What do you think Democrats in Congress were afraid of?

What caused them to go with the funding as passed? If you had to put it in terms of fear of something, what do you think they feared?

(Edited to ask "other" voters to share their thoughts.)

I think they are only in it for their greedy little selves and their reelection bids.

I think that secretly the Party accepts the imperialism of the Bush regime. The Party just thinks that it should be managed better...

It's funny how some people, although use the word 'cabal' to describe the BFEE, never considered that part of that 'crime ring' might include Democrats.

Just like they never seem to consider that democrats like Hillary Clinton won't admit to an mistake because they ultimately believe like Rumsfeld or Bush that it wasn't a mistake and still isn't.

I don't believe it's fear at all -- I think it's perception management of a group working with that cabal all along...that goes way back to the selection of suitably 'pro-war' candidates in the last election.

I think it was completely conscious...to remove the focus off of expanded federal powers Bush granted himself last week or engage in secret trade deals.

Democratic cabal members are just as threatened by the People as their rePuke counterparts -- it's a small group of incumbents basically on both parties that have formed a militarist block....dare I say a type of P2 lodge of elite interests. The biggest threat to the US system is a mobilized and unified democratic party -- that's why the media hates them and demonizes them and makes sure 'good' democrats like Bayh or Lieberman or Kerrey or Miller or Reid get to chew the scenery keeping them divided.

There are some good elected democrats working pretty damn hard -- they got punk'd just as much as any here...even more so. They have to go back to their 'hard' constituents and put up with hell. While the 'red state democrats' get praises from church groups and lobbyists and waddle about pretending they have leadership qualities.

Their shadows.

Do you mean they didn't think it through, but just had nervous feelings? Please explain. :hi:

I shoulda thought of that.

n/t

They came out of their holes and saw their shadows, which means four more months of spinelessness.

I think they were convinced that this was as good as it's going to get. And they were convinced by the DLC types inside the beltway.

I don't think they're giving up, even though a lot of people around here are giving up on them. Bush is a tough nut to crack.

It's not about doing what's right (for them). It's about making the most political gain out of a situation. And they have been convinced by inside the beltway policy makers that bring in the corporate campaign donations, that this is the best course of action politically.

is their blatant betrayal of the will of the voters and those that fought so hard to change the balance of Congress in the last election.

I am beyond pissed, and so is every Democrat I know.

TC

It is their cowardice is removing the timeline for withdrawing troops. For that, I will never, ever forgive the bastards. If they were so scared about a veto, they should have forced Chimpy to take the heat over not passing the funding.

And the prospect of going into Memorial Day weekend, the holiday that, you know, is there to commemorate our fallen troops, without a bill that supports that troops.

They've chosen the correct path, yet again. Thankfully, they don't listen to the zealots they way Republicans listened to theirs. They understand that listening to the zealots gets you kicked out of power.

... they were afraid of losing votes, or afraid of the troops actually not receiving necessary funding on the ground, or something else?

Bush has made it pretty clear he's going to continue the war with or without the funding through the end of his Presidency. We'd have to gut the FY 2008 Defense appropriations bill as well if we were to have ANY chance of stopping it.

And yes, I do think we'd lose a LOT of votes if we were to defund the war. As much as people hate the war, they're not about to let our troops run around without the resources they need.

It's a lose-lose-lose situation. What pisses me off is that nearly everyone on DU knew that back in November when they took back the majority. We knew this was going to be the case. Everyone with any rationality knew this was going to be the case. And yet here we are, acting like spoiled children that they didn't take actions we all knew to be impossible.

I don't think that the very vocal dem bashers realize that politics is not a bar room fight. We got some good stuff in that bill. The minimum wage bill would have been vetoed by Bush, and we wouldn't have had the votes to over ride it.

I commend them for getting something for us out of the bad situation. Just because we have the majority doesn't mean crap, unless we have the power to over ride vetoes. And then there is the Senate, a slim majority there, that again looks good, but in actual fact is not veto proof.

And everyday we hear of more stuff that they are investigating, this has to be the most investigation that any Congress has ever done. They are getting their ducks in a row, and the dem bashers are taking pot shots at them. It will take time, and that is just how this government was set up, unless you have a super majority.

zalinda

I agree with you.

Thanks.

Expected that one at the top.

:shrug:

and I think they are counting on getting some more leverage over the summer when things in Iraq escalate. Unfortunately it's going to take a lot more carnage for the Repubs to crack.

the troops are staying all summer NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID yesterday. Bush would slap together money to keep them there. In september, the Rs will start cracking and coming over to our side.

That was the reason John Murtha gave.

Gotta be somthing sneaky and unmentionable - it makes no sense otherwise. Joementum says he will turn repug if the bill loses. This shuts down all the Senate committee investigations, ability to veto bushco henchman appointments, etc etc. This would be a bigger loss than the passage of the supplemental but shhhh cant talk about it.

It is NOT about being afraid of anything. We cannot at this time get a timeline passed. Sitting on the funding and doing nothing will put the GOP back in power in 2008 and then we will never ever get out of Iraq. So what are the other options?

What a message it would have sent to America if every, single Democrat voted NAY on this bill. I know getting Democrats to agree on anything is harder than trying to herd cats, but on voting YEA on this bill after we had given them a mandate whose instruction on this was implicit, and to do it the day before recessing for MEMORIAL DAY is just inexcusable.

They should be ashamed! -- ALL OF THEM.

YEAS:

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (D-OH)
Bunning (R-KY)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)


Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emanuel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Keller
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Ortiz
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

TC

We worked pretty damned hard to get to a position where we could actually achieve something but if everyone feels that after 4 months it's time to turn things back over to the GOP, more power to you.

Do you honestly think that there is any way Bush and the GOP will get us out of Iraq?

Either we win in 2008 and do it then or it will never happen.

If they don't have the guts to do the right thing because it isn't "veto-proof", then there is no fucking reason whatsoever to elect them.

:sarcasm:

You say they don't have the guts to "do the right thing", and yet you acknowledge they don't have the power to actually do it. Something about that statement seems a bit contradictory.

F-ing gutless cowards.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

To tell you the truth, Sparkly, I have been emotionally befuddled on the point of defunding all along. (I understand the entire spread of opinion, so I hope I can be spared a lecture from well-meant Duers who want to explain it all to me.) I haven't seen it as the best route, because the public, from what I can tell, isn't there. Opposition to the war and wanting it to end is immensely clear; support for defunding is not, in addition to the votes not being there in Congress. Democrats like Murtha, Durbin and Levin are honorable and sincere and must be seen to have their reasons for how they voted. They want the war ended but do not want to defund the troops. I don't actually think, for them, it's a case of not wanting to be perceived as not funding the troops but a matter of conscience. They wouldn't do this lightly, so maybe they know more than those of us outside Congress know, and I give them a lot of credit for knowing how unpopular a stand it is with Democrats and taking it anyway. Biden was right in his vote because it's what he believes. But in the votes against, my true sense is that neither Clinton nor Obama would have voted the way they did if they were not running in 2008, at least I don't think so. Certainly I could be wrong, it's only a gut thing with me on this. They had the luxury of knowing the thing was going to pass anyway - I think they feared the uproar in the base for the primaries - I feel less sure they want defunding and their support for deadlines is recent. I have some unease about the minimum wage facet; I don't think this will play out in their favor over time. I don't hold this against them, I think it was what they had to do. But I like the Clinton/Byrd/Richardson idea of revoking the IWR and it may have possibility because it is less fraught with potential for anti-troop spin. I think those like Kerry and Feingold and Kucinich are in a different category altogether, because they have held a longtime position and voted their conscience. But Kerry and Feingold are not candidates, either, and this is why, so they don't have to get all political about what they're working to accomplish. I think they all need a little more space, though, than they've gotten. None of this can happen on a dime.

Like I say, Sparkly, I'm all over the place. :(

What bugs me most is the spin about it. I wish it were clear exactly why this bill went up, why they voted as they did, why they see it as a win and/or a loss. Instead, I'm hearing claims of victory that don't strike me as sincere, to say the least.

I don't think defunding is or was an issue because it's just not going to happen. As you say, votes aren't there, prez has the veto, and it would be political suicide for anybody to vote for it.a

Not sure what a continued "game of chicken" would have accomplished in the END, either, but in the process I think they could have pushed the preznit and Republicans in Congress to go on record as voting against a longer list of requirements for change in strategy (or start of strategy), accountability, fairness to military personnel, etc.

I'd like to think some votes were a matter of conscience, but I think it's primarily politics -- which is understandable. They're politicians, after all. They weigh what their constituents want among other things, and they weigh the consequences for re-election (or presidential election).

The votes of Clinton and Obama are a perfect example of that. They can claim their vote didn't actually have an effect as they knew the bill was passed anyway (arguing against the "you didn't support the troops in combat" accusations); but they can still claim they did vote "no" (arguing against the "Congress caved" charges).

And, I agree with The General that all this focus on the troops, rather than the policy (or lack thereof) that keeps them bogged down there, is exactly what BushCo wants. And it's what nearly all the debate here is about.

They can say all they want about how it wasn't about defunding and all about timelines, since they voted for the first one, which had timelines, and against the second one because it didn't, but what they will hear, I'm afraid, is they flip-flopped on their votes and voted against the troops. So they're helped in the primaries, maybe, but hurt in the GE. You're right the spin has to be strong on there were no timelines and that's why; but this has always been problematic, too, since expressed timelines in war don't always make sense to people. But that's what needs to be made clear, said over and over again. I wish I didn't feel the minimum wage is a time bomb in all this. There's no real explaining it away if people focus on it.

and smart.

No seriously, they are afraid of the 37% minority Republican voters who accuse them of not supporting the troops and being whimpy against terrorists. Democrats want to appear like Atilla the Hun so they can take the GOP vote? Do we have a Democratic Party?

loss of money from the ruling oligarchy

and middle-of-the-night visitors from the fascist goon squad pulling out their children's fingernails

I would imagine that the Democrats were afraid a) of losing votes, and b) of a standoff with Bush causing a lack of funds to the troops.

I'm inclined to suspect that the former fear possibly wasn't grounded, the latter probably was - *I* would certainly not wish to be playing chicken with President Bush if the lives he was gambling with were not his own.

They were afraid their pro-war big campaign contributors would pull their funding. They know good and well that their Democratic base wants the war stopped ASAP. But money trumps voters every time. And the money favors staying, so that war profiteering can continue.

under the circumstances.