How would Kossacks have voted on War Funding Bill? w/POLL

I would not vote "yes" on the grounds that the war in Iraq needs to be stopped, not surged. I would not vote "no" because almost every other thing in the bill I could support with PAY-GO in effect. There are enough votes already to make my opinion moot. What would I do? Abstain.

I have read many posts that castigate Kucinich et. al. for their "no" votes. Defenders of "no" votes have the right idea when it comes to Iraq, but couldn't they express that disdain with an "abstain" vote? Abstaining can only be interpreted as an unwillingness to support any legislation that funds a ruinous war of choice, but generalized support for the rest of the agenda, and a willingness to play ball in the future. "No" can be interpreted in many ways, most of them negative from a political point of view.

We see it time and time again: people sending the wrong signals in what amount to symbolic votes. A lot of votes are set up by the leadership to "pad your statistics" with various interest groups. Therefor, when voting, ask yourself, will this Bill become law? Or will either the other Chamber or a Presidential veto, or a Supreme Court ruling will bail us out? It makes a huge difference if there is a bailout coming or not.

It's a big dance and a big theater, I know. But for the love of all that is good, if you are tired of the games (as I am) and you are privileged enough to be a member of Congress, don't fall for the trap! Show some political agility and exercise the rarely used "abstain" vote. Don't make an ass of yourself and your political allies!

•  If someone would like to improve the tags

  I would be grateful.

  by Paul Goodman on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:32:40 PM PDT

  •  I frowned when I clicked on the yea button

    A start - better than nothing.

    by deepsouthdoug on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:56:30 PM PDT

    •  This is step two in a a multiple step process

      step 1 was the non-binding resolution

      This is step 2

      We'll have to wait to see what step 3 is

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:59:00 PM PDT

      •  The Bush talking points are

        1. It sets a timetable

        2. It has pork in it

        3. The theater was a waste of time because he's just going to veto it;

        Let's see how the public reacts.

        by Paul Goodman on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:03:28 PM PDT

        •  Let him veto it.

          If he vetoes, he has defunded his own war.  Our hands are clean -- and we need to be telling him that.

          by Conceptual Guerilla on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:34:08 PM PDT

      •  3. Declaration of being "really miffed"!

        No, I'm not frustrated by our inability to get out of Iraq.

        by nightsweat on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:03:41 PM PDT

      •  Step 3 COULD be ...

        ...the Republicans filibuster in the Senate and the Dems reap the political rewards among the public for five minutes, then realize they have to water down their bill or face the GOP spin of "endangering the troops."

        Or it COULD be, the Senate dilutes its already weak bill with some amendments, and sends it to conference, where Waters, Woolsey and Watson will be nowhere in sight and the "aye" Blue Dogs will join with the "nay" Blue Dogs to reconcile a weaker bill than the House passed today. A bill in which timetables are alluded to but not officially included.

        Step 4. Bush signs and gets his money, no strings attached.

        I hope to gawd I am wrong. And I'll be happy to admit I was wrong if I am.

        by Meteor Blades on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:36:44 PM PDT

•  It's the OIL

  Fourth, most Americans are probably unaware that the new oil law that we are imposing on Iraq, the one that Democratic Congressman Rahm Emanuel is insisting be part of the Supplemental spending bill, effectively transfers huge oil profits from the people of Iraq to foreign corporations.

  by catjo on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:51:23 PM PDT

  •  Can you tell me

    how this bill forces a (supposedly) sovereign country half a world away to sign into law an entirely different bill?  

    I checked your link, it says exactly what you just said, but offers no proof.

    For the record, I suspect any Iraqi PM who signs that bill is in fact signing his own death warrant.

    by Kingsmeg on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:02:19 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      And if the Iraqi government doesn't enact the bill, it moves the deadline closer to the present.

      by slothlax on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:10:53 PM PDT

  •  I've done couple of diaries on the oil law

    Not saying that's what Emanuel is insisting on here.  However, the oil law is an important Cheney, NeoCONS, and big oil issue.  

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Is this website crawling for anyone else.  

    by deepsouthdoug on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:06:39 PM PDT

•  No

  I would have voted against this because of the 'pork' included in the bill. That stuff just makes me crazy. Business as usual...

  by DemInGeorgia on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:57:23 PM PDT

  •  Would you rather have the headline to be

    "Dem's Effort to Stop the War Defeated?"

    I'm glad it was passed. I think Nancy Pelosi has done a great job in bringing the Democrats together to make a strong statement to Bush.

    by PhillyGuy03 on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:02:16 PM PDT

  •  That's legislative politics man..................

    laws and sausages....... laws and sausages..........

    by duckhunter on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:36:23 PM PDT

  •  What is the pork?

    I will withhold judgement on the alledged useless pork until I see the details...Do you know the details?

    by astronautagogo on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:56:17 PM PDT

•  the more important bill is the next one

  after Bush vetoes the current one.  The current bill is a compromise that most of the Dems signed onto but some of the progressives felt gave Bush too much.  As with any compromise there's a dilemma about just how far to go.

  If Bush vetoes this bill though, the next one has to give him even less.  The entire party should sign onto whatever Kucinich, Waters, etc. are offering.  Tell Bush he had his chance.  If he doesn't want to accept funding for current Iraq operations on Congress's terms, the alternative is to use existing funds to get the troops out immediately.

  by clyde on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:57:25 PM PDT

  •  Hahaha

    The entire party should sign onto whatever Kucinich, Waters, etc. are offering.

    by slothlax on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:58:43 PM PDT

  •  A bill that Kucinich and Waters want

    won't even pass the House. That's why we have the bill we have this time.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:00:13 PM PDT

•  Like my rep here in MN., Keith Ellison...

  I would have wrestled with my conscience considerably.

  But like Congressman Ellison, in time I believe I also would have voted YES.

  by chumley on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:05:10 PM PDT

•  Pragmatism demands a yes vote.

  I'm a pragmatist.  More is gained, overall, by voting yes on this bill than by voting no.  Thus, I am a yes.

  by Loquatrix on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:08:49 PM PDT

  •  a vetoed "pragmatic" bill

    is awfully similar to a vetoed "principled" bill, except you start off selling your true position short.

    by rasbobbo on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:23:22 PM PDT

    •  Pricipled bill would never get vetoed

      since it would never get out of the House, which is the easiest part of this process.  Then the Democrats would have looked weak and divided and been on the defensive.  At least for now we are on the offense.

      by slothlax on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:25:08 PM PDT

      •  odds of this "pragmatic" piece of legislation

        making it through the senate? care to venture a number on that one?

        by rasbobbo on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:24:08 PM PDT

        •  Senate is more difficult

          That is understood.  But the House is heavily tilted in favor of the majority party and if the Dems couldn't at least get a bill out of the House it would be embarassing.  Now there is momentum going into the Senate instead of having a bill stagger in on the second or third try.  The idea now is to make the Republicans filibuster against something Americans in general desire, a slow, deliberate withdrawal process.

          by slothlax on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:44:36 PM PDT

      •  I think this unity is a good theme ...

        ...and I understand your pov perfectly. But I think it will only last until the Senate sends its bill to conference.

        by Meteor Blades on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:28:20 PM PDT

        •  Conference?

          Between the houses or procedures in the Senate?  My understanding of the process is that the Senate debate will be the more difficult step.  Once it gets to conference, I'm not too worried.

          by slothlax on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:46:08 PM PDT

        •  Quite possible

          the likely outcome is that Bush gets his money, in the long run. That was always the likely outcome IMO.

          The question is how much we can empower the emerging progressive caucus and the idea of withdrawal as entirely mainstream in the meantime, as far as I'm concerned. And along the way, we've put the Senate republicans in a politically difficult position -- you can see it in their arguments this afternoon. They're trying to make this about the pork instead of the withdrawal, because they know that now that withdrawal has been officially brought to the table, it's going to only gain support from here in the public.

          I'm not making an '08 argument, either, I'm hoping this will provide additional leverage and additional support for withdrawal as the "mainstream democratic" position that we will need in further battles over the war before the next election.

          There's also the slim chance that it does retain some good language, if a couple of republicans go our way in the senate (unlikely) or if Pelosi can keep enough of the blue dogs in line in the house when it comes back to conference (hard to say). I'm not hopeful about the senate dems standing firm for long enough, but we'll see.

          I'm not thrilled about any of this, don't get me wrong. But I think they did the best they could at this particular moment, and in a way that will improve the context for the next battle.

          by Spit on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:58:30 PM PDT

•  I wouldn't have liked it, but I'd have voted Yea.

  A lot of the "pork" that the Repubs are complaining about is stuff that was badly needed in any event, but I hate the fact that ANYBODY'S vote on something like war and peace could be affected by whether or not they can get some kind of aid for their district.  

  I don't even like the "I'll give you my vote on crop subsidies if you give me yours on Medicaid" that I know goes on all the time, but that's of an entirely different order of magnitude, and I know that's how politics and compromise works.  But somehow, to me, deciding on the circumstances in which young Americans' lives are put at risk seems to be the kind of decision that should stand entirely on its own, uninfluenced by other politican considerations.  Personally, if I was in the House of Representatives, I'd be hugely insulted if someone thought my vote on a war could be influenced by those kinds of extraneous considerations.

  But all that having been said, and however distasteful the entire process seems to me to be, I would have held my nost and voted Yea.

  But now the question is going to be who is going to call whose bluff?

  by leevank on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:29:56 PM PDT

•  What will our military be doing until 9/08? n/t

  Building more permanent bases?

  by Silverbird on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:31:52 PM PDT

  •  One can quibble about the exact date

    But we CAN'T responsibly pull out overnight.  First, it would be a physical impossibility.  And second, I think it would be irresponsible to not give the Iraqis sufficient advance notice that they at least have a chance to get their political act together before we leave.  Going into Iraq was a disastrouse mistake, but having made that mistake, we would only compound it by pulling out so precipitously that we would be virtually certain to make the already terrible situation even worse.

    by leevank on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:56:01 PM PDT

    •  Going into Iraq was not a "mistake"...

      ...it was a calculated effort by the Administration and cronies backed up by massive deceit. We should stop using this frame or it will be what is written in the textbooks and taught to our grandkids. The mistake was neither our elected representatives nor we ourselves put enough obstacles in the way of this deceptive invasion. The war itself was no mistake.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:41:31 PM PDT

      •  Quite right, MB

        This was one of the calculated moves to debut before the world our Empire.  The longer there is chaos the more time there is for Empire building.  This was as deliberate as it was unnecessary on the part of the United States leaders.  It is appalling that they tried to have an Empire building exercise on the cheap but that's the corporate oligarchy/govt blend  for you, but it was not a mistake.

        by Silverbird on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:29:48 AM PDT

•  Hold my nose and vote yes.

  No question. This is what we need to learn from the republic party. We vote in caucus. Whatever gets a majority in the caucus, we vote for in the house en masse. And if we can't do that, we don't deserve to sit at the grownups' table.

  The future of our country AND the world is at stake here. Nothing less. This is not a time for futile exercises in purity. It's a time for bareknuckle politics. We need to get the strongest bill that will pass congress in front of Bush so he can veto it. This is an extremely important tactical move. We need to force him to show his true colors.

  If we play it right, every bill he vetos could gain us more support. He thinks he can stare down congress. But he doesn't have the credibility to do that any more.

  We're gonna have a lot more fights like this before we're done. Any person who thinks that ANYONE is going to get everything they want is ignorant beyond redemption. The anti-war contingent in the House did the right thing by backing off a little, and the Speaker did the right thing by thanking them for it.

  Remember who the real enemy is. We have met the enemy, and he is Bush.

  by homogenius on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:44:58 PM PDT

•  No.

  Just because of the additional bullshit attached to it. Attaching supplimental spending (pork) to it seriously takes away from it's effectiveness and smacks of business as usual.

  by Niniane on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:57:17 PM PDT

•  would vote yes

  I can live with the "pork" attached as much of it was needed - ie:  help for katrina victims, VA funding.  Some I did think was just awful, but, I would have to go for the over all effect.

  I feel that we should have taken a page from the Repubs and all the Democrats stand united on this bill - like it or not.  Bush, in his speech was already commenting on the fact that it passed with a slim margin in the House. I think it would have had a bigger impact on bush had it had the votes of all the Democrats.

  It is a start.  I never expected them to undo the last 8 years in 3 months.  They have to start somewhere and this was a good step in the right direction.

  by baffled on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:39:07 PM PDT