Skip to main content

The Feingold-Reid amendment, expected to come up tomorrow morning, will be for the Senate what the McGovern amendment was in last week's House vote on the Iraq supplemental--the baseline vote for how committed Democratic senators are to ending this war before the next election.

What's more, as noted in this AP story it:

has the makings of a turning point in the Democratic presidential campaign, obliging Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama to take a fresh look at calls for cutting off war funds.

The vote will show the willingness of Clinton and Obama, and all the Democratic Senators, to exercise their most important Congressional power--the power of the purse--to check the executive.

Obama announced today that he will support Feingold-Reid, though in his statement he doesn't address the concept of ending the funding.

"Tomorrow, I expect cloture votes on two other proposals. One is the Reid-Feingold plan, which would begin a withdrawal of troops in 120 days and end all combat operations on April 1. The other is Senator Levin's proposal, which would create standards and benchmarks for additional funding.... Meanwhile, I'll continue to press for my own plan, and work to find the 16 votes in the Senate to pass it with a veto-proof majority and bring our troops home quickly, safely and responsibly."

Those illusory 16 Republican votes (and the 75+ that will also have to be rounded up in the House) sure seem like a pipe dream now, in May, 2007. All I can say is good luck with that one, Senator. The important thing is support for Feingold-Reid and the underlying concept that Congress will have to assume the responsibility for this one, by ending the funding.

Senator Dodd signaled his support of the legislation weeks ago, by becoming a co-sponsor. He would prefer to have a straight yes or no vote on the legislation, to not have it presented as a non-germaine amendment to another bill, but the realities of our very slim majority in the Senate and legislative procedure preclude that.

Likewise, Senator Edwards is urging support for the amendment:

"It is time to end this war. The only real power Congress has to end the war is their funding power, which is why I and others have been calling on them to use it for some time. I would actually go further than Reid-Feingold and use the funding authority, not just to set an ultimate deadline, but to force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops, followed by a complete withdrawal in about a year. But using the funding authority to bring this war to an end is exactly the right thing to do. Every Senator who believes this war is wrong and wants to end it should support Reid-Feingold."

Obviously, he doesn't have to vote on it and is using it to pressure the other Senators in the race, as expected. Until a few weeks ago, Edwards wouldn't comment on Feingold-Reid, but as ending the funding for the war increasingly becomes the default position for Dems and the most likely way to bring this war to a responsible end, he's understandably on board.

Senator Clinton has not yet released a statement, nor has Senator Biden.

A second amendment on Iraq is going to be offered as well, Levin-Reed. This is essentially a redux of the supplemental bill vetoed by Bush, with the exception that the timeline is waivable. This might be seen as a safe fall back for Dems who aren't ready for Feingold-Reid, but it shouldn't be. Its primary value is in putting pressure on Republicans. This watered down version of the supplemental will be a test for them, and whether any of them truly are ready to break with the President.

Call your Senators' DC offices. The switchboard number is 1-202-224-3121 from where you can be transferred to your Senator, or search for the direct number here. Urge them to support the Feingold-Reid amendment tomorrow.

Update: Sen. Wyden just announced he is cosponsoring Feingold/Reid. Thank you, Senator.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:15 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Support Clinton - Byrd; deauthorize the war (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCDemocrat, rgdurst, vets74, PhillyGuy03

    Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative http://www.clintonfoundation.org/cf-pgm-hs-ai-home.htm

    by Berkeley Vox on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:08:29 PM PDT

    •  Someone should ask (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rashomon, Ky DEM, TomP, Berkeley Vox

      Obama why he changed his mind about cutting off funding.

      But I'm glad to have him on board. Good for him.

      •  It was in the part that was cut out... (9+ / 0-)

        in the statement above...

        "I will support both, not because I believe either is the best answer, but because I want to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the President and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course."

        Full text of the statement is here:

        http://www.tpmcafe.com/...

        "My favorite president is President Obama." - unidentified six year old quoted by WaPo during a Bush YMCA visit

        by rashomon on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:17:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, I see (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meteor Blades, TomP

          Because he wants to send a message.

          But he's been saying that cutting off funds would hurt the troops--what has happened so that he can be sure Feingold-Reid won't hurt the troops.

          •  Feingold-Reid is DELAYED defunding (8+ / 0-)

            it gives a date (3/31/08) after which the funds will be cut off, giving Bush enough early warning to pull the troops out. That's different from defunding for the troops already present on the field, which Edwards does not support either.

            •  Obama has (0+ / 0-)

              said several times that he's opposed to--or at least has serious concerns about--defunding measures like Feingold-Reid, which used to be called Reid-Feingold.

              What alleviated his concerns, is what I'd like to know.

              •  Obama believes that there are (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TXdem, Yoshimi, tomjones, Pegasus

                signs that GOP support is softening, as pressure is applied, and with continued pressure and the increasingly unattractive position of having to stand by their unpopular man, Repub support will have crumbled and a veto-proof majority is possible by Sept.  Obama has well thought-out vision.

              •  I'm curious too. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NeuvoLiberal, Pegasus

                And why was Edwards hesitant about the bill?

                Edwards and Reid Feingold

                •  Edwards was hesistant because the bill didn't go (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TomP

                  far enough.  Don't you all remember Edwards addressing Feingold Reid a month or so ago?  He said, however, that he would support the bill because it was the best we had.

                  Mc Joan's phrasing is misleading about Edwards's position.  He did speak about the bill many times prior to "up until a few weeks ago."  I looked at her link for that tidbit and it came from Ben Smith at Politico.  

                  And it was Ben Smith's editorializing that mischaracterized Edwards's position.  He has supported Feingold Reid for sometime, now.  Only saying that he would like to see it go further.

                •  You know, this is getting ridiculous (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TomP

                  Read the statement you linked to!

                  He wasn't hesitant about the bill.  He didn't make a statement about the particular bill but supported its position.

                  Aren't you and Geek the ones who attacked Edwards for calling on Senators to send the Bill (the bill the Senate dems wrote, not telling them WHAT to write) back and/or voting a certain way, supporting Reid in saying "Well, easy for him to say, he's not voting!"

                  ???????????????

                  So now if Edwards says Yea or Nay about a bill, he gets beat up for not having to vote for it, how dare he say anything.

                  And if he says (to ONE reporter) "I don't want to comment on a specific bill, I'm not a senator", then he's "hesitant"?

                  You are really grasping at straws to make Edwards look bad.  

              •  Nope. I have seen nothing where Obama (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lois, Yoshimi, Pegasus

                said that he opposed Feingold-Reid (or vice versa nomenclature). Phrases like "defunding measures like Feingold-Reid" are vague and ambiguous. Please be specific and please source your claims.

                •  Hunh? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  stodghie

                  Are you denying that until today Obama was opposed to cutting off funding? He said repeatedly that he was opposed to cutting off funding. Feingold-Reid would cut off funding, and he now supports it. This, ladies and gents, is a change of position. Not a HUGE one, not a weird one (given the politics of the matter) but a big enough one to require explanation;

                  Just last month he said this:

                  I am not yet at the point where I am prepared to say that I am going to cut off funding, partly because I spent a lot of time in Iowa, in Illinois, in small communities where every town hall meeting I have I meet with a mother whose son or daughter is in Iraq and they are concerned not only about getting them home but also concerned about getting them home safely and making sure they’ve got the night vision goggles and the armor and so forth," he told Wolf Blitzer.

                  Now he's arrived at the point where he is prepated to say that he would cut off funding. What happened?

          •  I don't think Obama is being coy... (7+ / 0-)

            Some additional detail from his statement:

            "In January, I introduced a plan that already would have begun redeploying our troops out of Iraq, with the goal of removing all of our combat troops by March 31. But it also would offer enough flexibility to delay our exit in the event that the Iraqis responded with meaningful steps toward peace. I still believe in that approach, which the President vetoed earlier this month. Ultimately, I think it will become the framework for a bipartisan coalition the President can't resist."

            He still believes his plan is ultimately better because it provides flexibility...but Reid-Feingold is worth supporting.

            "My favorite president is President Obama." - unidentified six year old quoted by WaPo during a Bush YMCA visit

            by rashomon on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:27:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  John Edwards has been making (6+ / 0-)

        Iraq a key issue in the Democratic presidential race.  A year ago, Obama and Clinton voted no on Kerry-Feingold.  Obama called it Kerry-Feingold irresponsible.  It was not.  Now he's coming around. I'm glad.  We need him.

        This is why Edwards' campaign is so important to the antiwar movement, even if you do not support John Edwards. By pushing Congress to stand up to Bush, by doing http://www.supportthetroopsendthewar... , by the We the People campaign, he is making ending the war the issue all must face.

        Let's hope the pressure moves Senator Clinton also to support Reid-Feingold.

        "We've got to save America from this President." John Edwards 4/3/07

        by TomP on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:23:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Up to a month ago John didn't support (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TXdem, jj32, dotster

          Reid Feingold.  I am glad he is coming around too.

          •  That's not a true statement (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SkiBumLee, vets74, TomP, Berkeley Vox

            but one that serves your "bash Edwards" purpose.

            If you follow the links, it was one instance where he refused to comment to a Politico reporter:

            I got a chance to ask Edwards about this after a New York dinner last night, and his answer boiled down to this: He's not in the Senate, isn't running for Senate, and isn't getting dragged into taking positions on specific pieces of legislation. Which makes sense.

            NOW, had Edwards said something, you would likely be here complaining that he had no right to say anything since he's not in the senate and will not be voting on it.

            Politico then goes on to say:

            He did reiterate something he's said before, a defense of the Reid-Feingold position:

            John Edwards did not "change" or "come around" on this one.  He didn't take a position on the specific piece of legislation, but supported its "position".

            It's disingenuous for you AND the diarist to suggest otherwise.

          •  Earlier this month, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Predictor

            McJoan had a statement, but Edwards was sympathetic to Reid-Feingold when it came out.  I will try to find some links.

            May 2, 2007:

            Update: Here's the official response from the Edwards campaign on Reid-Feingold:

            "We support Reid-Feingold, but actually think we should go further. The Edwards plan calls for Congress to use funding power to force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops to show we're serious about leaving, followed by an orderly withdrawal our combat troops that would be complete in about a year. Reid-Feingold uses funding to start withdrawing troops in four months and complete it by March 31, 2008 - not immediate. We're for the use of the funding power and support this bill as far as it goes, but we think we should go further and begin withdrawal immediately."

            Link

            "We've got to save America from this President." John Edwards 4/3/07

            by TomP on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:06:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  April 5, 2007. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jsamuel, Predictor

              EDWARDS: Spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield emails, "I wouldn't say he supports Reid-Feingold. He supports defunding as a policy and applauds Reid and Feingold for putting it on the table, but the plan he supports is his own -- which would force a drawdown of 40-50,000 immediately and have all combat troops out in 12-18 months." UPDATE: That is to say, says Bedingfield, his only quarrel with the bill is it doesn't go far enough, but he has no problem with the methods.

              Ben Smith's Blog

              "We've got to save America from this President." John Edwards 4/3/07

              by TomP on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:11:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  before that around April 4th (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TXdem

              EDWARDS: Spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield emails, "I wouldn't say he supports Reid-Feingold. He supports defunding as a policy and applauds Reid and Feingold for putting it on the table, but the plan he supports is his own -- which would force a drawdown of 40-50,000 immediately and have all combat troops out in 12-18 months." UPDATE: That is to say, says Bedingfield, his only quarrel with the bill is it doesn't go far enough, but he has no problem with the methods.

              "Applause" for Reid-Feingold doesn't cut it. Not until May 2nd (after I had critiqued and as did Big Tent Democrat etc :)), did Edwards come out in support of F-R in clear and unambiguous terms.

            •  I agree... (0+ / 0-)

              this is a red herring.  I had a diary on it at the time, because I was very surprised by the Politico info.  The Edwards camp clarified, with the above statement.  Which is plenty good enough for me.

              I have to say I'm pretty disappointed with the lack of sourcing on stuff and parsing of statements that have been clarified.  Find a link or a statement to support your claim...or shut the heck up.  And no, someone else's diary doesn't count as a source.

              "My favorite president is President Obama." - unidentified six year old quoted by WaPo during a Bush YMCA visit

              by rashomon on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:14:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  "I'm an Obama supporter (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            stodghie

            How may I deceive you today?"

            As noted above, Edwards was concerned that Reid Feingold didn't go far enough.

            Obama was concerned that it went too far.

            Make a note of it.

            I wish John Edwards were president.

            by Drew on Tue May 15, 2007 at 02:30:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  john 3dwards supports legalizing pot (0+ / 0-)

          and 80+ gallon mpg standards!
          and ...
          and ...
          ponies for all!?!!*&*(!@~1111!

      •  i don't think he changed his mind. (0+ / 0-)

        he knows the vote will fail. go to talk left and read their take on it. they indicate that they think he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. he hasn't abandoned his stand on continued funding.

    •  I never heard of such a thing as deauthorization. (0+ / 0-)

      If by some miracle it passed, it would certainly be challenged in the courts as unconstitutional.

      •  Here's Hillary's statement on it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DCDemocrat, vets74

        Here are the details:

        5/3/2007
        From the Senate: Hillary Statement on Deauthorizing the War

        Washington, DC -- In remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that she and Senator Robert Byrd will introduce legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq. The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

        "The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him," said Senator Clinton on the Senate floor.

        The following is a transcript of Senator Clinton's remarks on the Senate floor:

        SENATOR CLINTON: Madam President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, to announce our intention to introduce legislation which proposes that October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

        As Senator Byrd pointed out, the October 11, 2002, authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.

        Earlier this week, President Bush vetoed legislation reflecting the will of the Congress and the American people that would have provided needed funding for our troops while also changing course in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home.

        I believe this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have a full national debate so the people can be heard. I supported the Byrd amendment on October 10, 2002, which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue. This bill would require the president to do just that.

        The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him.

        I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me in supporting this effort to require a new authorization resolution, or to refuse to do so, for these new times and these new conditions that we and our troops are facing every single day. Madam President, I yield the floor.

        http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...

        Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative http://www.clintonfoundation.org/cf-pgm-hs-ai-home.htm

        by Berkeley Vox on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:38:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "the war" ==> The Occupation (0+ / 0-)

      Time to face up to the fact that Americans have been attacked by dozens of organized Iraqi groups and literally hundreds of ad lib local gangs.

      I'm sure that our troops have been attacked by individuals, as well.

      The Occupation has not gone well.

      And not 1 in 100 of these Iraqis has more than a name-recognition idea of Usama bin Laden.

      They wouldn't know an al-Qaeda if it bit them.

      Early money out of "Wahhabi" Saudi Arabia in 2002/2203 was enforced by strong flows of cash from the Gulf States and Iran. Basically, the Arabs and the Persians do not like us.

      This is an OCCUPATION. America is not fighting anyone.

      America is fighting EVERYONE over there.

      Jefferson and the Dixie Chicks. Imus and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

      by vets74 on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:02:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  More good news from Iraq! (or less bad news) (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annefrank, rgdurst, vets74, TomP, JoeW, dotster

    The Iraqi government is now banning reporters from filming  sites where bomb blasts occur

    The Iraqi government said it decided last weekend to keep photographers and camera crews away from blast sites to prevent them from damaging forensic evidence. Media groups feared the order was aimed at preventing scenes of horrific carnage from being broadcast around the world.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:09:16 PM PDT

  •  Call! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rgdurst, Femlaw, vets74, TomP

    Remind them that they have a conscience, and it's past time to vote it.

  •  What are the Presidential candidates stands (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom

    (whether Democrat or Republican) on the issue of whether it's OK to lie the country into war?

    Really, I wish they'd have to answer that question.

    "Prepare to withstand political upheaval" - D. Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff to Alberto Gonzales.

    by bejammin075 on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:10:11 PM PDT

    •  Ask them (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annefrank, 4Freedom, mcmom, TomP, Pegasus

      when you call to ask them to support Reid-Feingold. Then report back.

      "The offer is that the President sign our bill." -- Harry Reid

      by Joan McCarter on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:11:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One co-sponsor and one like supporter in Vermont. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mcjoan

        Bernie is a co-sponsor with a poll to help support the bill through the link.

        Leahy's office said he's opposed to sustaining Iraq, hasn't issued a statement on Feingold-Reid, but would most likely support the bill.

        A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad. Albert Camus

        by 4Freedom on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:05:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  mcjoan Please Clarify Something For Me (0+ / 0-)

        In your post you reference the number in the house that would be needed to pass and override any meaningful legislation on Iraq.

        and the 75+ that will also have to be rounded up in the House

        I was under the impression that the number of additional Republican needed in the House was 68. Is your 75+ number the total number of Republicans (i.e. those who voted for the 1st bill and the additional number required)? Kind of a number freak due occupational requirements in my past life as a corporate slave employee.

        Support Reid/Feingold

        by MO Blue on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:26:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You miss the point completely (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, Joe B, jj32, rgdurst, mcmom, beltane

    Those illusory 16 Republican votes (and the 75+ that will also have to be rounded up in the House) sure seem like a pipe dream now, in May, 2008. All I can say is good luck with that one, Senator

    .

    Its May 2007

    But in May 2008, When Pres Obama goes to the Senate to ask/beg that his health care plan be passed in the narrowly held Dem Senate, he will be sympathetically listened too.

  •  Just bizarre. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annefrank, dancewater, rgdurst, mcmom, TomP

    ...Levin-Reed. This is essentially a redux of the supplemental bill vetoed by Bush, with the exception that the timeline is waivable.

    What causes strange behavior like this?  Fear of the unknown?  Low self-confidence? Feelings of intimidation?  Feeble-mindedness?  What?

  •  I think it's pretty clear... (9+ / 0-)

    From Obama's January plan (which was a huge deal back then) that he believes there should be SOME flexibility in the end date based on the situation on the ground...but that's not reason enough to vote against Reid-Feingold.  Senators only get to vote "yes" or "no".

    As far as the 16 vote thing, I don't see why that's any less true.  Until there's a veto-proof majority for changing the course, Bush will continue down the same path.  It's really all about Congressional Republicans.  When they bail on the war, the war will end.

    "My favorite president is President Obama." - unidentified six year old quoted by WaPo during a Bush YMCA visit

    by rashomon on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:11:44 PM PDT

  •  Dear Senator Clinton: (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ukexpat, mcmom, vets74, TomP, Berkeley Vox

    Please vote for Reid-Feingold.  It is really hard to champion your presidential bid unless you do so.  Thanks.

    •  She may come through. (5+ / 0-)

      I think she will support Reid-Feingold. I hope so.

      "We've got to save America from this President." John Edwards 4/3/07

      by TomP on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:25:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Spoke to Sen Clinton's office...Join the crowd! (0+ / 0-)

      Staffer I spoke with was very aware of Reid-Feingold vote tomorrow.  She reports that Clinton hasn't stated a position publicly yet, but that she is very interested in what callers have to say on the matter.  I urged her to vote for Reid-Feingold in the strongest possible way...that is, no possibility of a primary vote from me if she doesn't.  Staffer told me they had received a high volume of calls on this and that most folks expressed sentiments similar to mine.
      So there you go, Hillary, triangulating as usual.  She's better at geometry than leadership.
      But I hope others will also call her...she may be listening.  

  •  so can this (0+ / 0-)

    beat a cloture vote?

  •  Voinovich. . . still working on a statement (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Albatross, DemocraticLuntz, Pegasus

    Called his office.  The person that I need to speak with is unavailable and person answering the phone didn't have any information.  They are still working on his statement.  Left name and number and asked for a return phone call . . . we'll see. . .

  •  this is a crucial put up or shut up time (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom, Pegasus

    for the candidates and the electorate.

    We shall have a very good idea after this vote and their statements (excuses!) how much they are listening to the public (their base) and how much they are willing to cling to their own strategy (conscience?) and advisors advice.

    It should be very interesting. I am sure we shall all be watching avidly and judgementally. I shall be trying to decide how much I can compromise my own principles and conscience.

  •  If it's looking like such a pipe dream, why was (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TXdem, jj32, dotster

    Mitch freakin' McConnell saying this just the other day;

    Congressional Republicans evidently have found an Iraqi withdrawal plan they can accept.

       "I read just this week that a significant number of the Iraqi parliament want to vote to ask us to leave,’’ Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader, noted Sunday on CNN’s "Late Edition." "If they vote to ask us to leave, we’ll be glad to comply with their request."

    Link

    I'd say that means that 15 Republicans are getting close to cracking.

    Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:19:01 PM PDT

    •  I'll bet a $50 donation to Obama (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      that it isn't even close.

      •  Obviously not on Feingold-Reid, but within 4 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, jj32, dotster

        weeks, I would bet we'd have at least 5 Republican Senators willing to vote YEA on Obama's withdrawal plan.

        Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

        by DemocraticLuntz on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:45:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're Missing Obama's Point (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aexia, TXdem, tomjones, dotster

        He's not realistically saying tomorrow we'll get 16 Repubs to vote for it.

        He's saying he's in the Senate and WHILE we continue to vote again and again on the bill, he's going to apply pressure.  Additionally he's been building a movement in the states of Republican Senators to pressure them.  It's all about boxing them in and creating a Democratic advantage.

        Still, why try to understand the overall strategy when we can needlessly bash him?

        Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

        by dansac on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:54:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So it's not really about getting out of Iraq. (0+ / 0-)

          fine, I'd just wish he'd be upfront about that.

          •  BS (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aexia, TXdem, jj32, tomjones, dotster, Pegasus

            It's about getting out of Iraq, which requires winning in 2008. I love the ridiculous double standard that people place on Obama. First, Obama doesn't want to end the war because he's not out in front of a quixotic bill, then he doesn't want to end the war because there's no realistic way to end the war right now anyay. Please pick a consistent smear-meme, guys.

            •  There is a way to end the war (0+ / 0-)

              It's the Reid-Feingold framework. He can pretend that his "plan" will work, but that doesn't make it so.  

            •  I'm not into smear memes (0+ / 0-)

              I just don't like the idea of 90-day funding, which presumes someone in the WH actually gives a shit about changing anything during that 90 days.

              90 days of IEDs and death, while bushie sits and picks his butt, smirking at the Congress and partying while decrying how much he and Laura suffer over the war.

              And at the end of the 90 days, when his "quixotic" idea of getting 16 repubs to change their votes hasn't come to fruition, nothing has changed, right?

              Everything exactly the same, and an identical bill to fund an additional 90 days WILL be passed (right?  I mean doesn't Obama say it's irresponsible to do other than that? Playing chicken/games with the troops, etc.?), so another

              90 days of IEDs and death.

              Okay, so now we're at 6 months, and bushie certainly hasn't reconsidered his position, and it's closer to the election and the repukes don't want their constituents to think they believe the war is lost, and they've spent the last forever explaining how the dem position is defeato-crat, blah blah.  Even LESS chance 16 of them will change their votes.

              Even the 11 who went up to the hill (who already know the war is lost and bush has no one's confidence) voted against the dem bill.

              Explain again how this works??  

              •  Every effort is quixotic (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TXdem, mightymouse, dotster

                Because Bush will veto every effort.  Therefore the way it works is to put more pressure, make it very clear to the American people that the Republicans are the ones keeping the war going, which leads to more victories in '08 and an end to the war.  

                Realistically, the war will only end when Bush is out of office - that's why you have to dig deeper.

                Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

                by dansac on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:18:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I guess I don't see how giving bush (0+ / 0-)

                  90 day funding is putting pressure on him.

                  Right now, he is under MORE pressure because the dems keep sending him bills he's forced to either veto or accept deadlines/benchmarks.

                  90 day funding gives him 90 days of funding, without benchmarks or deadlines, so he doesn't have to veto anything.

                  So he gets his 90 days of funding, doesn't have to look bad or look like he's refusing to fund anything, doesn't have to agree to benchmarks or deadlines, just has to wait the dems out 90 days, and then, presuming the same dem mindset, an additional 90 days funding.

                  Explain how this is putting pressure on Bush/GOP?

                  •  Sure (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TXdem, dotster

                    Here's one way.

                    The GOP has been saying that we have to see progress in September.  90 days = September.  They'll have to back up their position with votes or be called out for the liars they are.  We've been letting them slide with this "we'll know in a few months if it's working" stuff, and this puts hard numbers to it.

                    Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

                    by dansac on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:30:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah, but they (0+ / 0-)

                      say a lot of stuff.  In November it was April, and now it's "September".

                      So what you're saying is that the pressure is on the GOP to start telling the truth and/or back up their lies and false promises?  We're relying on them feeling shame for their phony triumphalism and jingoism?

                      Even the guys who went to yell at Bush voted against the dem bill.

                      My prediction is that in 90 days, Petraeus or someone will be touting some tiny move forward, like they re-opened a golf course or some shit, or just plain out lie about how nice it's going (they always lie), and the GOP will just move the goal posts from September to December.  

                      Because they know the dems are willing to pass 90-day extensions with the only requirement being a report on progress.

                      Relying on GOP shame for being full of shit, not such a winning strategy in my book.

                      •  There never has been... (0+ / 0-)

                        a 90-day extension before.  Making them come back and debate the war again at the time they said it would make progress (we know it won't) is not what the Republicans want.  This is a new strategy.

                        Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

                        by dansac on Tue May 15, 2007 at 04:18:32 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I don't think they care (0+ / 0-)

                          really.  I mean, it really is just giving bush the money he wants.

                          So in 90 days they have to face up to what?  The lack of progress?  It's the same lack of progress that's been going on for years.  

                          The GOP may be telling bush to compromise but he's not doing it.

                          In 90 days we'll be right back here arguing what to do next.  Nothing will have changed, not the chances of the GOP switching votes, nothing.  Just more people dead.

              •  you should probably... (0+ / 0-)

                read more sources of news than daily kos

          •  Oh Jesus (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aexia, TXdem, dotster

            That's such crap and you know it.

            Again, compare and contrast:

            Edwards' position: vote for the bill again and again and keep sending it to the President.

            Obama's position: vote for the bill again and again and keep sending it to the President AND create a grassroots movement to put political pressure on Republicans from within their own states, drive a wedge between them, isolate them, ultimately help elect more Democrats and end this war.  

            I can't believe that so many, especially a front-page diarist like mcjoan, keep reading into his strategy on such a superficial level.  I can't believe they really think Obama, from Chicago politics, is really indulging in a pipe dream.  Can't they read into the strategy behind it?  

            And yes andgarden, Obama, who opposed the war from the start and introduced a bill to withdraw all troops by March, is not really about getting out of Iraq.  

            Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

            by dansac on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:05:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  In May 2006 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TXdem, dotster

      Democratic control of the Senate was a pipe dream.

      Yet, here we are.

      •  Right on (0+ / 0-)

        And the same thing that pushed the Senate to our side will push Republicans to break with Bush. Maybe not enough to override a veto, but a significant number of defections would still embolden Pelosi and Reid to push a legislative endgame.

  •  I, unfortunately, have lap dogs Collins and Snowe (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, mspicata

    for Senators, so my calls may be wasted, but I will make the effort.  They are so far up the Bush/Rove/Cheney grommet, that they can't see daylight anymore.

    Never grow a wishbone, daughter, where your backbone ought to be. Clementine Paddeford

    by blubryeyes on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:19:27 PM PDT

    •  Your two (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, mcmom, Femlaw, dotster, Pegasus

      are key, along with Sununu, to the change in the wind.  They'll play along with their puppeteers this time, but unless Iraq is demonstrably better soon, these are three potential defections.  Keep on them -- I'm keeping on Sununu.  And yes, I've given up on Gregg.

      Success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives." --George W Bush, May 2, 2007

      by mspicata on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:25:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I just called Collins' and Snowe's offices, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcmom

      and the statement to me is that neither have made public statements on the matter as yet (I asked if they could tell me where they stand on Feingold/Reid for tomorrow's Senate vote).  I then let them know where I stand as their constituent, and asked them to pass it along.  Like I said, they don't see rational, realistic daylight anymore.  It's sad.

      Never grow a wishbone, daughter, where your backbone ought to be. Clementine Paddeford

      by blubryeyes on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:26:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wyden and Smith (OR) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom

    I just called their offices.

    Wyden's on board, no surprise.

    Smith: I got an answering machine!

    We drew our heavy revolvers (suddenly in the dream there were revolvers) and exultantly killed the gods. -- Jorge Luis Borges, Ragnarok

    by Hobbitfoot on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:19:56 PM PDT

  •  I heard Newt Gingrich (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom

    on Diane Rehm's show today bloviate about how grave the danger is to the Democrats if they "lose the war" by defunding it.  Since Bush basically said to them in January that their only tool was the power of the purse, and since 2008 is looming with public support not budging, I think the GOP is in a serious vise here.  Cloture probably won't happen, and the defections won't come this time -- but just you watch over the next few months.

    Success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives." --George W Bush, May 2, 2007

    by mspicata on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:23:12 PM PDT

  •  Nice unnecessary dig at Obama (13+ / 0-)

    He does what you want and you still go after him.  I wish I knew what Barack had done to piss mcjoan off so much.  Every damn time we talk about anything presidential-election-related, here comes some digs at obama.

    For the record: Obama is talking about talking to Senators to try to bring about an end to the Iraq war.  You're talking about the same thing.  If it's a pipe dream for Barack to go after the votes to actually move legislation, it's certainly as much of a pipe dream to push for passing legislation that will be vetoed.

    So the basic gist is that if you're anti-war and can't do anything about it and voted for it in the first place (John Edwards) you get glowing coverage from mcjoan, but if you're anti-war and have been since before the war but now endorse working within our constitutional framework to end the war you get snarky nonsense.

    Really--it'd be one thing if it were anything other than constantly attacking Barack at every opportunity I'd feel differently.  As is, I read this site enough to see a definite slant and it annoys me.  Aren't we all Democrats here?  Wasn't Barack "our first candidate" according to Kos?

    Can't we all just get along?

    If there is a lower class, I am in it. If there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free. ~Eugene Victor Debs

    by jjhare on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:28:38 PM PDT

    •  I agree. Obama is doing his best to end the war. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TXdem, Joe B, mcmom, KlausFraktal, dotster, Pegasus

      Also, his judgment on the war has been correct from the very first.  I like Edwards too, but I don't think he understands the world as well as Obama does.  Maybe I'm wrong on this, but it's how I feel right now.  Obama just has more experience in dealing with people of all kinds than Edwards does.  I think he can see things from all sides and that in the end, he tries to use this understanding to find a solution.  Of course, he's not always correct, but at this point, I trust him more than the others who have already given me evidence of their bad judgment.  Being wrong on the war is not a minor mistake.

    •  Okay, mcjoan is not backing Edwards, and (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andgarden, TomP, Pegasus

      I ought to know. She has consistently said that if she had a choice it would be Gore. Other than that, she is not supporting anyone. And, if you recall, she said she thought Dodd was the winner of the Democractic debate. The reason Clinton and Obama come up in her comments about Senate votes is because they are in the Senate. Edwards is not.

      I think, therefore I am, I think.

      by mcmom on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:37:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But her criticism is crap (9+ / 0-)

        Obama isn't unrealistic, his whole point is to build a strategy to put pressure on the Republicans while continuing to send the bill back.  

        Maybe she's not an Edwards backer, but it's still a ridiculous dig at Obama.

        Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

        by dansac on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:52:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  mcjoan is absolutely right (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mcmom, TomP

          and Obama IS being unrealistic. If you disagree, then name me the 17 Republican Senators who will break with the President.

          For the record, I support no candidate for President at this point.

          •  Not to mention that... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mcmom

            any override must get through the House before the Senate ever sees it.

          •  You're missing the point (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dotster, Pegasus

            If you really believe that Obama is saying 17 Repubs will break with the president tomorrow.  

            It's a strategy.  A strategy to apply pressure and build a Democratic movement in states with Republican senators.  To further show them political consequences of supporting Bush and drive a wedge between them.

            By the way, Obama wants this to happen WHILE the bill gets voted on again and again.  In other words, it's the same strategy as Edwards and most leading Dems, coupled with this additional element of putting more pressure on the Republicans.

            If you really think that Obama got where he is so quickly, from Chicago politics AND he believes in fantasy-world in which 17 Republicans will suddenly break off from the president, then you must think he's an idiot.  It's a strategy.  

            Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

            by dansac on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:00:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ah yes, the Chicago machine will end the war. (0+ / 0-)

              I think that Obama is MUCH SMARTER than this "strategy," which is what's so frustrating.

              •  So, tell me this... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dotster

                Given that Bush will veto any attempt to end the war, and therefore logically the only way to do accomplish anything is to override his veto, what is wrong with this strategy?  It does what any other strategy out there can do - put more pressure on the Republicans.

                Listen, I'm not at all saying this is the best possible strategy or that it's unflawed.  I'm saying there is more to it than mcjoan and others would have you believe.  The notion that Obama is indulging in a fantasy is flawed.

                I'm open to hearing critiques of this strategy, but I have yet to see any other than "where does Obama think he'll get the votes?"

                Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

                by dansac on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:14:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here's where you're wrong: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mcmom

                  logically the only way to do accomplish anything is to override his veto,

                  That is incorrect. The only thing Congress need do is NOT FUND after a date certain, which is the point of having a vote on Reid-Feingold. Armando's strategy is the one I like, and it is as follows:

                  I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.
                  Some argue we will never have the votes for this. That McConnell will filibuster, that Bush will veto. To them I say I KNOW. But filbustering and vetoing does not fund the Iraq Debacle. Let me repeat, to end the war in Iraq, the Democratic Congress does not have to pass a single bill; they need only NOT pass bills that fund the Iraq Debacle.

                  But but but, defund the whole government? Defund the whole military? What if Bush does not pull out the troops? First, no, not defund the government, defund the Iraq Debacle. If the Republicans choose to shut down government in order to force the continuation of the Iraq Debacle, do not give in. Fight the political fight. We'll win. Second, defund the military? See answer to number one. Third, well, if you tell the American People what is coming for a year, and that Bush is on notice, that it will be Bush abandoning the troops in Iraq, we can win that political battle too.

                  See here

          •  The point is simple. (0+ / 0-)

            The war will continue until Republicans break with the President.  Because there WILL be a funding bill passed in Congress of some sort.

            "My favorite president is President Obama." - unidentified six year old quoted by WaPo during a Bush YMCA visit

            by rashomon on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:26:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well, her criticism of Edwards is crap (0+ / 0-)

          also.  He didn't "not support" this bill a month ago.  Follow the link in THIS diary:

          From Politico:

          Edwards and Reid-Feingold

          I got a chance to ask Edwards about this after a New York dinner last night, and his answer boiled down to this: He's not in the Senate, isn't running for Senate, and isn't getting dragged into taking positions on specific pieces of legislation. Which makes sense.

          He did reiterate something he's said before, a defense of the Reid-Feingold position: That if Bush vetoes a series of Democratic funding authorizations for their attached strings, "The President of the United States has decided not to fund" the troops.

          But she still has to make sure to imply Edwards "changed his mind" or "came around" on this, when in fact he didn't.

          Is this McJoan or CeCe Connolly repeating joyfully the "Gore exaggerator" meme?  

          Come off it.  Please.

          •  Reinforcing a frame is hardly endorsing a bill. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jj32

            n/t

            As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

            by Pegasus on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:05:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's hardly (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mcmom

              "hesitating" on it either.

              He didn't comment on the specifics of the bill either way, but endorsed its position.

              In the meantime, this is all about desperation to smear Edwards with a "changed his mind" meme that doesn't apply.

              Coming from "no comment either way but I support the concept" to "I support the bill" isn't a change of mind.

              Coming from "playing chicken and games and acting irresponsibly by putting hard deadlines and defunding in a bill" to "Well, okay, I'll vote for it but I'm still going to work on doing this responsibly" is (a) a change of mind and (b) unnecessarily snarky.

    •  You're 100% Right (7+ / 0-)

      Obama has called for the vote to be held again and again and again while concurrently working to put pressure on 16 Republican Senators.

      I don't think Obama actually thinks it will happen.  I think what he's trying to do is show that the American people are with us on this issue and to further isolate Bush.  Additionally, it's about building a Democratic movement in those states where the Senators are from to help all Democrats win in 2008.

      Edwards has called for the vote to be held again and again.  

      The only difference I can see is that Obama is going to at least work towards putting more pressure on Republicans while continually passing this bill.  

      And yet, he gets excoriated around here for it, and especially by mcjoan.  

      Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

      by dansac on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:51:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You have just confirmed why it's illusory... (0+ / 0-)

        I don't think Obama actually thinks it will happen.

        •  Try to dig deeper citizen53 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jj32, dotster, Pegasus

          Obama's strategy is the same as Edwards and many others.  Have the vote again and again.

          But in the meantime, he's building a grassroots efforts in the states where the Republican Senators are from to put more and more pressure on them and further divide the Republican party.  Not to mention that his strategy highlights in explicit terms that it is the Republicans keeping us in this war.  

          All of this leads to more Democratic victories in '08 and an end to this war.

          Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

          by dansac on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:07:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think your personal attack (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citizen53, Predictor

      on McJoan is unecessary and improper.

      You can defend (or promote) Barack Obama's positions without attacking McJoan or any other Kossak.

      I'm glad Obama will support Reid-Feingold.  It helps the antiwar movement; it helps to bring the end of this war closer.  

      I personally think his 16 senators stuff is for his  campaign and for the gullible who want to believe.  

      There is a way to end this war.  It is in the Constitution.  It is called the Appropriations Clause, the funding power.  

      Send the bill back after Bush vetoes it. We do not need 16 senators for that.

      That said, I am glad Obama supports Reid-Feingold.  Good for him.  

      "We've got to save America from this President." John Edwards 4/3/07

      by TomP on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:54:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The "16 Senators stuff" (7+ / 0-)

        I personally think his 16 senators stuff is for his  campaign and for the gullible who want to believe.

        That's called the beginnings of coattails.  It places an unmistakeable onus on Republican incumbents to help get us out of Iraq or face the consequences to their careers in 2008.  Just because you back another candidate doesn't mean that Obama's strategy isn't good.  We're all on the same team w/r/t Iraq.

        As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

        by Pegasus on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:08:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think it is the stuff of dreams. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Predictor

          Ending the war will take real courage.  Use the funding power.

          If Obama now is supporting Reid-Feingold, he is coming around to our position on funding caps.  Keep the pressure on Obama and he may start voting right.

          Voting for Reid-Feingold is a repudiation of his vote in March 2007 for the Gregg Resolution.

          In two months, the pressure is making a difiference.

          "We've got to save America from this President." John Edwards 4/3/07

          by TomP on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:20:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is why Senator Obama's (0+ / 0-)

            shift on Reid-Feingold MAY be important.

            Senator Feingold's stateemnt on the Gregg Resolution that both Clinton and Obama voted FOR in March 2007.

            Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

            The Senate will also be voting on another resolution regarding Iraq, sponsored by the senior Senator from New Hampshire. Unfortunately, that resolution is badly flawed, and I strongly oppose it.

            My chief objection is simple -- the resolution rejects the idea of Congress using its power of the purse to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. Moreover, it does so in a manner that can only be described as inaccurate and almost intellectually dishonest. By warning against "the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field," the resolution embraces the misleading rhetoric the White House has used to try to prevent serious discussion of Congress ending the war. Those who engage in such rhetoric pretend that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of troops somehow being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need.

            Nothing could be further from the truth. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. Not a single member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. Using our power of the purse to end our involvement in the war can and would be done without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a date after which funding for the war will be terminated -- as I have proposed -- Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way.

            How can I say this with such confidence, Mr. President? Because there is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.

            If Obama now supports Reid-Feingold, he has crossed a Rubicon of supporting funding cuts or caps.  He is moving to Edwards' position, I hope.

            "We've got to save America from this President." John Edwards 4/3/07

            by TomP on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:25:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, I don't think so, at least IMHO. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TXdem, dotster, Pegasus

              Obama's pretty clear in his statement that he believes two things:

              1. His plan, which provides some flexibility with the cutoff date, is a better approach.
              1. His plan is the likely outline for a compromise which will eventually get 67 votes in the Senate...a necessary prerequisite for ending the war against Bush's wishes.

              As he's said many times, the war won't end until there's a supermajority in Congress to end it.  Bush isn't going to change his mind.  Not to mention, he's been very consistent in his reasoning...and supports progressively stronger approaches as the old ones don't work.  Racheting up the pressure, as it were.

              "My favorite president is President Obama." - unidentified six year old quoted by WaPo during a Bush YMCA visit

              by rashomon on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:34:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We will see. I hope it means (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Predictor

                he will support funding caps, but you may be right.

                "We've got to save America from this President." John Edwards 4/3/07

                by TomP on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:35:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Even if he switched to supporting funding caps, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dotster

                  there's still the issue of getting the damn bill passed.  Which will require Republican votes.  Which you apparently don't care to do, since you said trying to get Republican votes was just kabuki theater for "the gullible."

                  This is all really easy until you start needing to pass things.

                  As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

                  by Pegasus on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:44:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You really do not understand. (0+ / 0-)

                    Ending the war makes everyone look good politically, and save lives.

                    If Bush vetoes funding bills, he cuts the funding.

                    Chasing 17 R senators is looking for unicorns.  As much as I would like to believe, they just are not there.  

                    Use the funding power. End the war.

                    "We've got to save America from this President." John Edwards 4/3/07

                    by TomP on Tue May 15, 2007 at 02:04:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I understand perfectly, TomP. (0+ / 0-)

                      My grip of legislative procedure is actually quite sound, thanks.  Since I've already responded to a similar post elsewhere, I'll just link it.

                      This isn't as simple as either you, Armando, or John Edwards claims.  If it were, you bet your ass the Democrats in the Senate would have been all over it long ago.

                      As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

                      by Pegasus on Tue May 15, 2007 at 02:09:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Courage (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TXdem, dotster, Pegasus

            TomP, we know you're a vocal Edwards supporter.  But let's not start pretending that Obama is an idiot and is living in a fantasy world.  

            Pegasus has it just right.  You don't have to agree with Obama's strategy, but at least identify it properly.  It's about much more than trying to get a veto-proof majority, it's about building a movement that isolates the Republicans and helps the Democrats win in '08.

            You don't have to like it, but at least dig deep enough to see what he's up to.

            Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

            by dansac on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:27:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What is the stuff of dreams (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TXdem, dansac, dotster

            is thinking that Feingold-Reid can pass over a veto.  Or thinking that there's a way out of Iraq without any Republican support.  It feels great, but it isn't real.

            As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

            by Pegasus on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:32:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're completely wrong. (0+ / 0-)

              The opposite of what you say here is true. It DOES NOT MATTER of Reid-Feingold passes.

              •  I'm aware. (0+ / 0-)

                Do you have a broader point (or any point) or did you just want to call me "wrong" and run off?

                As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

                by Pegasus on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:42:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's been repeated over and over (0+ / 0-)

                  The point is to end the war. Do you need me to explain the Reid-Feingold framework to you?

                  •  Actually, yes. Please do. (0+ / 0-)

                    This should be enjoyable.

                    As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

                    by Pegasus on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:45:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  OK, here goes: (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dotster

                    First off, you are conflating Armando's strategy with what you call the "Reid-Feingold framework."  Feingold-Reid is a bill, which must be passed to become law, that sets a cutoff date for funding.  Armando's strategy entails declaring, with no force of law, that Congress will not fund the war past a certain date.  Those things are very different.

                    You seem to be forgetting just how slim our margins are.  It would be tough to do, but it's not inconceivable that if the Pentagon was truly running out of money after we follow the Armando strategy, conservative Democrats in the House could combine with the GOP to force a clean supplemental out of committee and to the floor, where it would inevitably pass.  Oopsie.

                    That possibility aside, it's morally bankrupt to allow the possibility of the military running out of money.  I'm not buying into the president's frame here; I'm speaking as someone with a close friend in Ramadi.  Safe withdrawal will cost money beyond what's currently in the budget.  Getting that money will require a spending bill.  Passing a spending bill will require at least some Republican votes.  Banking on the President suddenly having a sense of moral obligation to the armed forces is a bet I'm not willing to make.

                    As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

                    by Pegasus on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:58:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Here's why I disagree (0+ / 0-)

                      conservative Democrats in the House could combine with the GOP to force a clean supplemental out of committee and to the floor, where it would inevitably pass.  Oopsie.

                      And then get cloture for that bill in the Senate, defying the will of the majority of the Majority? I don't think so.

                      Safe withdrawal will cost money beyond what's currently in the budget.

                      We keep trying to fund this, and will invariably do so in March of 2008. At the margins, Bush could employ the Feed and Forage act.

                      Banking on the President suddenly having a sense of moral obligation to the armed forces is a bet I'm not willing to make.

                      So you would contintue to fund the war and hurt the troops because you don't trust the President?

                      •  Quick-fire responses to each point: (0+ / 0-)
                        1.  They'd absolutely get cloture.  Not quickly, but they'd get it.  At that point, with the media atmosphere surrounding the issue, what politician would realistically be willing to commit career suicide by filibustering a military funding bill?  This scenario would be catastrophic -- funding with no strings, and we look like idiots in the process.
                        1.  You are probably right.  Given #1, I'm pretty convinced that we're going to need to pass something to legally fund and mandate withdrawal regardless; there's a whole slew of legal and constitutional issues down the defunding path that could be much more easily avoided with an override.
                        1.  No, I wouldn't "continue to fund the war and hurt the troops."  I'd work on sending a very clear message to every incumbent Republican that their careers are over in November 2008 if they don't get in line on withdrawal -- which is exactly what Obama's doing (it's not like he's wheedling across the aisle; he called out Chuck Grassley in Iowa).

                        It's funny, kinda, because these arguments are basically academic at this point anyway.  We all, from Harry Reid on down to the netroots, agree that a clean funding bill isn't an option.  I'm happy seeing us continue to throw the kitchen sink here.  Anyway, I'm tired and headed home from work.  Thanks for the discussion.  Peace.

                        As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

                        by Pegasus on Tue May 15, 2007 at 02:24:43 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Well said n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dotster

          Thank you for understanding the strategy

          Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

          by dansac on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:24:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  thanks jj---I also have been puzzled (0+ / 0-)

      about what Obama ever did to get on McJoan's really bad side----because almost every single thing she writes she slips in something along the lines of "and Obama is wrong---and bad".
       I wonder what he ever did to displease her so much---pinched her?  stepped on her toes? wore bad ties?  Must be something.

  •  (Video) Chris Dodd: "Stop dicking around." (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bumblebums, andgarden, mcmom, adrianrf, srmjjg

    "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."--Edward R. Murrow

    by Scarce on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:29:05 PM PDT

  •  good diary, mcjoan. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CAL11 voter, mcmom, adrianrf

    thanks for posting. Wish we had at least a week or so to drum up more support for it, but better late than never.

  •  Thank you mcjoan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom

    you know the score.

  •  Tell the candidates to get their fingers (0+ / 0-)

    out of the breeze and to do what is RIGHT; not what is politically cute and decorative.

    Be unequivocal, un-sneaky, honest, forthright.

    Just bring the troops home.

    Call their commanders - the real ones. Tell them to get their stuff, pack their bags.

    Put them on planes and ship them home.

    What good can they possibly do at this point?

    None.

    They are there waiting for Bush to attack Iran.

  •  Letter to Senators (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adrianrf

    Dear Sens. Mikulski & Cardin:

    Dems won in 2006 because we oppose the war and want Congressional financing reform. Now it's time to deliver.

    On the war, please vote yes tomorrow on S. 1077, the Feingold-Reid bill to safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq.

    This Administration will keep on killing Americans and Iraqis until it is forced to stop. Thus you must apply that force with the power of the purse.

    Do not fear that you will get out in front of what the American people want if you do this. Fear that you will be left behind if you do not.

    Respectfully yours,
    Slangwhanger-in-Chief

  •  A shame that even with the Feingold bill... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slangist, adrianrf

    ...Congress would still -- in order to get Bush to end the war -- offer up months more worth of dead troops for free in satisfaction of his blood lust.

  •  Clarification on Edwards position on Reid-Feingol (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jsamuel

    As early as April 04 Ben Smith of the Politico reports:

    EDWARDS: Spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield emails, "I wouldn't say he supports Reid-Feingold. He supports defunding as a policy and applauds Reid and Feingold for putting it on the table, but the plan he supports is his own -- which would force a drawdown of 40-50,000 immediately and have all combat troops out in 12-18 months." UPDATE: That is to say, says Bedingfield, his only quarrel with the bill is it doesn't go far enough, but he has no problem with the methods.

    On May 2nd Mcjoan on Dailykos reported:

    Update: Here's the official response from the Edwards campaign on Reid-Feingold:

    We support Reid-Feingold, but actually think we should go further. The Edwards plan calls for Congress to use funding power to force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops to show we're serious about leaving, followed by an orderly withdrawal our combat troops that would be complete in about a year. Reid-Feingold uses funding to start withdrawing troops in four months and complete it by March 31, 2008 - not immediate. We're for the use of the funding power and support this bill as far as it goes, but we think we should go further and begin withdrawal immediately.

    When you think you've added enough pickles - add 5 more.

    by RedJet on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:16:56 PM PDT

  •  Other co-sponsors: Boxer, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal

    Leahy, Sanders, Whitehouse.

    That is per this link:

    http://www.feingold.senate.gov/...

    What would be good is to have a list of who is either co-sponsoring the resolution or is planning on voting on it.  Just so people don't call senators who are already on board.

  •  Clinton to vote for cloture: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stodghie, mightymouse

    Senator Clinton's statement:

    "Senator Clinton will vote for cloture on both the Feingold-Reid and Reed-Levin Amendments, to send the President a clear message that it is time to change course, redeploy our troops out of Iraq, and end this war as soon as possible."

    She wasn't going to let Obama get any daylight on this.  Not really surprising.

    "My favorite president is President Obama." - unidentified six year old quoted by WaPo during a Bush YMCA visit

    by rashomon on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:37:24 PM PDT

  •  Rules Governing Land and Naval Forces (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adrianrf

    Congress has more power than merely that of "the purse":
    From US Constitution Article I, Section 8:

    The Congress shall have power
    [...]
    To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

    To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

    To provide and maintain a navy;

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Congress has the power to write the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq", and to revoke it. It has the power to write all the rules governing how the military operates. Those rules can include "shall not fight inside the nation of Iraq", or more specific exclusions.

    And so Congress has the responsibility to exercise that power. Not doing so since they were elected to do so counter to Bush's defeat plans is a heinous offense.

    Congress must end the war now. These excuses are BS. Democrats are finishing the job Republicans started in making Congress irrelevant and powerless, merely by acting that way without reason.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:38:07 PM PDT

  •  This is really just an incorrect statement. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adrianrf

    It also has a ring of some bitterness.

    Obviously, he doesn't have to vote on it and is using it to pressure the other Senators in the race, as expected. Until a few weeks ago, Edwards wouldn't comment on Feingold-Reid, but as ending the funding for the war increasingly becomes the default position for Dems and the most likely way to bring this war to a responsible end, he's understandably on board.

    TomP shows it is not true above and mcjoan knows it from mcjoan's own diary.  Even then, it was known before THAT diary on DailyKos.

    That bolded part sure sounds like a talking point repeated recently about how anything Edwards says or does doesn't matter because he isn't in the Senate.

    Well, other people weren't in the Senate when we went to war.  Does that mean how they viewed the war then doesn't matter?

  •  Why support immediate de-funding? (0+ / 0-)

    The troops would be sitting ducks.  They need to have IED-proof Humvees, better body protection and more adequate training.  Just because you oppose IMMEDIATE de-funding doesn't mean that you support Bush's war agenda.  The Kucinich types need to stop being so dogmatic and put themselves in the troops' position.  Phased redeployment and better protection and equipment for those who will remain is the best answer to ensure that casualties will be minimal.

  •  Senator Feinstein is not as of this morning..... (0+ / 0-)

    Here are the House members who voted

    NO on funding AND
    YES on withdrawal

    Woolsey
    Waters
    Watson
    Kucinich
    Stark
    Lee
    Michaud
    McNulty
    Lewis (GA)
    Paul (REP)
    Duncan (REP)

    http://clerk.house.gov/...
    http://clerk.house.gov/...

  •  Wyden was also one of FIVE members on Select (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, adrianrf

    Intelligence committee to vote NO on Iraq Resolution.

  •  Maybe getting 16 GOPers is a pipe dream (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TXdem, Joe B, jj32, adrianrf, dotster, Pegasus

    but at the very least, it's about putting pressure on GOPers.  

    Which is what most Dems in both houses of Congress are trying to do.  

    It's just one of many tactics that are being employed in an overall Dem strategy to ratchet up the pressure on GOPers.

    This particular Reid-Feingold vote isn't about getting the thing passed but laying down a marker. Obama's using previous votes as a marker, and pressuring Republicans to override Bush's veto. Even if we don't get the requisite number of GOPers in the Senate (and in the House for the accompanying bill there), then, at least, we've gotten a lot of activists in those states involved and aware of where their Republican rep stands on the issue.

    All of the bills that have been brought up and the tactics around them are all about pressuring Republicans. Everything so far is good politics that is designed to bring about good policy.

    Visit my blog Penndit for complete TV alerts & more.

    by Newsie8200 on Tue May 15, 2007 at 02:05:05 PM PDT

  •  Reading through some of the comments (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TXdem, Joe B
    It's clear that many Edwards supporters are more concerned about using this vote for their own political gain than as an actual way to bring our troops home.
    I can't say I'm surprised, but it's interesting to see it confirmed here.
    •  Exactly, to _some_ Edwards supporters it is all (0+ / 0-)

      about pushing their guy forward at the expense of every other Democrat, and reality.

      Hillary is like Joe Biden, only unelectable.

      by Joe B on Tue May 15, 2007 at 03:14:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site