By Antonio D. French
Filed Friday, May 25, 2007 at 8:27 AM
And locally, did Senator Claire McCaskill forget her mandate when she and other Democrats joined with Republicans to authorize more funds for the Iraq War? Labels: War
Open Thread
|
"Best Blogger" — St. Louis Magazine Featured on
"One of the Most SUPPORT PUBDEF.NET Your $7.00 monthly contribution will go a long way to helping us expand the coverage and services you enjoy. GET THE LATEST PUBDEF NEWS 24/7: ABOUT PUB DEF PUB DEF is a non-partisan, independent political blog based in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Our goal is to cast a critical eye on lawmakers, their policies, and those that have influence upon them, and to educate our readers about legislation and the political processes that affect our daily lives. CONTACT US Do you have a press release, news tip or rumor to share? editor@pubdef.net Tips are always 100% Confidential
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did Democrats Betray their Base?
|
|
|
17 Comments:
I do feel betrayed. As Keith said much more eloquently that I can, has there ever been a clearer mandate? Democrats took back Congress based on a promise to do something about the war and they haven't done anything. I feel so powerless today.
5/25/2007 8:35 AM
What a waste of lives and $120 billion! How many schools could we build in America for that money? How many people could we give health care to?
Can someone please explain to me again what the difference is between Democrats and Republicans?
5/25/2007 8:51 AM
Claire McCaskill did the responsible thing. Pulling out of Iraq right now would be a disaster.
5/25/2007 9:45 AM
It's not just the dems... it's what the president vetos and won't allow them to do. Regardless of any choices of the party, Bush will block it.
5/25/2007 10:02 AM
A good question to consider right now might be that of possibility versus promises.
Namely, could democrats have forced this issue and continued to refuse to fund the war? What might the cost of that action have been?
5/25/2007 10:19 AM
The cost? They need to show fortitude, yet they don't want to be accused of not supporting the troops.
Either way they are going to lose, whether by voting for the war or against the troops.
Yet they need to think beyond todays or tomorrows headlines. In the long term, being accused of voting against the troops, by not funding the war, does bring them home! Short term criticism yes, however they are no longer overseas being shot. I think that shows their commitment to the troops. The means will bring political attack, however the outcome brings them home.
Getting the troops out of the line of fire is the most support one can lend. If defunding is the mechanism then so be it.
This vote only furthers the status quo with no strings attached. They betrayed their base and other voters who believed they would end the war.
5/25/2007 11:30 AM
Do you think the Bush administration would really bring the troops home if they hadn't been funded?
This is a White House that has insisted that the President does not take orders on the conduct of his war from Congress. What's to say he wouldn't "stay the course?"
5/25/2007 11:35 AM
The military allocates funds a couple of months ahead.
He can't stay the course when the money runs out. If money was not authorized in the supplemental then he would have to bring the troops home. Unless we plan on doing hand to hand combat, he would have no choice.
Imagine how that would look on TV? Bush not bringing the troops home even though the funding is cut? He already sent them over there without adequate armor and now he is expecting them to fight without funds?
Yet the Democrats do a horrible job of PR. They back down when they they say the war is lost, even though it is. Bush lost the war the moment he invaded and then landed on the carrier. We had no chance. We were not committed to winning the occupation. General Motors isn't making cars, yet they can't make Stryker combat vechicles which cannot be destroyed up by IED's. This Administration is not committed even to the ideology it professes. The way to win in Iraq is to convert to war production, yet Bush told us to sit at home and not worry. Sorry Bush but if we are doing nation building that isn't the proper tactic.
The Bush Administration took preventative war not preemptive. Yet they didn't even follow through on their unilateral position by funding the war properly initially, by equipping the troops properly, or by doing a proper Marshall Plan. Instead billions went to private contractors who didn't provide infrastructure. Even today one cannot rely on electric power. The Bush Administration are the ones who do not support the troops, the Iraqi people, or even their ideology. They are hypocrites, except they have a good spin master, Karl Rove.
5/25/2007 12:11 PM
Dan, that's not a valid argument. If you believe that Bush wouldn't withdraw the troops even if Congress cut off funding, then you believe there's literally nothing Congress can do to stop him, even by overriding his veto. I don't believe either case to be true.
5/25/2007 12:37 PM
I'm not really surprised. McCaskill never really stated her opposition to the war in terms clear enough to understand.
Talent would have voted the same way, but at least was open about his support for the war.
5/25/2007 12:42 PM
First Jeff Smith and now Claire McCaskill, who will so-called progressives look to now?
5/25/2007 1:13 PM
To engage in a brief spot of opinion as a writer:
I am certainly not attempting to say that there is nothing that could be done to stop President Bush from fighting a war.
I am wondering whether the President will pull troops back right away just because he does not receive a specific funding block.
Let's be careful that our ideological posturing doesn't end up costing real troop's lives. If it's going to be a withdraw, I'd rather have a real withdraw, not interpretable half-policies in which the end results are open to discussion.
5/25/2007 1:27 PM
Dan, what does that mean? Soldiers are dying right now.
5/25/2007 3:03 PM
I see a connection between single payer health care---the Conyers plan---and funding the war in Iraq.
Politicians will vote for or endorse a lot of things if there are no practical consequences.
My state senator co-sponsored a bill to urge congress to pass the Conyers version of health care---single payer. I have read that presidential candidates Obama, Clinton, and Edwards will not go that far---fearing the real wrath of the medical-industrial complex, or whatever it is which would be devastated by a single payer system.
But Clinton and Obama can vote against funding the Iraq war, because it can be vetoed and there will be no practical consequences--indeed there would be very bad consequences for them if they did not vote against funding.
Politicians have to consider the possibility that something they endorse might happen---they often back away when that possibility exists.
5/26/2007 1:26 AM
Did I hear $3 trillion on THE WAR so far?
Can we agree that dependence on oil is at LEAST a very significant cause of all of this?
How far would that same $3 trillion have gone to provide incentives and/or financial help to: alternative fuel car makers, energy efficient home builders,
renewable resource energy providers, and good ol' innovative energy entrepreneurs.
Any politician that may be listening...PLEASE do as much as you can to remove our dependence on oil.
5/26/2007 5:24 PM
She was clear in her campaign and repeatedly offered that she did not support an immediate withdrawal.
5/27/2007 11:26 AM
Claire may have said that she doesn't support immediate withdrawal, but this bill was not about immediate withdrawal. She also said she would hold the president accountable and this bill does not do so. It is nothing but a blank check for Bush so the answer is, yes, Claire and most other democrats screwed their base last week.
It is also worth noting that the whole "see how things are going in September" thing is a joke. Over and over and over we are told of "new plans" that are taking effect *right now* and that we should just wait a bit to see how they pan out. There is nothing new in the plans, we are not making the situation better, and however disasterous it would be for us to leave now, it will be that much more disasterous the longer we stay.
5/27/2007 9:52 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home