Why Don't Anti-War Democrats Filibuster the Iraq War Spending Bill?

Question

Prowar Senators used the filibuster provision repeatedly this past week to win the day, and the allegedly antiwar Senators did - nothing . Friday, the Senate failed to get the votes necessary to stop a filibuster and vote on an amendment ordering most U.S. troops home from Iraq in the next nine months. The vote was 47-47, well short of the 60 required to bring debate to an end. On Thursday, the Senate blocked legislation by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) that would have cut off funding, albeit only for "combat" forces in June 2008. Now comes the news that Bush's spending supplemental for the war to be submitted to the Senate this week will amount to nearly $200 billion dollars.

Prowar Senators are on their way to using the filibuster provision a record number of times in this the 110th Congress where cloture has already been invoked 56 times.

Why not Filibuster Bush's forthcoming spending supplemental? So Bush would need 60 Senate votes.

http://filibusterforpeace.org/_wsn/page2.html

Who Cares what Bush and the Republicans say or think!
For decades the right (and their media) have used the "Democrats are weak on Defense" slogan. Meanwhile Trillions of Dollars our National Treasure feeds the trough of Military Contractors and War Profiteers.
Why do the so-called "antiwar" Senators like Feingold or Obama or
Kerry or Clinton not initiate a filibuster to stop Bush's supplemental funding
requests for the war? Think about it for a moment. Yes it takes 60 votes to continue
debate but by the same token it only takes 41 to terminate a debate--and then the bill is
dead. So why not filibuster Bush's forthcoming spending supplemental? Unless Bush can
muster 60 Senate votes, his request is dead in the water. Now the 47 Senators who voted Friday to bring the U.S. troops
home from Iraq are more than enough to filibuster Bush's spending requests and end the war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6983027.stm

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=78&sid=1243145

(Idea for this question and text of argument exerpted from Counterpunch article by John Walsh)

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh09222007.html

Answer 1

Great question. I think it's because they're ultimately afraid they'll be accused of not supporting the troops, allowing the troops to be in harms way without bullets.

Answer 2

This petition although laudable,is a waste of time.

The Democrats once again will refuse to stand on liberal principles and use the filibuster on the spending bill .This would require the Dems to act TOTALLY alone without the all important(or at least to their political advisers) Republican assistance .

The Dems want/need the cover of bi-partisanship in doing anything and everthing to stop the war and Republicans know that .

For years now the Republicans have by sticking closely to their principles and with far superior political statagies ,forced the Dems to play their game .They have and continue to control the agenda EVEN IN THE MINORITY !!!!!

This is ALL because the Dems will NOT stand for liberal principles and give Americans a REAL choice and Americans sense this "un-sureness" on the part of the Dems and de facto do not see them as STRONG and RESOLUTE and STAYING THE COURSE whatever the course is.

Voters NEED STRONG leaders and leadership and the Dems for years have NOT given this .

Make absolutely NO mistake but that the Democratic 2006 victory was much more about an ANTI-REPUBLICAN reality rather than a PRO-DEMOCRAT one.

If Dems filibuster the spending bill,they will have at last stood up and "PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR BIG FRIGGIN MOUTHS ARE " and irrevocably put them on a total new path .

I do not believe the Dems are ready to make such a profoundly important move towards what they are suppose to represent for they fear that in so doing could loose the White House next year and are not willing to bet that such a paradyn shift could give them ,in fact, an overwhelming victory.

Answer 3

A good question--but hte answer is a bit complicated, so bear with me:

First--bear in mind that the Democrats and anti-war Republicans do not hae the votes to force a timetable on Bush over his veto (yet). Also--any acutal cutoff of funds means Bush would simply leave our troops exposed without proper support, rather than give in--he's already said so. So, the Democrats are not going to actually cutthe funds--they are not going to let our military suffer for Bush's stubbornness.

So--what can they actually DO? The answer--adopt a policy oferding the "Republican coalition" and further eroding public support for the war. The key to this is to get the votors, etc. to put enough pressure on the GOP to crack that solid bloc.

That's what this current round of bills and votes are about--its forcing the Republicans to again go on the record supporting Bush. And the election is only 13-1/2 months away. If there isn't real change in the Iraq situation by then--a lot of those Republicans are going to lose their jobs. So--these votes are not expected to passs--but they are serving an important function--namely, to further weaken Bush's position.

As to your specific question--this is about how the American electorate perceives the members of Congress. A filibuster wouldn't change the ultimate outcome--but it would give the right-wing ammunition to accuse the Democrats of being "obstructionist," etc.

Answer 4

Republicans are obstructing the efforts of the Democrats to stop this.
You need 60 votes in the Senate and a 2/3 majority in the House to override a Presidential veto and they don't have it.

That's why the Congress has a 11% approval rating. Americans are tired of the Republican obstruction of progress and another direction in the war of terror....er 'on terror.

Answer 5

An interesting idea. While Reid and feingold are comfortable with their treason, many democrates are reluctant to be exposed. I'm all for it.Let's see who supports this country and let's see who thinks terrorism is just a bumper sticker slogan

Answer 6

i've got a better idea and have been asking my elected representives this question.

why should the dems EVER even allow another spending bill for the war make it to the floor of the house.

you want to play hardball boys, i'd love it if your precious president never even got another of his 'emergency' spending bills out of committee.

the speaker gets to decide what goes to the floor of the house.

she and she alone can make this choice - and i would applaud it.

Answer 7

Because they don't have the 60 votes needed to over ride Busch's veto that he promised. That will all change in the next elections, though, so don't fret.

Answer 8

Because that is the way our system works.

Repugs and Dems use it.

Peace

Jim

.