by Chris Bowers, Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:42:02 PM EST
Tags: Chris Dodd, Iraq, Senate, Democrats (all tags)
I love Chris Dodd, but I'm not hugely impressed with this speech. Sure, I love his position, but he layed it out in a very ham-fisted way. It would have been nice if he'd shown a little bit more passion in opposing the foreign policy disaster in Iraq.
Rahm Emanuel on Chris Matthews right now. God, he's terrible. He's trying to spin the capitulation, but he's doing badly at the explanation.
His arrogance and smugness ooze through the screen. I am sure if it was up to him and him alone, he would have given in a long time ago.
The problem is that obvious, transparent spin doesn't work with the Democratic base. We're the party of critical thinkers.
It's Republicans who readily gobble up all the bullshit served by their elders.
Exactly. It's the nature of left of center to question things. Rahm wants to run the Democratic Party like it's the Republican Party. But it won't work because of what you said.
...just how morally bankrupt a person has to be to actually WANT this war to continue (as opposed to supporting it out of political calculation).
I get that creepy vibe from Rahm, all right...
Check out the video of him with the California blogosphere -- he went in-depth.
Dodd is moving up in my esteem.
I may replace my usual 3rd place "no clue" with Dodd in the polls.
how primary campaigns turn frontrunners into centrists and third-tier candidates into progressives. Edwards is the exception, a frontrunner who's running a progressive campaign.
Anyhoo, good for Dodd. What do we think Obama and Clinton are going to do?
Don't know what Obama will do (you never know what Obama will do), but I see Clinton quietly counting the votes, and when the supplemental safely passes, she'll heave a sigh of relief and cast her bold and courageous vote against it. To keep those 90% liberal-voting numbers up, you know, just like Lieberman's.
Clinton will vote whichever way Obama votes. Her campaign's overriding goal is to ensure there's no daylight between her and Obama. Remember last week when Obama announced the day before the vote that he'd support Reid-Feingold...and then Clinton announced her support less than an hour later?
If I was Obama, I'd wait until the actual vote...so that Clinton wouldn't be able to play "me too". It would be very powerful distinction if they voted differently.
Over at My Left Nutmeg we're keeping a running tally on where the Connecticut delegation stands on the blank check supplemental.
So far, in addition to Dodd, Chris Murphy (CT-05) is reportedly voting against it. Joe Courtney (CT-02) is reportedly on the fence. Both are freshman.
All four CT Democratic Reps voted for the McGovern legislation.
Any other state blogs doing a similar tally?
And Dodd helped out Ned Lamont against Lieberman, while the rest of CT's Congressional delegation hid.
I was under the impression that Chris Murphy supported Lamont? At least I got an email from Lamont asking me to contribute to his campaign. He didn't mention Farrell or Courtney. John Larson I know campaigned for Lamont.
Look, if you're going to filibuster anything in your Senate tenure, how about filibustering the "2007 Murdering Our Troops Supplemental"?
Oh, but that would force senators to vote for war. Exactly the point. If you're not willing to stand up and be counted like a patriot in sending troops to their deaths, to say that it's a good cause that's worth their sacrifice, then you have no business drawing a Senate paycheck. It's your damn job, senators.
He can try...but there clearly aren't enough votes to sustain one (i.e. 41 votes). Reid-Feingold only got 29.
First of all, you need 60 votes for cloture. The number 41 (or 40, or 39...) has no meaning. To stop a filibuster requires 60 votes.
Abstentions don't count. Absentee senators (like Tim Johnson and perhaps John McCain) don't count. It requires 60 senators to stand up and be counted, by name, that they want to continue this war. And mathematically that would require a significant number of Democrats: at least 10.
So who are the 10+ Democrats who want more brave troops to die for a war that our own general says is militarily unwinnable? Let's find out. In the meantime, how about if Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd filibuster the old fashioned way: by reading the names of each of our fallen soldiers on the floor of the Senate, along with a biography of each. Invite the families of each fallen soldier to the Senate gallery if they wish to visit.
Let's get it on.
These are nice words, but they mean nothing if not coupled with action. As one Senator, he doesn't have many weapons at his disposal, but he can start a filibuster and see who joins him. If he doesn't he's another gasbag who is willing to acquiesce in more war for his own political convenience.
I won't get my hopes up just yet -- we've been thrown too many meatless bones by the party leadership at this point -- but I will say I'll suggest that our Democratic Central Committee has added a new question when interviewing potential candidates: "What is your assessment of the Dems' performnace in the Iraq supplemental bill?"
It'll make a good weeder.
He's rapidly becoming my second choice after John Edwards.
Here's John Edwards' statement today on the capitulation to Bush:
"The so-called compromise under discussion in Congress that would give the president another blank check to continue his failed war is a serious mistake. Full funding is full funding, no matter what you call it. Every member of Congress who wants to support our troops and end the war should oppose this proposal. If you're in Congress, and you believe this war is wrong, I urge you to use every power you have to stop it if it's brought up for a vote. Block the blank check.
And I urge all Americans who want this war to end to tell your representatives in Congress that you will support them if they stand up to the president. Tell them you understand that when the president vetoes a bill that funds the troop and ends the war, he is the only person in America stopping support for the troops. It is time for this war to end. As I have said repeatedly, Congress should send the president the same bill he vetoed again and again until he realizes he has no choice but to start bringing our troops home. Anything less is everything he needs to prolong the war."
Looks like silence so far from Obama and Clinton.
I agree. Dodd has always looked good and this was an excellent move. There is a profound difference between coming out against the bill immediately (as he & Edwards have done), and waiting to see how the numbers shape up before committing. Hillary was always going to make a purely political calcualtion. I had hoped that Obama would actually take a principled stand but alas it doesn't appear that way. I kind of want my 50 dollars back.
and IMHO, the smart thing to do politically for Obama is to keep silent until the actual vote. More detail upthread.
Obama is going to vote no as well. That's the word.
Or is it just a rumor?
Based on his recent statements and vote on the Gregg resolution, among other things?
Given his anti-war cred and the fact that he was right about the war to begin with, it doesn't seem too hard to answer. Basically, "I think we need to leave responsibly, but I'm fed up." Clinton has a much tougher decision.
(and national cable stations) calls out Obama and Clinton. You can view it here at the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland:
http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDia ry.do?diaryId=290
My Rep (D) and both my Senators (D & R) and gave 'em a piece of my mind!
If Feingold filibusters this, I think the religious left might replace their crosses with little Russ-shaped necklaces. He is a hero.
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
