An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Debating the War: A Shameful Nine
Nine Republican senators voted today against allowing debate on the most pressing issue of our time — how to end the Iraq war.
The nine are:
Wayne Allard (Colorado)
Christopher Bond (Missouri)
Jim Bunning (Kentucky)
Tom Coburn (Oklahoma)
Jim DeMint (South Carolina)
Michael Enzi (Wyoming)
Orrin Hatch (Utah)
James Inhofe (Oklahoma)
Craig Thomas (Wyoming)
FYI, Republicrat Joe Lieberman sided with the all the Democrats and 40 Republicans who voted for debate.
More here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
23 Responses to “Debating the War: A Shameful Nine”
I don’t think the Senate should be debating it.
Why is that?
None of those are a surprise, the kookiest of the kooks. Only Hatch is non-doctrinaire, but not on this issue.
We’ll see if it’s actually “debate” as opposed to politcal grandstanding. Frankly I don’t hold out much hope for any cogent arguments if history is any guide.
The Republicans blocked a debate in the House introduced by Jones (R-NC) and cosponsored by Paul (R-TX) last year , grandstanding works both ways.
I never claimed it didn’t. Neither party has the market cornered on grandstanding, that’s for sure.
Shaun: were you in such a rush to vent that you just stopped counting at 8?
I’m scratching my head here. Shaun, the Yea votes are the ones who voted against additional debate. A vote to invoke cloture is a vote to end the debate and bring the resolution to a vote.
Of course those are all politically loaded terms anyway. When one side wants to avoid a vote on a resolution or bill they will frame it as “wanting to have an honest and open debate”, while if they’re position is better served by voting on the bill they will frame that as “wanting an up or down vote”. It’s all political theater.
All:
Read the fine print: The eight did not want to have a debate.
And stevesturm, thank you yet again for personalizing things.
CS – It was a cloture/closure vote.
Yes, Rudi, and a cloture vote means that debate is to be cut off. So as I pointed out, if you are going to say that anyone didn’t want debate, it would have to be the ones who voted Yea to invoke cloture.
If you don’t like the Nay votes, you could say that they didn’t want the measure to come to a vote (they were voting for filibuster) but to say that they didn’t want debate is just not accurate- at all.
Do we need to review here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture
So shaun has it exactly backwards in his original post. Those nine were essentially voting NOT to end debate. The vote he references is, like C Stanley says, a vote to take up the Iraq resolution for a vote, which has the side effect of ending debate on it.
Shaun, with all do respect, your post is entirely incorrect.
Cloture is meant to end a fillibuster. The nine Republicans were attempting a fillibuster, not to pursue debate. The Senate resolution to question the surge failed a cloture(end fillibuster debate). Last term, the Democrats were using a fillibuster to block judges, the Republicans were going to change the rules from 60 votes cloture to a simple majority.
This is how the New York Times put it:
“The path to a full debate was cleared this morning, when the Senate voted, 89 to 9, not to block it. But the vote, set up on Tuesday when Republicans announced that they would not exercise their rights to stall consideration of the measure, is by no means indicative of support for the actual resolution.”
Ah, Ok, I get it. I think it’s more fair to say those 9 Republicans don’t want a vote vs don’t want a debate, but it is political maneuvering either way. Here’s some added context from the Houston Chronicle:
“The Senate breakthrough came after Republicans abandoned demands for assurances that a debate on the war include consideration of various GOP proposals, including a resolution vowing to protect funding for troops. Fearful such a measure would undercut the anti-war message Democrats wanted, Senate Democrats had refused.
But confident the latest Democratic proposal would fail, Republicans agreed to let debate begin. Republicans have argued that Congress should give the troop increase Bush ordered in January time to work. Bush says the increase — 21,500 combat troops plus thousands of additional support troops — is needed to help stabilize Iraq, where U.S. forces are now commanded by Gen. David Petraeus.”
shaun: were you in such a rush to take another shot at me that you corrected only one of your two mistakes? And I’m only trying to help. Don’t you want your readers focusing on the substance of what you’re trying to say and not being distracted by simple typos and mistakes in counting?
stevesturm:
I throw myself at your feet. Please forgive me for I know not what I blog.
By my simple calculus, the Senate has at last engaged in a much needed debate on The Big Story, but all that eight . . . er, nine Republicans wanted to do is keep kicking sand.
(NOTE: Sorry if this is a double-post, but by previous post was terminated the instant I submitted it, making me doubt that I submitted it in the first place).
As someone who has been calling for an end to this ridiculous war from the very beginning, I obviously disagree with the nine Senators who thought it a wise decision to filibuster the vote against the war.
However, I think that some of the people criticizing these nine Senators are (perhaps unintentionally) being selective in their outrage against filibustering. I don’t understand why, when Democrats filibuster (i.e. on Bush district/appeal court nominees), it’s called “extending the debate” but when Republicans filibuster, it’s called “voting against debate.”
I am in complete agreement with Shaun in my opposition to these nine Senators using parlimentary tactics to prolong this war. However, I think Entropy has it exactly right when he says, “Shaun has it exactly backwards.”
If we want to be consistent and rely upon the same standard used as when Democrats used the filibuster, then we would have to agree that the nine Senators who filibustered are the ones who wish to prolong the debate–not cut it short, as Shaun argued.
All this, however, just goes to show how ridiculous it is for us to substitute the word “debate” rather than refering the actual names of the process–filibuster and cloture.
It is SO like the pundits and the media to use one set of standards for “their side” and a completely different set of standards for “the other side.” Whether its foreign policy, fiscal policy, social policy, or just plain parlimentary tactics, so many people are quick to change the rules when it’s politically convenient for them.
All of this is simply distracting from the matter at hand–THE WAR IN IRAQ. You either want it ended, or you want it to continue. All the talk about who’s undermining the troops and who’s voting against debate is irrelevant.
Let’s keep our eyes on the issue, people. The debate is about the war.
nicrivera: no arguments on much of your comment, but these 9 Senators aren’t prolonging the war. The whole debate is for show and whether there’s a filibuster or not, the troops aren’t coming home so long as Bush is President. It wouldn’t matter if all 435 Representatives and 100 Senators said they wanted Bush to pull the troops out, he wouldn’t do it.
And Shaun: the Senate debated the war. They said ok, go ahead, invade Iraq, get rid of Hussein, get rid of whatever WMDs Iraq has. Now, if what you want is a new debate, fine. But don’t think it will matter. It won’t.
One thing popped into my head when I hit the first name on the list:
Wayne Allard is retiring after this term. No need to worry about his re-election chances after this vote, particularly not in the Purple Mountains Electorate of Colorado.
Everyone else has 4-6 years left in their terms. So what are the odds that the Senate Minority Leader released his members to vote their own consciences?
Exactly.