Following a procedural vote Monday that sidetracked a resolution on the war, Democrats said they would eventually find a way to put each senator on record. On the table is a nonbinding resolution backed by several Republicans and most Democrats that would state Senate opposition to President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
Just a couple of years ago, everything deserved an "up or down" vote. Have the Republicans suddenly lost their nerve? Or did they never really have a set to begin with?
2007-02-05 23:17:07 · 13 answers · asked by fake_cowboy 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Just to add: I'm not asking about the rejection of the Republican amendments. Yes, they too should be debated at some point. The current debate is simply over 2 REPUBLICAN proposals (there's your bipartisanship) regarding the proposed troop buildup. You're either with Bush or agin' him. Simple.
2007-02-05 23:36:59 · update #1
They are caught between a rock and the hard place, a vote against the president they are not showing loyalty to the evil one. A vote for the president and they are not showing loyalty to the American people as most Americans do not want this escalation of the war, so they just try to block the vote. Yes, I remember the repuglicans whining about democrats as they blocked the vote against many judges that this evil president tried to ram through congress. Left shoe does not fit on right foot in that case.
2007-02-05 23:20:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
A vote of 49-47 meant at least two Democrats abstained (two republicans were signed on as sponsors).
Don't be naive, Reid called for a procedural vote because the knew the resolution didn;t have the sponsors necessary to pass. And the Democrats in general but especially Reid, Clinton, and Kerry, who all voted for the authorization of military action don't want that being brught up again and read into the record again.
By bringing up the Reid made it look legitimate that the Democrats wanted a debate, but the facts remain that he and the cabal of Dems who voted for the original resolution want it to remain in history.
2007-02-05 23:35:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well Harry Reid was whining about this earlier today...but guess what? Harry Reid voted NAY on this as well!
This is actually being misrepresented by the media, who constantly paint the Republicans in a negative light but refuse to acknowledge their own failures.
The Democrats were looking for what is called 'cloture' on this subject. They were seeking 60 votes to steamroll this thru the Senate without amendments or debate on the Senate floor.
What the Republicans rightfully did was block the Democrats from forcing their version of the bill without debate, without amendments, without compromise.
A better question is why did Harry Reid vote NAY and then whine about this not getting 60 votes?
The 'up or down' vote the Republicans were asking for was for Presidential appointees, not non-binding resolutions that do little but waste time when the Senate should be doing it's job, not trying to do the Presidents job.
Also, look into Harry Reid's land deals. Reid is as corrupt as they come.
2007-02-05 23:27:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
you're truly properly about the above. his balloting record interior the senate is the very similar as hillary's. and the speech he gave, which develop right into a pair years in the previous he were given to the senate, develop into in the front of an anti-conflict team. he advised them what they wanted to take heed to and now he claims he confirmed his willingness to assert some thing unpopular! and human beings say he voted hostile to the conflict - no longer authentic! he wasn't even interior the senate even as that vote got here about. or maybe as he develop into interviewed later he admitted that he did no longer have each and each and every of the information and did not comprehend how he may have truly voted if he were interior the senate on the time.
2016-11-25 19:54:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They're not refusing. . . there's more than one useless 'non-binding' resolution . Right now they are likely to negotiate on some of the wording, if they can come to a compromise.. . . then you'll see a vote this week . If not.. . . then look for that vote in 2 to 4 weeks .
2007-02-05 23:42:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Republicans are not refusing to go on the record. Senate Republicans requested 2 amendments to vote on regarding the resolution. Harry Reid has refused this requested causing a basic floor fight on the issue. My question is why are Democrats refusing to honor their pledge of bi-partisan support made during the election?
The amendment requests are a resolution that the Senate will not attempt to cut funding and the other is a resolution of support for the action. Why do Democrats fear these 2 amendments so much, especially given the reality that they have little chance of passing?
2007-02-05 23:24:18 · answer #6 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
The war was started under false pretenses, so under those circumstances it is impossible to win the war, so to justify it, they had to shift the emphasis from WMD to spreading democracy.
Problem is you cant force a democracy on anyone and frankly, I don't think anyone knows what to do. Nobody really wants the troops in now, but its too late to pull them out. if you pull them out and Iran takes over, your party will take the hit. If you allow them to remain, then you look like you arent doing anyting effective, which is pretty much true. No one wants to take responsibility for doing something that could cost them their careers.
2007-02-05 23:30:20 · answer #7 · answered by Runa 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Becasue they know an election is coming up and they don't want to be pinned down, which is smart politics, as the resolution doesn't mean a thing in reality
2007-02-05 23:46:02 · answer #8 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They, like most are rowing so hard the opposite way that the tide is bringing them in. Bush is finished.. His credibility, if he had any is crocked.
In a way I feel sorry for him because he was never up to the job in the first place.
2007-02-05 23:30:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They know the majority of Americans want the war to end, so they don't want to be held accountable. Spineless.
2007-02-05 23:20:22 · answer #10 · answered by imask8r 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋