Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATE: Fight the Veto (321 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What are you talking about (6+ / 0-)

    The leadership race in November elected Pelosi as Speaker unanimously.  Yes Hoyer won the race for Majority Leader over Murtha, but need I remind you that Pelosi still outranks Hoyer?  Another point is that just like the Republican Leadership won't do anything to undermine a President of their own party, Hoyer is not going to do anything to undermine the Speaker of his own party, either, especially on a measure that is so popular.  If Hoyer had his way, the bill would not come with timelines to begin with.  But he fell in line and supported Pelosi all the way.

    •  You completely misunderstand the supplemental (7+ / 0-)

      It didn't have any real benchmarks because Hoyer was unwilling to whip the blue dogs.

      •  I think it's you who misunderstands (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Creosote, greeseyparrot, kaye, annefrank

        if it didn't have any real benchmarks, given the deadline was voluntary anyway, Bush would not have vetoed the bill.  I'm not going to go over the benchmarks again, they have been debated here to death.  I think they were a great starting point.

        Another couple of things:

        1. It's not Hoyer's job to whip the votes.  It's the job of the Majority Whip James E. Clyburn of South Carolina.
        1. It's Pelosi, not Hoyer, who has insisted upon never whipping a vote on war, saying this should be a vote on conscience.  I believe that it is because of that stand that so many Democrats did vote for it - without an instinctive ante to resist pressure, they had to search their consciences.
        •  Ok, we can skip (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greeseyparrot, JanL, Catrina, bricoleur

          the discussion about the Benchmarks. But it's my position that they were to have been the last step, not the first, and that the wouldn't have carried much weight, anyway.

          It's not Hoyer's job to whip the votes.  It's the job of the Majority Whip James E. Clyburn of South Carolina.

          Do you really think that all of leadership isn't involved? Please, what you say here is legalistic and absurd.

          It's Pelosi, not Hoyer, who has insisted upon never whipping a vote on war, saying this should be a vote on conscience.

          Yes they did whip, but not the Blue Dogs

          I believe that it is because of that stand that so many Democrats did vote for it - without an instinctive ante to resist pressure, they had to search their consciences.

          You can't demonstrate this.

          •  Umm... no. (3+ / 0-)

            Yes they did whip, but not the Blue Dogs

            You can't demonstrate this.  And in actuality, they did not whip the votes.  What they did was they talked to members, but whipping requires first making it a caucus position (which was never done), and only then pressuring members to vote.  When it was first put forward, the leadership had no idea whether they would get 218 votes.  And please just look up the blue dogs list - several of them voted FOR this bill.

            And there is nothing absurd about saying it's the whip's job to whip votes, when the leadership as a whole decides to whip the votes.  So Hoyer would have a big part in making the decision of whether to whip the votes, but he wouldn't be doing the actual whipping of the votes.  That's why we have a whip and several deputy whips.  That point is of course totally moot here, given Pelosi would not go along with whipping a vote on war.

            •  Oh please (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phoenix Woman, Catrina, bricoleur

              Why do you think the bill got so many Blue Dog votes?

              And there is nothing absurd about saying it's the whip's job to whip votes

              No, there isn't. But you said that the Majority Leader doesn't, and that is absurd.

              Pelosi would not go along with whipping a vote on war.

              Yes she did. Go back and look at what happened with the Out of Iraq Caucus.

              •  7 Blue Dogs supported veto n/t (0+ / 0-)
              •  What happened with the out of Iraq caucus (2+ / 0-)

                is that Pelosi was asking them to let the bill through, which is NOT the same as whipping votes.  It's that simple.  In order to whip any vote, the prerequisite is you have to first make it a caucus position.  That was never done.  Therefore, whipping would be impossible.  Don't keep hanging on this point.  Asking your colleagues to vote for something on a personal basis and enforcing something because it is the party's position - aka whipping - are not one and the same.

                Why do you think the bill got so many Blue Dog votes?

                Same reason Chuck Hagel did.  Because some of them, too, have a conscience.

                he Majority Leader doesn't, and that is absurd.

                Nope, it's not absurd.  The Majority Leader is NOT in charge whipping votes.  The Majority Whip does.  The Majority Leader, along with the rest of the leadership can make a decision to make something a caucus position, thus compelling the Whip to whip the votes, but the actual act of whipping is not done by the Majority Leader.  That's how it works.  The Majority Leader has a say in whether or not the party will whip the votes, but it's the Majority Whip that's in charge of whipping the votes.

                •  Promises (0+ / 0-)

                  Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer.

                  The whole bunch of them have been promising that they will fund this war for another year all along.  They'll deliver on those promises.

                  The whole things a giant theater to make you think the Democrats oppose the war while they vote (again) more money to continue it for another year.

                  When it comes to money for war, whether its the bloated Pentagon budgets or its the supplementals to fund the wars, the Democrats have always been right there with Bush and the Republicans voting more $$ for more war.

                  Democrats, the other War Party.

                  "I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not support a speedy end to the war in Iraq." -votersforpeace.org

                  by COBear on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:46:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  How Do You Know (2+ / 0-)

        what he did to try to convince the Blue Dogs? Just because they voted how they wanted does not mean Hoyer didn't try for God's sake.

        What would you suggest - waterboarding?

        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

        by talex on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:00:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Iraq Accountability Act" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Judge Moonbox

        That's the name of the bill.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site