home

Obama, Wanna Clarify Your Statements? Endorse the Reid-Feingold Bill

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:21:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Cult of Obama is screeching at the criticism their hero is receiving. He can fix it with one statement.

I endorse the Reid-Feingold bill. I am co-sponsoring the Reid-Feingold bill.

How hard is that? Apparently, it is too hard for Senator Barack Obama at this time. Till then, the Obama Cult needs to suck it up.

As Senators, what makes Senator Obama different than Senator Hillary Clinton? Nothing.

Any top tier Presidential candidate want to prove their mettle? Endorse the Reid-Feingold bill.

P.S. Senator Harry Reid is NOT Dennis Kucinich. He is the leader of the Senate. This is the MAINSTREAM Democratic position now.

< Gators Win!! | March, Um, April Madness, Distaff >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama, Wanna Clarify Your Statements? Endorse the Reid-Feingold Bill | 33 comments (33 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    yep nt (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:22:00 PM EST


    Yep yep (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:26:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Quite! (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:23:27 PM EST
    meanwhile, did you know you were a c-list blogger?

    WTF does that mean? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:24:49 PM EST
    How about the A-list of Kos?

    How about the B-List of Jerome Armstrong?

    Seriously, why do you talk to idiots like that?

    Parent

    I'm naturally contrary? n/t (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:33:33 PM EST


    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:39:19 PM EST


    Parent
    sounds like an L-list commentator to me (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:27:03 PM EST
    L for loser.

    Parent
    It also just occurs to me (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:54:50 PM EST
    Do you suppose that Reid intentionally did this while Pelosi was on the other side of the world?

    did kerry co-sponsor? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by conchita on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:00:07 AM EST
    can't find any press on it, but i saw it in the advertize liberally headlines.  anybody able to confirm?

    According to AP... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by LarryE on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 04:29:18 AM EST
    ...Kerry is a co-sponsor.

    Parent
    A great day. Gators win [who cares] and (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:00:26 AM EST
    Feingold is prevailing where it really matters.

    The Gators must have won ;) (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 08:54:44 AM EST
    P.S. Senator Harry Reid is NOT Dennis Kucinich. He is the leader of the Senate. This is the MAINSTREAM Democratic position now.

    Anybody up for live blogging the Prez's remarks coming on at 10:10 am from the Rose garden?

    He says he's going to veto (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 09:25:01 AM EST


    Parent
    Senate Kabuki, Act II? (4.00 / 1) (#15)
    by mentaldebris on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:29:52 AM EST
    Reid spokesman Jim Manley said if legislation to cut off funding for the war fails, Reid will try again with the hopes of getting new supporters. "It is the next in a series of steps to try to ratchet up the pressure to try to get the administration to change its policies," he said. The bill to cut off funds for the war would likely be introduced as standalone legislation and would not be tied to the supplemental spending bill, Manley said.

    I might be wrong but this sounds an awful lot like more kabuki theater coming from the Senate. All sound and fury signifying nothing. (Well, except good PR, but nothing in terms of concrete legislation getting us out the Iraq.)

    If it's a standalone bill, if it is not tied to the money (and purse strings are all they have) doesn't that insure that it's doomed to go down in flames? And what of the supplemental? Strip the pork? Strip the timeline? Give Bush what he wants in the end?

    It makes me wonder if this is merely an instance of Obama accidentally signaling the real plan. (Reid: Shhh, shhh, that's supposed to be a surprise, Obama. Jeez.") Clumsy political misstep on Obama's part, but I do wonder where he may have gotten the idea.

    Me? I'm still waiting to see what ends up transpiring here. I'm still determinedly cynical, hoping I'm wrong. But I hate being played, Harry.  I really do.

    IOW, BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by mentaldebris on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:59:30 AM EST
    You were right. I suspect we're going to be right back where you'd said we'd be when this thing finally goes down.

    While Reid holds up Feingold's shiny new legislation as a distraction (it's working), I wouldn't be surprised at all if capitulation isn't in the works.

    Of course, I could be wrong.

    Parent

    I only heard the news, but... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by manys on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:36:48 AM EST
    I thought the whole idea was that this is the bill that's going to be introduced if Bush vetoes the existing Supplemental plan. That is, yes it's tied to money.

    Parent
    It is... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by LarryE on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 04:40:25 AM EST
    ...tied to the money. It's supposedly going to be a stand-alone bill, but it would cut off funds for combat operations as of March 31, 2008.

    The thing I found encouraging - while maintaining my doubts about follow-through - is that Reid's office said that they don't expect the bill to pass but if it doesn't he's going to bring it up again (and, I gather, again, etc.) because they expect that as time goes on and people get more and more fed up with the war, they'll get more and more support.

    Consider that a lot of us here would have liked to have seen a vote on the Lee amendment to the House version of the supplemental. It would not have passed. Period. But it would have established a baseline of support that could reasonably be expected to grow over time so the next version would get more votes, and so on.

    Parent

    From Americablog, emphasis mine. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by dkmich on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 05:40:58 AM EST
    This is quite a little bombshell from the weekend talk shows:

    NBC's ANDREA MITCHELL: I think the Republicans are going to crack. What I've been told from inside the moderate center of the Republican caucus is that the vote in favor of the president this week -- it was against the president but the Republicans holding for the president -- was misleading. That they really are not in favor of the surge. They don't believe it's going to work. But they basically said the president has until August, until Labor Day. After that, if it doesn't work, they're running.

    The Democrats simply need to hold firm. Eventually, and far before the 2008 elections, the congress, the president and the American people are all going to be screaming for a withdrawal, and the Democrats will be credited for being the only party to have injected any sanity or truth into this debate.



    Parent
    Obama (3.00 / 2) (#9)
    by annie58 on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:58:37 PM EST
    Obama is a total invention of the media.  He should never have entered the race at this time.  His money is coming from Hillary haters and republicans.  Harold Ford would have been a better minority candidate.  Obama is just an empty suit.  It is more and more apparent.

    Oh please (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:03:05 AM EST
    Obama is having a bad week and his messaging is out of whack. Concern trolling isn't helpful.

    Parent
    Wasn't Ford a Blue Dog when in Congress? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by cal11 voter on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 08:48:53 AM EST
    Hardly a better position on the Iraq War IMHO.

    Parent
    All this is (2.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jacortina on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    is a repeat submission of S. J. Res. 9 (which was stonewalled last month; failed to get 60 for cloture).

    This is NOT a new bill in any way shape or form.

    [And, yes, Obama signed on as a co-sponsor of S. J. Res. 9].

    And if it is true (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:20:15 AM EST
    Obama should co-sponsor this bill right?

    Hold your breath.

    Parent

    That is false (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:19:28 AM EST
    You do not have your facts straight at all.

    The first casualty of an Obama sycophant, the truth.

    Parent

    Which part (2.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jacortina on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    Check here:
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=sj110-9

    Or here:
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.j.res.00009:

    Directs the President to begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of this joint resolution with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number essential for protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.

    Are you saying that this is a significantly different piece of legislation?

    Or are you denying that Obama is listed as a co-sponsor?

    Parent

    Am am denying it is the same bill (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:59:23 AM EST
    You obama supporters need to understand that putting a date in a bill means nothing.

    NOt funding past the date is thing.

    So stick to the facts.

    IF you are against NJOT funbding the iraq Debacle, as Obama apoparently is, then defend your position.

    Empty words that mean nothing, the ones Obama is offering, will be called exactly that.

    Ignorance is no defense.

    Parent

    No it isn't a defense (none / 0) (#32)
    by jacortina on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:01:01 AM EST
    So show me the the language of the bill you're touting that is different.

    Parent
    I wrote a post on it (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:10:24 AM EST
    right on this very front page.

    Scroll down a few posts.

    Heck, I have written 6 million posts on it.

    Parent

    No it isn't (none / 0) (#34)
    by jacortina on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    That's not the text of a bill.

    Just how does it make it "illegal" to submit a supplemental funding request 6 months from now or 12 months from now or whenever. I'd be interested in seeing the actual legislative language that does this.

    As you said 'stick to the facts' and show me.

    Show me the language that limits those 'exceptions' the Decider-in-Chief can claim for allowable troops remaining.

    Stick to the FACTS. Or, don't you know them, yet?

    Than you really shouldn't be telling anyone else about 'truth' or about not having their facts straight.

    'Ignorance is no excuse', remember.

    Parent

    Yes it is (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:51:06 AM EST
    That desriobes the text of the bill.

    I will not waste anymore time with you.

    You havbe not even the grasp of the mostbasic points on the issue.

    Enjoy your day.

    Parent

    Reality (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jarober on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:13:19 AM EST
    Obama has apparently visited the reality zone.  You should try it

    I want to like the guy. (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:21:45 AM EST
    He should help me out.

    Parent
    I wish he would help us out too. (4.66 / 3) (#20)
    by dkmich on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 05:37:21 AM EST
    By default, Obama is my Plan B. So far, all I see is a pretty face, pretty smile, and pretty words.

    Parent
    Obama, Wanna Clarify Your Statements? Endorse the Reid-Feingold Bill | 33 comments (33 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment