The Senate on Wednesday began its first formal debate on the Iraq war since Democrats took control of Congress, taking up a measure calling for President Bush to withdraw combat troops by the end of next March. The White House swiftly issued a veto threat.The 89-9 vote paved the way for consideration of the Democratic legislation, which would start troop withdrawals within four months and calls for—but does not require—the complete removal of combat troops by the end of March 2008.
Yet another look at the way congress votes and how important a veto actor is. Although overwhelming (89-9) would pass it, the president can veto it. I suggest that congress move their ideal preferences closer to something the president would actually approve and not veto.
This is a class blog for the students of POLSCI 426: Congressional Politics at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(218)
-
▼
March
(57)
- Rep. Dingell Balances Interests to Avoid Dingleberry
- karl rove rapping..for real at a fundraiser
- Senate Sets Stage For Iraq Face-Off
- Odds, Ends, and Misc. Things
- Comedian in Chief?
- House Democrats Tout Budget as Deficit-Reducing
- Edwards’s Cancer Has Spread Into One of Her Hips
- Democrats take another step forward in war legisla...
- McGee spends $10,185 to defend seat
- McCain's MySpace Page Hacked
- The March Madness Loophole
- My Fellow Americans: Pls Post a Comment!
- Congress Expands Scope of Inquiries Into Justice D...
- Democrats Pass Iraq Appropriations Bill
- A Brave New World of Political Skulduggery?
- need a partner
- 2008: March Money Madness
- White House issues veto threat on Iraq pullout bill
- "No" votes and not showing up to vote doesn't make...
- Just like a Broadway play, congressional hearings ...
- US legislation could set Iraq pullout date
- Dems Demand more Cash
- Hillary Invokes Proletarian Interests
- Hagel Stays Out of Presidential Race
- partner anyone?
- YouTube Sets Aside 'Channel' for Presidential Cand...
- The New Dean Political Plan
- Emanuel tells freshmen to avoid Stephen Colbert
- Democrat David Obey attacks "idiot liberals"
- Happy "Sunshine Week" Everybody!
- Veto players always get their way
- Legislator's love triangle implodes
- Dems to Russert, Wallace, and Sheiffer: You're on ...
- Dems optimistic about Iraq plan passage
- need a partner?
- Lantos Introduces Iran Sanctions Legislation
- Democrats Look to Scrap Spending Bill Riders
- Pelosi Reveals Who's Who On Global Warming Panel
- Paperless Ballot Ban
- Senators argue about Alberto Gonzales
- Ted Kennedy Talks: Do I Listen??
- Bush Asks Congress for Armed Forces Funding Shift
- Democrats’ Iraq Plan Draws Broad Support, Poll Shows
- House Dems Face Uphill Battle Over Iraq
- It's Like I'm On Crazy Pills or Something!
- Broad Support for Dems' Iraq Plan?
- Obama pays parking tickets...only took him 17 years
- Kohl pushes anti-trust issue
- Scooter Libby
- Two Freshmen Learn the Perils of Talking Too Much
- Senate to question Army on Walter Reed
- obama vs. hillary part 2393893
- Arizona's Other Senator Wants to Fix Leaks
- Children's Health Care on Agenda
- Democrats' plan: Meet goals or bring troops home
- Republicans United in Opposition?
- Democrats eye cuts to 2008 Iraq war request
-
▼
March
(57)
9 comments:
Why would the Democrats move their ideal points at this point in time? As political actors, they are concerned with their hides and their fellow party members more than they care about Bush's. According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, 67% of the American public disapproves of the war. All a Bush veto does is allows the Democrats in congress to say: "look, we tried, but Bush vetoed it. For change in Iraq, we need an ally in the White House in 2008."
Which once again proves...that Democrats care about how they look to the public rather than get things done. I agree that Democrats should not and wont move their ideal points, but they will not get anything done besides make statements, such as their nice little resolution. Personally, I think its cowardly but they are vulnerable politicians.
I would love to here your position on this topic if you had your way, ten years and thousands more dead troops later. Your claims of cowardice and "not supporting the troops if you don't support the war" are absolutely laughable on one hand and tragic in the other, tragic in the sense that you seem to see your self as an authority on the subject, but just like every other conservative, your gut and old fashioned ideals of virtue have lead you down a path of intolerable ignorance. Oh, and its not Democrats that care how they look to the public, its all politicians ..and the beloved get-R-done mentality which you seem to share with so many hicks and conservatives alike, has only caused this country countless and irreversible damage.
The correct use of the "its", as you use it, is "it's" and you made the mistake twice in your post. I will chalk it up to writting a response in haste and rush, after all, as you can see from my unedited posts, that I am no authority figure on grammar.
I hope you don't think that was a formidable rebuttal, each word you utter is as useless as the last...give me cancer now god!!!
Because so much time is being spent on non-binding resolutions (an example of “show horse” legislation because it accomplishes next to nothing), valuable floor time is taken away from more achievable and enforceable bills, such as minimum wage, health care, NAFTA, education, taxes, and Social Security (all of which have substantial potential to be subjects of tangibly effective “work horse” bills). The real gut check is when appropriations bills are voted upon, as controlling the funding is the only formidable way by which Congress can control the President’s war plans. For every massive antiwar demonstration, there are heavy machinery companies such as Lockheed Martin, as well as somewhat small but very vocal groups of ordinary citizens, who lobby Congress to continue funding the war in full. Until economic incentive for the war and for postwar occupation is sharply curtailed, even members of Congress who trumpet opposition to the war will continue to vote for sizable monies to be allocated to the war and occupation efforts, regardless of partisan ties.
hey j johnson what's your full name? I want to put a face to these comments.
Post a Comment