home

Dodd To Vote No On Iraq Supplemental

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:45:16 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Sen. Chris Dodd, who I am supporting for President, to vote NO on Iraq Supplemental:

Update [2007-5-23 21:17:56 by Big Tent Democrat]: Jerome Armstrong says Obama will vote no but there is nothing offical on that. Hillary is undecided. But if Obama goes no, so will Hillary. A real chance to make lemonade out of this lemon is developing. Meteor Blades reports that at least 150 Dems in the House will vote No. This will be a Republican bill. But I think it illustrates my point, the way to end this is by NOT funding after a date certain. Make Reid-Feingold-McGovern the Dem position and lay out the date when Dems will not vote for the Iraq Debacle.

< Mary Cheney Delivers Baby Boy | Harkin Introduces Bill to Close Guantanamo >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dodd To Vote No On Iraq Supplemental | 11 comments (11 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Good. Senator Kerry says he is voting (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:48:10 PM EST
    no too.  

    I'm thinking this will pass (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:50:37 PM EST
    mostly with Republican votes.

     It occurs to me that it might fail in the House because of an unusual alliance between Dems opposed to funding the war and Republicans opposed to raising the minimum wage.

    optimism ? you're banned! ;) (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by seabos84 on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:02:36 PM EST
    of course, if it failed I'd be perfectly happy, and part of me wouldn't care what the reasons were.

    optimism ... like watching Dukakis lose? or gore, or kerry ... or waiting for our vaunted Dem Congress to do something ...  

    ugh. where are my rolaids.

    I think I'll stick with anticipating the stupidiest, worst, most corrupt, most short sighted, idiotic policies possible

    and at least I don't get bummed out.

    rmm.

    Parent

    This could truly illustrate my point (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:07:12 PM EST
    NOT funding after a date certain is howe we do this.

    We can;t enact bills over Bush's veto, but if enough vote NO, this could be a great illustration of my point.

    At the least, it becomes a Republican bill. And we can isolate the Dems who will cave on it.

    Parent

    If we get 171 and 29 no votes (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:17:34 PM EST
    it will be a start. In that case, we will probably be able to say that the Republicans funded the war, and Pelosi might just say "this is it; I'm not going to put my caucus and supporters through this anymore!"

    Parent
    Zactly! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:18:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama too slow, Dodd my # 2 (none / 0) (#7)
    by magster on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:30:01 PM EST
    BTD: You're making more sense every day. I still like Edwards b/c I think he's more electable in the general.  I've been rooting for Obama and Clinton because I think, all things being equal, it would be good for the country to have a woman or a black person be president. But all things aren't equal, 3400 dead Americans 200,000 - 600,000 dead Iraqis, more are refugees; Iraq is more important.


    Paging Senator Feingold (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ben Masel on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:40:50 PM EST
    Russ, I know you've been fantasizing a "Mr. Smith" filibuster at least since you were first elected to the Senate in 1992. This is the time.

    Get the floor Friday, and don't relinquish until Memorial Day. Read accounts by disabled Vets Saturday and Sunday, and on Monday, Memorial Day proper, obituaries from hometown papers.

    Those of your colleagues who go home will get an earful at the Parades, etc, and those who stay will be thinking about how they don't want you trapping them in Washington on future holiday weekends.

    McGovern? (none / 0) (#9)
    by diogenes on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:27:37 PM EST
    Since when is invoking the name of McGovern going to help democrats win anything?  If it weren't for watergate, McGovern would be a footnote in the history books.
    A lot of centrists like Obama because he is a centrist (unlike the 2007 version of Edwards) and because he is LIKABLE (unlike Hillary).  The last unlikable, polarizing person to win was NIXON-and he barely beat Humphrey despite Vietnam and then had the gift of running against McGovern.

    Ummm (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:35:22 PM EST
    The last unlikable, polarizing person to win was NIXON-and he barely beat Humphrey despite Vietnam and then had the gift of running against McGovern.

    George Bush was what?


    Parent

    You've got the Wrong McGovern (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:10:10 PM EST
    Do some minimal reading before you post, yeah?

    Parent
    Dodd To Vote No On Iraq Supplemental | 11 comments (11 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment