http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/iraq-v...2007-03-19.html
Iraq vote hangs by thread
March 20, 2007
Facing their first tight vote of the 110th Congress, House Democratic leaders yesterday were scrambling to convince rank-and-file members to back their carefully crafted war-funding legislation.
At least eight Democrats are planning to vote “no” on the Iraq supplemental, scheduled for a Thursday vote. Two more are “leaning no.” Meanwhile, there are over three dozen Democrats who are undecided, according to a survey conducted by The Hill.
The leadership can lose only 15 votes if Republicans stick together, giving leaders little room as they seek to balance the demands of liberals who want a fast withdrawal with those of conservative Democrats, who are wary of setting any kind of timetable for commanders in the field to follow.
Leadership aides say they are working hard to gain those votes.
“It’s crunch time,” said Kristie Greco, spokeswoman for House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.). “The vote last week in the Appropriations Committee was a strong indication of the momentum of this legislation, and we’re building on that.”
While 17 House Republicans voted against President Bush’s troop surge, fewer than 10 are expected to vote for the pending appropriations measure. Republicans who are possible defectors include Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (Md.) and Walter Jones (N.C.).
Democratic leaders got a huge boost yesterday when MoveOn.org decided to support the bill after seeking input from their leaders in a blast e-mail.
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), who is a Ways and Means subcommittee chairman, said during a speech in his district over the weekend that he plans to vote no along with a group of 20 other Democrats, according to The Argus newspaper of Fremont, Calif.
“The best way to keep [the troops] safe is to bring them home,” Stark said. “It’s difficult to oppose [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She’s a great leader and working wonders to get this passed, but some things I can’t vote for.”
He added that if the resolution fails, “It won’t look good, like the Democrats can’t get their act together, but that’s OK. We can write a better bill.”
Other lawmakers from Pelosi’s state of California are planning to buck leadership on the funding measure, including Reps. Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, and perhaps Maxine Waters.
There’s been no decision on what amendments, if any, will be allowed on the floor. Last week, Republicans argued in favor of allowing amendments, noting that appropriations bills are usually open to amendments and that the bill wouldn’t just pay for government operations but makes a substantial policy statement.
The Rules Committee is expected to meet tomorrow, but no decision has been made on whether amendments will be allowed.
“That’s still to be determined,” said committee spokesman John Santore. “People are waiting to see what amendments will be offered.”
Both parties used yesterday’s fourth anniversary of the 2003 Iraq invasion to make their policy points.
Making a statement in the Roosevelt Room, President Bush criticized the Democrats’ plan.
“They have a responsibility to pass a clean bill that does not use funding for our troops as leverage to get special interest spending for their districts,” Bush said. “And they have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay.”
White House spokesman Tony Snow later added: “What he’s saying is that if they attach strings, he will veto it.”
Democrats stressed their point that the president and his war plans have lost the confidence of the country.
“The American people have lost confidence in President Bush’s plan for a war without end in Iraq. That failed approach has been rejected by the voters in our nation, and it will be rejected by the Congress,” Pelosi said.
Heidi Bruggink and Stacey Pistritto contributed to this report.
________________________________________
Progressives and Blue Dogs weigh in on war-funding bill
Yes or leaning yes
Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii)
Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)
Melissa Bean (Ill.)
Nancy Boyda (Kan.)
Dennis Cardoza (Calif.)
Peter DeFazio (Ore.)
Chet Edwards (Texas)
Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.)
Phil Hare (Ill.)
Tim Mahoney (Fla.) (leaning yes)
Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) (leaning yes)
Steve Kagen (Wis.)
Tom Lantos (Calif.)
John Larson (Conn.)
Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.)
George Miller (Calif.)
Chris Murphy (Conn.)
Patrick Murphy (Pa.)
Donald Payne (N.J.)
David Scott (Ga.)
Joe Sestak (Pa.)
Carol Shea-Porter (N.H.)
Tim Walz (Minn.)
Charlie Wilson (Ohio)
No or leaning no
Danny Davis (Ill.) (leaning no)
Keith Ellison (Minn.) (leaning no)
Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)
Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas)
Barbara Lee (Calif.)*
Jim Marshall (Ga.)
Pete Stark (Calif.)
Edolphus Towns (N.Y.)
Lynn Woolsey (Calif.)*
Undecided/no comment
Tammy Baldwin (Wis.)
John Barrow (Ga.)
Sanford Bishop Jr. (Ga.)
Dan Boren (Okla.)
Leonard Boswell (Iowa)
Chris Carney (Pa.)
Jim Cooper (Tenn.)
Lacy Clay (Mo.)
Steve Cohen (Tenn.)*
Elijah Cummings (Md.)
Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
Brad Ellsworth (Ind.)
Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.)*
John Hall (N.Y.)
Stephanie Herseth (S.D.)
Baron Hill (Ind.)
Rush Holt (N.J.)
Hank Johnson (Ga.)
Ron Kind (Wis.)
Nick Lampson (Texas)
John Lewis (Ga.)*
Jim Matheson (Utah)
Doris Matsui (Calif.)
James McGovern (Mass.)
Jerry McNerney (Calif.)
Gwen Moore (Wis.)
Jim Oberstar (Minn.)
Collin Peterson (Minn.)
Bobby Rush (Ill.)
Mike Ross (Ark.)
John Salazar (Colo.)
Linda Sanchez (Calif.)
Jan Schakowsky (Ill.)
Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Hilda Solis (Calif.)
Zack Space (Ohio)
Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Maxine Waters (Calif.)*
Peter Welch (Vt.)
* Scheduled to attend anti-war rally tomorrow on Capitol Hill
Culled from media accounts and interviews with lawmakers and aides
Full Version: Iraq War Funding Vote
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/030...thing_Else.html
March 19, 2007
Pelosi Plays Hardball, Clyburn Something Else
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), facing a huge vote Thursday on the $124 billion wartime spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, is laying down the law to Democratic opponents of the measure: Vote for this bill, or you'll end up giving President Bush exactly what he wants.
Pelosi is privately telling leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, including California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, that if the leadership-crafted spending bill, which includes a 2008 withdrawal date, goes down, she'll quickly bring up a "clean" spending bill just for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of the year and seek Republican support to pass it.
Pelosi is not threatening the rebellious Democrats with the "clean bill" alternative, caution Democratic insiders. Instead, she's making sure that these lawmakers know she'll do whatever it takes to pass an emergency funding bill, with or without their support.
"We've got to govern, and we have to govern responsibly," a Democratic insider said of Pelosi's message to the wavering Democrats. "This is as far as we could go for them in that direction. If that is not successful, we will go in the other direction and seek Republican votes to pass a clean bill."
Pelosi and other senior Democrats have been buoyed recently by support from some recalcitrant Democrats, although the going is slow. For instance, aides to Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) told leadership staffers that she would support the leadership bill. And senior Democrats believe that other lawmakers will begin breaking their way in the next day or two as well.
"Woolsey is claiming she has 15 votes and can bring this bill down, but I think we will eke it out in the end," said one top Democratic aide.
Pelosi, however, may not be getting all the help she needs from her own leadership team. In a letter circulated to his Democratic colleagues, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) admitted that voting for the Iraq bill "is a bitter pill that is hard to swallow."
Most of the letter is a recitation of the billions of dollars in additional funding that Democratic leaders have put in the measure for veterans, Gulf Coast recovery and other domestic programs. But Clyburn then launches into some weird sports talk that he claims justifies why Democrats should vote for the bill.
"Let me inject a few sports analogies to underscore my point," he wrote. "A vote for this bill is analogous to a football team taking a three-yard loss in order to improve the angle for attempting a game-ending field goal for a win.
"For those who appreciate basketball, this supplemental should be viewed as strategically committing a foul to get the ball back in your hands in order to end the game on your terms," he went on. "And for those of us who have a greater love and appreciation for baseball, this bill can be compared to giving up an intentional walk in order to set up a game-ending double play."
Very powerful stuff that, and I am sure it will sway a lot of Democratic votes. But to be fair, the end of Clyburn's letter is pretty solid: "Funding the president's 'surge' is a bitter pill for many of us to swallow. But for those of us who want to establish a glide path toward de-escalation and set a definitive date for disengagement, this supplemental is good medicine."
March 19, 2007
Pelosi Plays Hardball, Clyburn Something Else
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), facing a huge vote Thursday on the $124 billion wartime spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, is laying down the law to Democratic opponents of the measure: Vote for this bill, or you'll end up giving President Bush exactly what he wants.
Pelosi is privately telling leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, including California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, that if the leadership-crafted spending bill, which includes a 2008 withdrawal date, goes down, she'll quickly bring up a "clean" spending bill just for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of the year and seek Republican support to pass it.
Pelosi is not threatening the rebellious Democrats with the "clean bill" alternative, caution Democratic insiders. Instead, she's making sure that these lawmakers know she'll do whatever it takes to pass an emergency funding bill, with or without their support.
"We've got to govern, and we have to govern responsibly," a Democratic insider said of Pelosi's message to the wavering Democrats. "This is as far as we could go for them in that direction. If that is not successful, we will go in the other direction and seek Republican votes to pass a clean bill."
Pelosi and other senior Democrats have been buoyed recently by support from some recalcitrant Democrats, although the going is slow. For instance, aides to Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) told leadership staffers that she would support the leadership bill. And senior Democrats believe that other lawmakers will begin breaking their way in the next day or two as well.
"Woolsey is claiming she has 15 votes and can bring this bill down, but I think we will eke it out in the end," said one top Democratic aide.
Pelosi, however, may not be getting all the help she needs from her own leadership team. In a letter circulated to his Democratic colleagues, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) admitted that voting for the Iraq bill "is a bitter pill that is hard to swallow."
Most of the letter is a recitation of the billions of dollars in additional funding that Democratic leaders have put in the measure for veterans, Gulf Coast recovery and other domestic programs. But Clyburn then launches into some weird sports talk that he claims justifies why Democrats should vote for the bill.
"Let me inject a few sports analogies to underscore my point," he wrote. "A vote for this bill is analogous to a football team taking a three-yard loss in order to improve the angle for attempting a game-ending field goal for a win.
"For those who appreciate basketball, this supplemental should be viewed as strategically committing a foul to get the ball back in your hands in order to end the game on your terms," he went on. "And for those of us who have a greater love and appreciation for baseball, this bill can be compared to giving up an intentional walk in order to set up a game-ending double play."
Very powerful stuff that, and I am sure it will sway a lot of Democratic votes. But to be fair, the end of Clyburn's letter is pretty solid: "Funding the president's 'surge' is a bitter pill for many of us to swallow. But for those of us who want to establish a glide path toward de-escalation and set a definitive date for disengagement, this supplemental is good medicine."
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/3/20/15123/4568
The House Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill: Differences
By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:12:03 PM EST
Previously, I noted that the rationale behind the House bill seems to me to be Ending the Iraq Debacle . . . After the 2008 Election. I think this post, along with Move On's ironic ad evidence my point:
In a recent vote, the Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee unanimously opposed requiring that the troops sent to Iraq be properly prepared for their mission and protected with armor. Again.
But does the House proposal "require[] that the troops sent to Iraq be properly prepared . . ."? Uh no, as the SAME blogger aptly pointed out:
At the moment, it appears that the political calculus hinges on what happens with those "teeth." That is, the leadership's math goes like this: they figure they get and keep more Blue Dog votes by removing the ability to enforce the benchmarks than they lose from the Progressive Caucus, who think the president can't be trusted and will game the benchmarks and continue to humiliate and embarrass Congressional Democrats. So as things stand now, the language is out, because by the leadership's count, there were more Blue Dogs at least implicitly threatening to vote against a bill that included it than there were Progressive Caucus members threatening to vote against a bill that excluded it.
The enforcement language is out says this blogger. But we can STILL beat up on Republicans. Dems will end the Iraq Debacle, we are told, but AFTER the 2008 elections.
We "idiot liberals" are told that we should "not let the perfect be the enemy of the good." That this is just a "first step."
The basis for flinging these banal platitudes at us is not readily apparent.
What precisely is GOOD about this bill? Not the benchmarks. Everyone admits they are unenforceable.
The withdrawal deadline of 2008? Well if you believe Congress will not fund the Iraq Debacle in September 2008, amid the shrieks of the GOP about "abandoning the troops" two months before the election that would be true. You would be an idiot if you believed that.
That this is just a first step? Well what is the next step? If we are to believe this bill, the next step is to stand up to Bush and the Republicans in September 2008. As I write above, it takes an idiot to believe that will happen.
So clearly, on the merits, this bill is NOT about ending the Iraq Debacle, at least not before the 2008 Election.
So this is politics. So let's think abour it as politics. Is this smart politics? I think it is idiotic politics. Let's play out the scenarios:
(1) The bill is passed. The Senate passes a bill. Let's even say it is the exact same bill. (Which ain't going to happen. McConnell has the filibuster. At the least, he will wring out more concessions.) No compromising the proposal even further.
(2) It goes to Bush. Two things can happen.
(a) He signs it. Does that mean the war ends in September 2008? Um, no. Bush will issue a signing statement saying he does not agree with the end date language but in order to fund the troops he will sign it anyway. Then we are back at September 2008 again. See above.
(
He vetoes it. Then what? Dems are prssured to "find a compromise" and "be reasonable." Broderism rears its ugly head. Dems compromise EVEN MORE.
We get to the election in 2008 and some type of uneasy compromise is reached . Bush is in his way out. How do Dems run against the Debacle? They will have funded it.
Someone PLEASE explain to me how this is smart politically? It ain't. It does not end the Debacle. It does not work politically. It is an unmitigated disaster by any calculation.
This is easily one of the stupidest proposals, politically and policywise, I have ever seen.
The House Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill: Differences
By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:12:03 PM EST
Previously, I noted that the rationale behind the House bill seems to me to be Ending the Iraq Debacle . . . After the 2008 Election. I think this post, along with Move On's ironic ad evidence my point:
In a recent vote, the Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee unanimously opposed requiring that the troops sent to Iraq be properly prepared for their mission and protected with armor. Again.
But does the House proposal "require[] that the troops sent to Iraq be properly prepared . . ."? Uh no, as the SAME blogger aptly pointed out:
At the moment, it appears that the political calculus hinges on what happens with those "teeth." That is, the leadership's math goes like this: they figure they get and keep more Blue Dog votes by removing the ability to enforce the benchmarks than they lose from the Progressive Caucus, who think the president can't be trusted and will game the benchmarks and continue to humiliate and embarrass Congressional Democrats. So as things stand now, the language is out, because by the leadership's count, there were more Blue Dogs at least implicitly threatening to vote against a bill that included it than there were Progressive Caucus members threatening to vote against a bill that excluded it.
The enforcement language is out says this blogger. But we can STILL beat up on Republicans. Dems will end the Iraq Debacle, we are told, but AFTER the 2008 elections.
We "idiot liberals" are told that we should "not let the perfect be the enemy of the good." That this is just a "first step."
The basis for flinging these banal platitudes at us is not readily apparent.
What precisely is GOOD about this bill? Not the benchmarks. Everyone admits they are unenforceable.
The withdrawal deadline of 2008? Well if you believe Congress will not fund the Iraq Debacle in September 2008, amid the shrieks of the GOP about "abandoning the troops" two months before the election that would be true. You would be an idiot if you believed that.
That this is just a first step? Well what is the next step? If we are to believe this bill, the next step is to stand up to Bush and the Republicans in September 2008. As I write above, it takes an idiot to believe that will happen.
So clearly, on the merits, this bill is NOT about ending the Iraq Debacle, at least not before the 2008 Election.
So this is politics. So let's think abour it as politics. Is this smart politics? I think it is idiotic politics. Let's play out the scenarios:
(1) The bill is passed. The Senate passes a bill. Let's even say it is the exact same bill. (Which ain't going to happen. McConnell has the filibuster. At the least, he will wring out more concessions.) No compromising the proposal even further.
(2) It goes to Bush. Two things can happen.
(a) He signs it. Does that mean the war ends in September 2008? Um, no. Bush will issue a signing statement saying he does not agree with the end date language but in order to fund the troops he will sign it anyway. Then we are back at September 2008 again. See above.
(
He vetoes it. Then what? Dems are prssured to "find a compromise" and "be reasonable." Broderism rears its ugly head. Dems compromise EVEN MORE.We get to the election in 2008 and some type of uneasy compromise is reached . Bush is in his way out. How do Dems run against the Debacle? They will have funded it.
Someone PLEASE explain to me how this is smart politically? It ain't. It does not end the Debacle. It does not work politically. It is an unmitigated disaster by any calculation.
This is easily one of the stupidest proposals, politically and policywise, I have ever seen.
What is the pork attached to this bill that Bush is talking about?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.