ONLY SEVEN (7) Dems ACTUALLY voted against this war.

[Truth2Tell]

According to the AP: "In a highly unusual maneuver, House Democratic leaders crafted a procedure that allowed their rank and file to oppose money for the war, then step aside so Republicans could advance it."

The only Dems to vote no: McNerney, Moore (WI), Waters, Stark, Kucinich, Harman, Clay

Roll call on REAL vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll418.xml

David Sirota laid out how these deceitful mind games all work yesterday:

"Every bill comes to the House floor with what is known as a 'rule' that sets the terms of the debate over the legislation in question. House members first vote to approve this parliamentary rule, and then vote on the legislation. Today, however, Democrats are planning to essentially include the Iraq blank check bill IN the rule itself, by making sure the underlying bill the rule brings to the floor includes no timelines for withdrawal, and that the rule only allows amendments that fund the war with no restrictions - blank check amendments that House Democratic leaders know Republicans will have the votes to pass... This means that when the public goes to look for the real vote on the Iraq supplemental bill, the public won't find that. All we will find is a complex parliamentary procedure vote, which was the real vote."

http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/05/vote_alert_dick_cheney_dems_pl.html

[L. Coyote]

1. That is not what was voted on, and not a measure of opposition to the war.

Dividing the Dems into warring factions is no way to stop the war. This devisiveness only aids the GOP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x975882

[Truth2Tell]

2. Dividing the Dems into warring factions? Whaaa?

What do you mean "This is not what was voted on"? This was indeed exactly what was voted on. And it was more CYA for those Dems who have to face anti-war constituents. Just like the Feingold-Reid amendment. Flat out Cover Your Assism. This shit is designed to try and DECEIVE us. And nothing pisses me off more than someone trying to play me for a fool.

As for "warring factions", well, frankly, I think it's well past time for some serious factional warring within this party. Those who have sold out the values of the party have defined the factions for us. The Democratic leadership in both houses declared war on the Democratic Progressive movement with their actions this week. The rest of us can either surrender or fight. I plan to fight.

[Orsino]

17. Vothing for the war aids the GOP.

The war finances the GOP's biggest donors.

[mmonk]

3. Yes I know. The cover vote tactic.

Nauseating.

[magellan]

6. Explain this to me, please

I read Sirota's piece about this the other day but assumed the Dems abandoned the idea when I saw the votes coming in here. I thought the final was 86 Dems voting against the war funding? How does this figure into it, I'm confused.

[mmonk]

8. They knew the republicans would carry the vote through.

So they split the bill in two parts with the war part on its own and those dems voted against that to show "they were against the war funding". Smoke and mirrors to produce the same result and say, "Look I voted against the war funding".

[Truth2Tell]

9. Because this gave those 86 Dems cover

to cast that vote. By the time they cast their vote, the outcome of this process was already pre-ordained by the rule vote.

Certainly many of the 86 no votes were cast by sincere anti-war legislators. But some were cast by members torn between pro-war political interest groups and anti-war constituents. The interest groups understand how this really works, so they are happy to forgive candidates who vote no on the meaningless amendments. Most constituents, on the other hard, have no idea how this all works, and so they focus on the anti-war amendment. The Dem Reps get to have their cake and eat it too. And because of these tactics, we are left guessing who really believes what.

My own Rep, for instance, rakes in big money from Defense contractors, DLC interests, etc.. but our district has turned anti-war. So he was able to cast a no vote on the amendment, but he will be forgiven by his $$ backers, because they know it didn't really matter. Now he can go out and campaign on his bogus ant-war record, and then do the same thing all over again the next time it really matters.

[magellan]

11. Thank you both. I just found this at Sirota's blog which explains it very well

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has a post over at MyDD attempting to explain the rule she helped craft today that deliberately paved the way for House Dems to deliver a blank check Iraq War funding bill to President Bush. Louise, responding directly to my post earlier today, says there was nothing devious about what went on and that what happened today with the rule vote was just normal, ho-hum, nothing-to-see-here kind of stuff. I really like Louise a lot, and it’s unfortunate that she’s trying to play dumb in order to pull something of a fast one in her explanation. The letter to her that I pasted in the comments of her MyDD post is reposted here:

Louise:

Thanks for this post, but you are very carefully avoiding what you - as Chairman of the Rules Committee - know quite well is the crux of the issue. Everyone who knows anything about Congress knows that the power of Congress rests in its rules, and in the majority bringing rules to the floor with their own underlying bill.

The rule you passed today had no real underlying bill. Instead, it allowed two votes - one on much-needed domestic priorities (which I have no problem with) and one on a Republican plan to give President Bush a blank check. Not only did you not start the debate with an underlying Democratic bill that includes any kind of binding timelines, you didn’t even allow a vote on an alternative to the Republican bill.

What you did, in other words, was behave exactly as David Dreier would have behaved had he still been House Rules Chairman and wanted to give President Bush a blank check. Having worked in the House for five years, this is what the GOP did. They passed rules allowing only up-or-down votes on Republican legislation, with no votes allowed on Democratic alternatives.

What you could have done - had you honestly wanted to end the war - was brought legislation that included timelines to the floor. If you felt generous, you may have coupled that legislation with a rule allowing the Republicans a chance to offer an amendment to strip out the antiwar language (but I stress that you didn’t have to do that either, as Republicans showed during their decade-long control of the House). If you had proceeded this way, the debate would have started on Democrats’ turf. If you really wanted to pass binding timelines you may have proceeded just as you did on the original supplemental which was vetoed, and perhaps you may even have attached the minimum wage to it directly, so as to make it that much harder for Republicans to vote again. Let me say again - THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU DID WHEN YOU PASSED THE ORIGINAL BILL WITH TIMELINES SO WE ALL KNOW YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE DOING DIFFERENTLY TODAY.

But as I said, that’s not what you did. You passed a rule allowing the House to consider only the Republican blank check. That is beyond a travesty. For a majority party to use its rules power to give the minority party an up-or-down vote on a bill that runs counter to the election mandate that brought the majority to power - and to allow that up-or-down vote to occur without even the possibility of an alternative - is, in a word, unprecedented.

- David Sirota

This is why I said at the beginning of the day that the entire creation of this twisted rule was a deliberate effort to confuse the public in a devious and secretive way that only Dick Cheney could love. When non-political folks look at what happened today, they will see Democrats approved a procedural rule, and voted against a Republican bill to give President Bush a blank check for the Iraq War. What they may not see is the real story: The procedural vote was the vote to create a situation that Democrats knew would result in the passage of a blank check. In other words, the procedural vote was the key vote in support of the blank check, because it set up a situation whereby passage of the blank check was inevitable. If that rule vote didn’t pass, the blank check wouldn’t even be able to come to the floor in the inevitably-going-to-pass situation it ended up coming up in.

As an aside, for those wondering why Republicans voted against the rule, see my earlier post. I explain some of the rationale there

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2007/05/24/madame-chairwoman-you-are-very-smart-so-please-stop-playing-dumb/

Yeah, this kind of manipulation sucks bad no matter who's doing it.

[bigtree]

4. "deceitful mind games?" No.

boring details about the process hyped by opponents of the legislation as some sinister plot.

[Truth2Tell]

5. So now the truth has become just another "boring detail". nt

[bigtree]

7. these types of procedures are common and meaningless

you are more than able to find where your representative or senator stood on this vote. The hyperventilation over the procedure that ensured passage of the bill is just noise from opponents. The bill passed. The majority of Democrats are still committed to timetables for withdrawal which they failed to achieve using the funding as a vehicle. The timetables are the key and Democrats are still overwhelmingly in favor of them, no matter what's been appropriated. One vote for timetables and the troops come home, money and all. The passing of one supplemental that failed to get enough support to advance timetables when they were included doesn't preclude that.

[Truth2Tell]

10. Common, yes. Meaningless, no.

Of course I can go find out how my Rep voted on anything if I dig into it. But this is about the sound bites. This is about the leadership providing cover for members so they don't have to expose their real bottom line positions on issues to the electorate. They do this on all kinds of issues ALL THE TIME. This case simply provides an object lesson in what the real problems are with our Congress, beyond just this issue. It's not meaningless. It's gross.

[mdmc]

12. kick for the 7

Why not Hinchey? Why not Hall....

[Pastiche423]

13. Click on the link for Roll Call above

There were more than 7. There were 14 in the senate alone.

[Truth2Tell]

14. True. I should have clarified my OP

I was referring only to the House. I didn't make that totally clear. My bad.

The Senate didn't provide quite this much cover. The Senate leadership did however provide the Feingold-Reid amendment - knowing full well it would lose - to offer up a bit of advance cover. I'm not sure that one will fly tho...

[Pastiche423]

15. Clarify?

How about telling the truth?

[Truth2Tell]

16. The intent of my message subject

was not to deceive or or be untruthfull. In the body of the post I refer immidiately to "House Democrats" and so the post itself is not untrue or even the least bit deceptive..

It was an honest oversight that I didn't say "House Dems" rather than "Dems" in my post subject. I knew I was talking about the House, I just didn't think to make it clear enough in the subject line. If the edit time hadn't now past, I'd edit the subject for accuracy.

Give me a break with the accusations of lying.

edit: mistyping

[Truth2Tell]

18. Why not McDermott, or Lee, or, or, or.. damn. nt