Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATED: The Case for Russ Feingold (282 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I Don't Think That's True (none)
    After all, in 2003 the chairs of intel (Graham) and defense (Levin) both voted against the IWR.  Durbin is the whip, and he voted against it.  Pelosi is the leader, and she voted against it.  Biden was chair of Foreign Affiars, and he offered a competing measure before agreeing to vote for it.  I don't think it was the perception that one needed to be a Hawk to be taken seriously by their colleages--a majority of the Dems still serving in the Senate voted no, and a strong majority of House Dems voted no.  Instead, it was the perception that if one wished to be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate, then one had to look tough and vote for the IWR.

    Today there are probably few people with more credibility on Iraq issues than Levin (who voted against it) and Murtha (who says his vote was wrong, and that we should pull out as soon as possible).  

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by Dana Houle on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 01:48:03 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  i was speaking more of the senate (none)
      than of dems in general. i would put biden and graham as hawks, though, despite their misgivings on this particular war, as well as dean, who is generally fairly hawkish as well, this current debacle excepted. murtha's credibility to make this statement comes from his being generally pro-war, though; someone opposed to aggresive war on principle would not be taken seriously on foreign policy. unfortunately, IMO.

      crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

      by wu ming on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 02:06:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I WAS Talking About the Senate (none)
        Especially now, compared to 2002.  I don't see the Senate Dems as particularly "hawkish," unless we have very different views of hawkish.  The majority of the Dems currently in the Senate voted against the IWR, and most of those who voted for it aren't particularly big players in the Senate.  

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 05:13:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  that "current" bit is a hedge (none)
          and while i agree that the senate is now a lot less enthusiastic about the iraq war, it is a bit of a stretch to say that those who voted for the bill weren't big players.

          then majority leader sen. daschle
          current minority leader sen. reid
          DSCC chair sen. schumer
          ranking foreign relations committee sen. biden
          #2 foreign relations committe sen. dodd
          #3 foreign relations committe sen. kerry
          ranking intelligence committee democrat sen. rockefeller
          #3 intelligence committee sen. feinstein
          #3 armed services committee sen. lieberman

          you do have a point that those running for president were most likely to vote for it, and since those senators get the most mike time, they're probably overrepresented in the public eye viz their influence within the senate. but still, that's a lot of hawks, and i didn't go further than the top three in any committee.

          as for our definitions of hawks, you're probably right. i tend to label anyone who assumes that an aggressive war is fair game unless proven to be a bad idea a hawk, whereas one who only votes for war under extreme duress and in a defensive capacity would be a dove. by that standard, while the house has a lot of doves, the senate has a lot less.

          crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

          by wu ming on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 07:28:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (121)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (45)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (34)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Labor (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • White House (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site