This is a class blog for the students of POLSCI 426: Congressional Politics at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
A Three Way Split
There seems to be a three way split in congress on what to do about the war in Iraq. Some of the democrats that we are against the idea of passing a bill that would put a time limit on the fundind available to the troops in that are still in Iraq. Some of the democrats want to take away the funding and some now are leaning away from that approach.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(218)
-
▼
February
(60)
- A Three Way Split
- Rice: Congress Shouldn't Micromanage War
- Will Gore Run for President after his Oscar Nod?
- Govenors See Influence Wane In Race For Presidency
- CLINTON SEES ROLE FOR HUSBAND
- Supreme Court Possible Veto Actor in Iraq Resolution
- June Vote Set for Ga. Congressional Seat
- Eye to the Telescope.
- Vilsack Out.
- Democratic Senate Majority in Jeopardy?
- Pelosi tattles on Cheney
- Where did the issues go?
- Committee approves 'informed consent' abortion bill
- Committee approves 'informed consent' abortion bill
- McCain wants to overturn Roe v Wade
- The Hot Ticket in Hollywood: An Evening With Obama
- WI student lobbies in Washington for more funding
- Free Trade? At What Cost?
- Senate Gridlocks on Iraq War Resolution
- Senate Belatedly Passes Spending Bill for 2007
- Petri Breaks With GOP on Iraq
- House set to OK tax package worth $1.8B
- Live from MN, it's Al Franken for Senate!
- Senate Coalition Prevents Different Median Vote
- War at Home: Bush and the Debate
- Falwell, Robertson, and Miscellaneous nutjobs
- McCain Tries To Make Amends With Christian Conserv...
- Pact With North Korea Draws Fire From a Wide Range...
- California Senate votes to move presidential prima...
- what life is more important-- a baby or a chicken
- Australian leader: Al-Qaida wants Obama
- States and U.S. at Odds on Aid for Uninsured
- War at Home: In the People’s House
- Former Pentagon official defends report on Iraq, a...
- Congressional Circumvention of Lobbying Laws
- Committee chairman: Homeland protected 'on the cheap
- Advice for Hillary from one of the greatest politi...
- Wait...There was no conclusive link between Osama ...
- Pelosi and the Plane
- To the highest bidder goes the Presidency
- Global warming ethics, pork and profits
- Going the Way of the Buffalo...Social Security
- Run, Al, Run
- Giuliani Announces He's In '08 Presidential Race
- Smoking Ban in Shorewood Defeated
- Bush sends $2.9 trillion plan to Congress
- House to Take Up Iraq Resolution Debate
- Wash. initiative would require married couples to ...
- PA Senator abuses Non-Profit
- A Presidential Also-Ran, Kerry Adjusts to What Pas...
- Groundhog Day
- McCain blasts 'vote of no confidence'
- Senate Hearing on Congressional War Cessation
- Minimum wage bill heads to negotiations
- US Congress debates rebuke Bush on Iraq
- "Duke-stir" Not Sunk Enough...Yet.
- "Duke-stir" Not Sunk Enough...Yet.
- Doyle calls on congress to pass stem cell legislation
- Speaker Pursues military flights
- Biden Unwraps ‘08 Bid With an Oops!
-
▼
February
(60)
3 comments:
I think that the three way split shows just how controversial the war in Iraq is, not even the democrats. Some want to pull out, some do not and some want to place restrictions - what is the best way to respond? In a situation like this there needs to be some sort of compromise between the members of the party to try to accomplish the goals or else they will not be able to change the status quo due to not being able to achieve a majority vote.
I agree that this split shows the controversy of the Iraq war. I also would like to point out that although many politicians have strong views on the war, not many are making an effort to directly do anything about it. Non-binding resolutions show to democrats that this is a person they can vote for because they do not support the war, if thats how they too feel. To me this is an example of politicians showing vulnerability, because they dont want to make any drastic decisions, one way or the other, that would cause them to lose their position. For example, many say they are against the war but have made no direct effort to cut off funding, because what if they do that, morale of troops will plumet, and if the dems decide to end our influence in the war, and the war moves to America with terrorism and who knows what else may escalate, it will be completely their fault. So in turn, they will continue to verbally not support the war, but do very little about it. Smart political move to protect their career. Many politicians will not take a controversial side because of this re-election factor.
I wish that this kind of debate and planning would have gone into whether or not the US invaded Iraq. Then we probably wouldn't be in this mess of how exactly to get out.
Post a Comment