Comments on: 7 GOP Senators Quickly Shift Stand On Iraq Debate (UPDATED)

By: Upinsmoke

Upinsmoke — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:49:34 +0000

And I have noticed over the last 12 years of so a politcal shift that has to be a bit distressing to liberals and conservatives alike

Democrats are tending toward Fiscal responsibility. (Balanced budgets, smaller government) because it seems to be what the people want. While the Republicans under the NeoConservative movement are trending toward bigger government, more social programs(prescription drugs for seniors)and less fiscal responsibility.

Its trully amazing to watch this transformation and I’ve often wondered if Im the only one seeing it.

By: Upinsmoke

Upinsmoke — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:46:01 +0000

What we have here is the beginning of the new NEOLIBERAL movement……lol. I can see it now.

Republicans aligning themselves with democrats and forming a new political thinking. Just like Democrats aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and formed the New NEOCONSERVATIVE movement.

Its fascinating to watch this transformation taking place.

By: mw

mw — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:09:05 +0000

My take. I think Warner, Hagel, and the “gang of 7″ sincerely wanted to get to a 60 plurality on a resolution. Even if they all voted for cloture, they did not have enough Republicans. So they backed off when asked, played ball to get a few more votes and put it on the leaders plate to get it done. Essentially saying – “we’ll stay in line for this vote, on the expectation that you are going to work it out.” The leadership let them down, they are pissed, and there is no tether anymore. They are “open loop” from this point and no longer manageable by the leadership of either party. Should be fun to watch.

The most interesting bit was the exchange between Lieberman, Hagel and Warner on Monday about “non-binding resolutions”. My YouTube take on it here. Warning – Rated M for Mature Language

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:35:36 +0000

Thanks, PatMHV, for explaining it much better than I could. And as you point out, most of the bloggers who portrayed this in a misleading way must know exactly what they were doing because they understood it perfectly when the GOP was in the majority.

By: PatHMV

PatHMV — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:58:45 +0000

There was plenty of debate. There were just no votes. Every media person, blogger, and other pundit who claims that the Republicans, by voting against cloture (which is, by definition, an end to debate), were instead cutting off debate is grossly misleading their readers. Most are being hypocritical, as any number of solid bloggers have pointed out, because they called Republican efforts to overcome Democratic filibusters efforts to “stifle” debate by invoking cloture.

Cloture is ending debate, whether done by Democrats or by Republicans. In this case, Republicans voted against cloture, and therefore in favor of more debate. They wanted to discuss other resolutions. The Democrats did not want to discuss or even get close to voting on any of the other resolutions, so they tried to forestall that debate by invoking cloture, which would have allowed them to hurry up and vote on their preferred solution without having to actually debate any of the Republican proposals.

What utter, rank hypocrisy, by so many.

By: kritter

kritter — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:34:44 +0000

Gray- CS and I have only agreed about 2 or 3 times since we’ve been commenting here- usually we are diametrically opposed,, lol.

I’m not criticizing Reid- I thought it was the only thing he could have done. If that amendment had been put to a vote, a lot of Democrats would have felt pressured to vote for it,imo, because they do not want to go into ’08 looking like they only back the troops with words, but not with action.

Lessons learned from Vietnam. Once the Dems defunded that war, all were tarred with the “McGovern peacenik” brush, even though in all likeliehood the money would have only been spent on a lost cause. I did feel that we should have done a lot more to help the South Vietnamese escape Ho Chi Minh’s genocide, though.

By: Gray

Gray — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:15:09 +0000

“Hallelujah, Kim, we found something we agree on!”
Congratulations!

At least I’m still here so to provide a diferent view. Not that we run out of comments we can disagree on!
ggg

By: Gray

Gray — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:12:55 +0000

“No, I donâ€™t think this explanation is fitting.”
Strike this sentence, it’s just another evidence of my lousy skills as my own editor…

By: Gray

Gray — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:11:51 +0000

“Reid did not want the Gregg amendment which says no funds will be cut off for the troops in the field to pass the Senate.”
Imho this isn’t Reid’s motive. The Gregg amendment is almost unacceptable for Dem seantors, because it would limit their chances to nfluence Bush’s decions. It’s very improbable it would have got a majority, not to speak of 60 votes. News reporting about 70 possible votes is just hot air, republican spin, there’s nothing that would support this guess.

No, I don’t think this explanation is fitting. Imho Reid wasn’t very much interested in compromise because the price was to high (McConnel deliberately made it so), and because he knew that the filibuster would hgive only a short timed propaganda victory for the WH, but a solid advantage for Dems in 2008. The seven Senators, who come out of the closet now and voice their concerns, simply show they are totally aware they pay a high price for the WH orchestration of this kabuki theatre and try to limit its negative impact.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:03:18 +0000

Hallelujah, Kim, we found something we agree on! LOL

By: kritter

kritter — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:54:26 +0000

CS is mostly correct. McConnell did not want a resolution criticizing the surge to pass the Senate, Reid did not want the Gregg amendment which says no funds will be cut off for the troops in the field to pass the Senate. So we ended up with no debate. Saying they tried will not be enough for angry anti-war constituents who will not accept that there wasn’t even a debate on the floor on these resolutions. The 7 GOP Senators who are vulnerable in ’08 are aware of this.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:21:46 +0000

Both sides are stalling because this way they can posture as though their side wants to debate but the other side is obstructing the discussion. Politically that is what the party leaders want because they can portray to their constituents that they “tried” while also delaying so that they don’t have to be on record with an actual position on opposing the surge (only a few GOP senators would benefit from such a position) or from actually saying that they’d cut off funding (only a few Democratic senators would benefit from taking that position). So, both Reid and McConnell found it was in their party’s best interest to stall, and the seven senators who wrote the letter are calling BS on them.

By: Gray

Gray — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:33:04 +0000

While I generally hold Steve Clemons thoughtful comments and his insider informations in high esteem, here you’re right, Joe! Good job in pointing this out.

By: Shaun Mullen

Shaun Mullen — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:23:45 +0000

People like myself who are deeply engaged in and concerned about the conduct of the war are horrified at the “show” that the party leaderships put on over the non-binding resolution on Monday, but we should not be surprised.

The Inside the Beltway air that these people breathe is a political nitrous oxide and it makes them “silly” in untimely and utterly inappropriate ways.

By: The Seven Dwarves : Left Flank

The Seven Dwarves : Left Flank — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:24:21 +0000

[...] Joe Gandelman sounds like he’s on a witchhunt: [...]