure you can....it's that echo you call your conscience :)

I thought what you said was funny :)

[Tuesday_Morning]

24. Bill Nelson is undecided

[Breeze54]

25. Kennedy undecided?? Huh? He must be voting NO!

STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY IN RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT BUSH'S REMARKS ON THE IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL LEGISLATION

http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm?id=457B86CE-6685-4E20-8CEE-5E8943F46434

March 28, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

“After more than four years of war in Iraq, a timeline for the redeployment of our combat troops out of Iraq is necessary to encourage the Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. This Administration supported deadlines for three Iraqi elections and for the writing of the constitution in a clear effort to ensure that the Iraqis would make essential decisions. Yet, it remains emphatically opposed to any timeline for the redeployment of our military. The Administration should follow the logic of its past actions and embrace – rather than reject – a timeline. And it should stop defying the will of the American people who want us to begin to bring our troops home to the hero’s welcome they have earned.”

[eleny]

28. Just sent an email to Udall's office

If he votes "yes" I will donate to his opponent's campaign for the Senate primary and work for that other campaign. Udall wants the seat Allard is vacating.

[mmonk]

30. It's going to be most likely politics and cover

from this point out.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[EFerrari]

44. How do I know you are really Grovelbot and not an imposter?

Hmmmmmm?

[orleans]

34. thanks for the list. i emailed my senators last night--i'm gonna call

durbin and obama now!

[stubertmcfly]

36. Colorado check-in

Just called Udall and Salazar. Udall's office indicated that he plans to vote for the supplemental spending measure so I reiterated to his staff that his position on this measure is flawed and that, as a politician planning a Senate run next year, that his vote will be held up to even higher scrutiny. Salazar's office indicated that the Senator is against this bill but has not made a statement whether or not he will support it in a vote. They did mention that calls like mine do help to influence the Senator's decisions so GET ON THE PHONE!!!

Udall: 202.225.6161
Salazar: 202.224.5852

[TwilightGardener]

38. I'm pretty sure I know how Nebraska will go on this. No point in wondering.

[huskerlaw]

48. Perhaps,

but it might be worth a call to Hagel...he's been pretty vocal regarding his annoyance with BushCo over the war. Even though I think that's a purely political move on his part, it's still worth a shot.

Nelson, though, you can write off. Obviously.

[TwilightGardener]

49. Nelson's a lost cause. Hagel would be suicidal to vote "Nay" on this.

He's in so much hot water with Nebraska GOPers as it is, I'd almost hate to put more pressure on him.

[huskerlaw]

51. Hahaha

All the more reason to pressure him, IMO. If he votes yes, he looks just as hypocritical as the Democrats, given his purported stance on Iraq.

[TwilightGardener]

55. Yes, he would be hypocritical, but he'd also be listening to his constituents,

and he's an "R", so he'd get away with it. I'd eat my shorts if he voted no.

[huskerlaw]

58. Really?

More than 50% of Nebraskans still support the war?

His constituents aren't Nebraska Republicans, they're all Nebraskans. And Bush's poll numbers in Nebraska haven't been over 50% in MONTHS.

[TwilightGardener]

59. It's not a vote "for the war"--it's for funding, something that Hagel

has always said he would do--he's said before that no one wanted to be responsible for pulling a canteen or rifle out of a soldier's hands, or words to that effect, although I don't believe that voting against this bill would do that--but the perception is there. I am pretty sure the majority of Nebraskans, D and R, want the funding to continue, even if they don't support the war. I am for funding, myself, but I don't like this bill. I can understand his vote either way. It's a tough one, both for him and Obama, after Obama's "playing chicken with the troops" statement.

[Ino]

42. Claire McCaskill's office says she'll vote YES...

to "support the troops". I said I hope she'll reconsider, as a yes vote supports the war & a no vote doesn't mean she doesn't support the troops.

[kansasblue]

43. Kansas 2nd House dist: Dem Nancy Boyda will vote YES

Per her Topeka office this AM.

I would assume the two Republican will vote yes also.

[babylonsister]

45. Update on Julia Carson and Jerry McNerney-both 'no':

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=whip#comment-100478

Submitted by djardin on Thu, 2007-05-24 19:52.

Jerry McNerney voting no
per announcement on his website
» reply | email this page

Julia Carson (D-IN) to vote NO
Submitted by Lori Perdue on Thu, 2007-05-24 19:56.

Julia Carson's staffer said "Ms. Carson is dedicated to binding benchmarks and time-lines. This bill has no accountability; therefore the Representative will be voting in opposition to it."

[Dancing_Dave]

53. My rep Nancy Boyda is leaning Yes, but I made it clear to her office

That I'll never vote for again under any circumstances if she does vote for this disgraceful continuation of the War!

Keep those Congressional phone lines ringing, it looks like this bill might really fail in the House if we keep up the intense pressure on every Representative. Make it clear to your Rep that you sent them to Washington to end this War, and your support for them will TERMINATED if they don't do it NOW. Unfortunately, that's the only kind of language that today's politicians understand.

[CTD]

54. Mikulski's office just said she was undecided. Cardin's office also claimed undecided.

Spoke to both in the last 5 minutes.

[adamuu]

56. Kerry definte "NO" - from the hors .... oops i almost made a bad pun.

Direct e-mail from Kerry

Hi Adam,
The compromise supplemental will probably be presented to the Senate later today, but I wanted to drop a quick note to let all of you know my thoughts on it. I'm voting against it. I explain my feelings in a post I put up on the blog Daily Kos.

You can read it here.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/24/114745/908

[RevCheesehead]

57. Steve Kagen - WI 8th; STILL UNDECIDED, AND TORN.

Congressman Steve Kagen

Washington DC Office:

Honorable Steve Kagen M.D.
1232 Longworth HOB
Washington DC 20515
ph: [phone]
fx: [phone]



District Office

Honorable Steve Kagen M.D.
700 E.Walnut Street
Green Bay, WI 54301
ph: [phone]
fx: [phone]

333 West College Ave.
Radisson Paper Valley
Appleton, WI 54911
ph: [phone]
fx: [phone]


Honorable Steve Kagen, M.D.
1232 Longworth HOB
Washington DC 20515
ph: [phone]
fx: [phone]

[huskerlaw]

60. Berman (CA-28) undecided!

I just spoke to someone in his Washington office and they said they were unsure about how Congressman Berman will vote.

Anyone in the SF Valley...GET ON THIS GUY!

I thought it was a given, he very vocally said he would vote to override the veto of the last funding bill.

[RiverStone]

61. Thanks - I was looking for this!

We will remember the names of those who voted to continue funding Shub's immoral and reckless occupation against the wishes of We The People.

This vote needs to happen in the light of day.

No compromise - no capitulation!

[OneBlueSky]

62. Rep. John Hall (NY-19) will vote NO! . . .

Statement on Iraq Supplemental "NO" Vote
Thursday, May 24, 2007

Washington, DC – U.S. Representative John Hall (D-NY19) released the following statement today concerning his vote of "nay" on the Fiscal Year 2007 President’s Requested War Funding Emergency Supplemental bill:

"I oppose the war in Iraq and I have always said that I would vote for additional war funding only if the bill contained a firm, responsible timeline to redeploy US troops out of Iraq. On those grounds, and in accordance with the overwhelming sentiment I have heard from the people in my district, I could not in good conscience vote for the funding bill brought before the House this evening."

p.s. my Congressman . . . :patriot: