All this stuff about some Dems being "cowardly" is nonsense.

Each did what they thought best under the circumstances as a representative of the people in their district or their state. It may shock some of you here, but people like Jim Webb (for example) represent others than the people on this board calling them "cowards."

Calling people cowards who you disagree with on one vote is a cheap shot. Argue against their decision if you like, but at least try to understand the reality of why many Democrats fighting to change course in Iraq and representing their constituents to the best of their ability voted the way they did.

Hey we all got the letter from the DCCC bragging about how Dems made sure Bush got his full defense funding.

Dems didn't cave. They did it on purpose.

to praise him repeatedly but not after this vote. Asked if his follow up to the SOTU was just pretty words, and said I wanted a written response explaining his reasons for the vote. Gave my name and address. His aide said they would be glad to get that to me.

I think it's pretty clear.

I have no disgreement with you questioning your senator, that's what Democracy is all about. What I don't question, however, is Jim Webb's courage. It's not about courage. Jim Webb had the courage to do what he thought was best under the circumstances, and as one of his consituents I'm sure he appreciates hearing from you.

"Senator Boxer's Floor Speech
May 24, 2007

In March and in April I voted for emergency spending legislation that would have fully funded our troops in Iraq, but also changed their mission to a sound one. That mission would have taken our troops out of the middle of a civil war, and put them into a support role, training Iraqi soldiers and police, fighting al Qaeda, and protecting our troops.

The President will not agree to that.

As a matter of fact, the President won't agree to any change in strategy in Iraq, and that is more than a shame for the American people; it is a tragedy.

It doesn't seem to matter how many Americans die in Iraq, how many funerals we have here at home, or what the American people think. The President won't budge.

This new bill on Iraq keeps the status quo. With a few frills around the outside, a few reports, a few words about benchmarks. While our troops die.

I understand why this particular legislation is before us today. It's because this President wants to continue his one man show in Iraq. The President doesn't respect this Congress or the American people when it comes to Iraq. He wants to brush us all off like some annoying spot on his jacket.

We have lost 3,427 American soldiers in Iraq. Of those, 731 (21%) have been from California or based in California. There are 25,549 American soldiers wounded.

And today, after several days of worrying and praying, we received the tragic news of the death of Private Joseph J. Anzack JR., 20 years old, of Torrance, California, who was abducted during a deadly ambush south of Baghdad almost two weeks ago.

One member of his platoon, Spc. Daniel Seitz, summed it up this way to the Associated Press: "It just angers me that it's just another friend I've got to lose and deal with, because I've already lost 13 friends since I've been here, and I don't know if I can take any more of this."

And he shouldn't have to. But with this bill, he will.

The first half of this year has already been deadlier than any six-month period since the war began more than four years ago.

In this month alone, 83 U.S. Service members have already been killed in Iraq.

Let me be clear, there are many things in this bill that I strongly support--many provisions that I actually fought for, for our troops, for our veterans, for our farmers, and for the victims of Hurricane Katrina--but I must take a stand against this Iraq war, and therefore I will vote no on this emergency spending bill."

It's tougher when a big chunk of your constituency grabs their lunch bucket and goes to work at a DEFENSE industry outlet in your state. It's harder to vote in a way that will almost guarantee that thousands of people will be laid off and the economy in your state or district will be adversely impacted.

Now, I am NOT suggesting that the Defense Industry is a "reason" to keep the war going. Please don't take that from this example. I'm just trying to put some NUANCE on this debate. If you are a Senator, and you KNOW the measure to stop funding the war isn't going to fly (because Lieberman is the guy caucusing with the Dems who will make SURE of that, even if everyone else goes along), why BUY yourself some gripes from that kind of constituency, why beg for letters saying "Ya baaastid--ya ain't supporting the troops, AND you're votin' to make me lose my JOB!!!!!!!"

If you know it ain't gonna fly anyway, vote with the flow to prevent that kind of anger (and, at the same time, short circuit any GOP stooge mounting an early campaign against you, using that very antiwar vote as a launching point) and save that vote, that you know, one day, Harry Reid will MAKE you cast, for when the measure will actually fly and you can be a part of history.

Boxer has made her stones by being against the war. That's not spine. That's just her thing, for which she is rightly praised and for which she was returned to her seat in 04. It's a good thing, don't get me wrong, but it's not a departure for her at all.

"Boxer has made her stones by being against the war."

(Note: at present I don't know Feinstein's vote on this particular bill, but she voted for the war to start with.)


DiFi represents the same constituency. And rode into office on the same liberal vote. My (almost invisible) rep, Mike Thompson, also voted against the bill.

And you cannot underestimate the importance of that aspect. If she delivers jobs, industry, infrastructure, assets, to the state, well, that's IMPORTANT. And it garners support. Also, she's senior, and she has good committee assignments.

She's also big on VOTING... an issue near and dear to all of us of late:

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) have introduced legislation to help ensure the accuracy of vote counts in federal elections and institute important new reforms in the administration of elections. Other cosponsors include Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Barack Obama (D-IL), Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Bernard Sanders (I-VT).

The Ballot Integrity Act of 2007 provides new safeguards to prevent errors and tampering at the polls, requires states to use voting systems with voter-verified paper records subject to public manual audits in the 2010 federal elections, takes steps to help increase the turnout in federal elections, and ensures that voters are not denied the right to vote by faulty purges of voting rolls.
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2461&Itemid=26

I got the same form letter from her three times (Gabrielle Giffords, district 8 , Az.)

I have made no secret of the fact that I think they wimped out this time. But I'm glad we still have some DUers who are willing to stick up for Dems, even when it is not popular to do so here.

:thumbsup:

I've been called a DLC stooge, a war enabler, gotten the "I'll bet you (fill in some hideous remark)" routine, and all sorts of meanspirited shit tossed my way, because I basically agreed with Jim Webb that Lieberman is the pesky and recalcitrant, foot stomping, childish, eight hundred pound gorilla in the Iraq War Funding Room.

I don't see what else Reid could do, save kill Joementum, skin him, and have an operative wear the skin and cast Joe's vote, in the hopes that the herd won't notice that it isn't actually Joe voting against the funding!!!!!

Poor Reid is the guy who's forced to kiss Joe's ass everyday, so he doesn't go over to the darker side--Joe's already sitting in the shade, as it is.

:spray:

And that's from people who like you! :rofl:

You're ok MADem. ;)

I thought it was pretty clever, myself!! Or we could get some computer geek to fashion a robot to put underneath the pelt--so long as he kept moving, who'd notice? No one really talks to him anymore, anyway, except Reid...Reid would be delighted, too-- he wouldn't have to spend half the day snuffling the baastid's anus and saying insincere, nice things to him!!!

The only problem might be Hadassah--we'd have to send a hot pool boy over to her house, I guess! Then the robot could walk in, get all outraged, demand a divorce, and move to the Hays-Adams!!!!
Then, no one would be the wiser....

(Cue evil laugh...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......!)

:rofl: :rofl:

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

It's right up there with "America Hating" and "Unpatriotic" when you think about it....

"Each did what they thought best under the circumstances" to protect his/her own skin. What's worse, I think they would have been fine if they had done the right thing. But their fear was too strong for even reason to penetrate.

That is cowardice.

I was going to post something myself about this. My God people, what the hell would have been accomplished? We ALL know what an idiot Bush is and that he NEVER compromises. They had to do something. I'm SO sick of hearing "The Dems Caved."

I still fully support the Dems. Of course the timelines would have been wonderful but get a clue, Bush would have NEVER agreed and we know it.

I want to focus on what we've accomplished which, in my opinion, is a lot in only five months.

Give them a freakin' break. They're dealing with a lunatic and there truly is only so much they can do. If people should be mad at anyone, it's the so-called moderate Repubs. who have put politics before doing what's right.

So did Sen. Inhofe and Sen. Lieberman.

We should give those guys a break too.

It means I disagree with them...profoundly.

You are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. However, if elected Democrats disagree with what you think, that does not mean they are cowards.

They made a political calculaton, of course. They are after all, politicians. If you feel they voted the wrong way, then write to them, call them, let them know your opinion. Better yet, let their constituents know your opinion and try and convince them you are right. When they vote elected representatives are thinking (one would hope) about their constituents and how their constituents would vote, as well as their own sense of what is the right thing to do. That is how Democracy works, no?

And by the way, just because you think casting a vote a certain way is as clear as night and day doesn't make it so. Getting out of Iraq the right way isn't going to be simple, and elected Democrats aren't the ones in the driver's seat.

Calling them cowards is a GOP trick. Haven't we had enough of the other side calling us cowards? Why participate in such playground games ourselves?

Your suggestion that they voted one way and I wanted them to vote another is a non-argument that could be used for any issue. If they had just voted in favor of nuking Europe and Asia, couldn't you use the same argument every time I complained?

FYI I emailed my congressman and both my senators prior to the vote. This was one case where the wishes of the majority of constituents just plain didn't matter.

You say they made a political calculation. True. Happens all the time. But if a politician makes a political vote based solely on the perceived threat to his or her own seat, that is cowardice.

*I am not basing my view on my opinion that their jobs were not really in jeopardy.

will likely do better because of Dems actions here. Its not just about saving their skins. That opinion shows a lack of understanding how leadership works imho. There are many different traits and strategies that leaders have and employ. The giveaway that one doesn't get or grasp that is when they sound like a pissed off broken record 99% of the time. I see DU'ers/bloggers from the left talk all the time about leadership or lack of it, most of the time its the same refrain. Leaders don't always get their way, but they do when it counts. The Dem coalition would have been fractured if a time line bill was pushed through at this time. We already know it would not have passed the Senate any damn way. Fracturing is what makes us weaker not stronger in standing up to Bush. There are some fights that are stupid to fight.

Our side passed a bill and Bush vetoed it. The question is, why send him another one? Everyone here can count. We know we didn't have the means to force a veto-proof bill through either house. That is a non-issue. But we did NOT have to go through the effort of sending him another one. That has nothing to do with numbers. It has to do with courage.

Our 'leaders,' as you call them, had a moral responsibility to NOT proactively give Bush this money with virtually no strings attached. Like it or not, they got scared and joined in with Bush to get this thing through. Bush can't get anything passed. Nothing. Unless Pelosi and Reid help him. You think we don't have the votes? We have more than Bush does.

not in the Senate.

:thumbsup:

as cowardly. Neither has ever caved in to public opinion before, so although I don't agree with this vote, I think they voted their conscience and probably not because of their consituents.

When you need or want something else done by our Congress are you going to come crawling back to those you have dissed and labeled as "cowards"? Since they have already been called "cowards", what is the next and worse label than will be applied to them? In 2008 are you willing to surrender one or both houses of Congress back to the Republicans? Might there not be other things going on in this country that are as important to people as the war in Iraq? The Democrats have only been narrowly in power in Congress for 5 months now and it is still early in the game. I am a Democrat and will remain one and I refuse to pout about my party just because they do not do things exactly the way I want and when I want. Also, being a Liberal, I am smart enough to realize that there is a middle and left to my party and it is unreasonable for my representatives to pander to the wishes of the far left. DU is mostly the far left. I would be interested to know if more conservative Democrats are ranting as much about the Iraq vote because their votes count as much toward electing Democrats as the far left of the Democratic Party.

That was just one of many derogatory names.

And I meant every one of them.

I prefer understanding to name-calling.

In fact we are not going to leave.

==================
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.