More congressional theater on Iraq: the Senate’s all-nighter
Surprise, surprise! The Senate pulled an all-nighter, but the Democratic leadership failed to garner enough votes to change anything in Iraq.
That “surprise, surprise” comment of mine was, of course, sarcastic, because it could not possibly have come as a surprise to Reid and company that they lacked the sixty votes necessary to force the proposed movement on the issue of troop withdrawal.
But actually succeeding was probably not the point for the Democrats; if they did, they might start looking a lot worse than they do now—although that’s bad enough—when the withdrawal becomes real (and dirty) rather than imaginary (and clean).
The Democrats have gone forward and put antiwar bill after antiwar bill to the vote, hoping perhaps for the magic formula to reach that all-important number: sixty. But so far the math just won’t parse.
That hasn’t stopped the flow of bills, however, because the secondary agenda (or come to think of it, maybe it’s the primary one, after all) is to force members of Congress to go on record as pro or con, and also to pressure Bush (or to get the Republicans to pressure him) into making concessions.
Perhaps that latter goal has now been abandoned as impossible; I’ve written here about how little likelihood there is of its ever happening. Whether you love Bush or hate him, or are somewhere in between, you have to admit the guy stubbornly sticks to his guns.
But, according to Harry Reid, this latest Senatorial pajama party (including cots and pizza–sounds like fun!—as well as toothpaste, toothbrushes, and deodorant) had another goal. In addition to showing the Democrat antiwar base the Party has their interests at heart, “[I]t will focus attention on the obstructionism of the Republicans.”
Of course, it also focuses attention on the willingness of the Democrats to push for what Republican Orrin Hatch called the “political abandonment . . . of the biggest threat we face of the 21st century.”
So, which Republicans abandoned their “obstructionist” ways last night and joined up with the Democrats? Here’s the list: Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Gordon Smith (Ore.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine).
Not exactly news. Hagel and Smith have a long history of joining with the antiwar crowd, and Mainers Snowe and Collins (Collins is billed as the “surprise” vote) are hardly an astonishing duo to join the Dems. Understand that Maine—a state I know quite a bit about—is hardly Republican any more, despite its two Republican Senators. Both Snowe and Collins are RINOS—as well they might be, because otherwise they could never be re-elected, much less elected in the first place.
The rock-ribbed Republicanism of Maine is long gone. In recent years it has joined virtually all of New England in the solidly Democratic ranks on both the state and the national level (see this and this). Snowe and Collins may indeed be sincere in their alliance with antiwar Democrats, but it is also in their own political interests (Collins is up for re-election in 2008) to officially go on record as doing so.
These four are hardly typical of Republican lawmakers. Nor do they represent the persuasive powers of Democratic rhetoric. Bush isn’t the only stubborn one, apparently; both parties are hanging tough in their respective positions.
[ADDENDUM: See this for another example of Bush’s stubbornness–or his steadfastness.]
Great post! The cots and bedding were for political consumption only – got to signal to the base that the retreatists are on the job!
Have a great day!
Pingback:Wake up America-Dems IGNORE Vets from Iraq
Love the fact that Reid called on the dems to “stay all night, if need be” and then bailed himself at midnight.
It’s no wonder that Congress has a lower approval rating than the President. When one considers the necessary work that should be done domestically, this hopeless charade just stinks.
stumbley: One thing you can say for Bush, he’s been lucky in his domestic enemies. The Democratic leaders of today are a sorry group, and Reid is one of the sorriest of them all.
Pingback:University Update - Chuck Hagel - More congressional theater on Iraq: the Senate’s all-nighter
Let’s suppose for a moment that the Democrats’ winning control of Congress was, as some claim, a signal from the around 60% of Americans who favor troop reductions or removal in Iraq.
Given that the President and Republicans have thwarted any such attempts, why would we expect anything *but* disapproval of Congress?
On the other hand, let’s suppose that the democrats’ winning control of Congress was a signal from rank and file Republicans that the base was dissatisfied with its performance on immigration, earmarks, Abramoff and other issues. That would also explain the low rating, without necessarily supporting the anti-war view, wouldn’t it?
“that the base was dissatisfied with its (Congress’) performance…
PIMF.
I was talking with a friend today about the vacuum behind the Democratic calls for withdrawal. Unlike the Republicans, who constantly talk about (a) the threat of worldwide jihad if we pull out; (b) the risk to Iraqis themselves if we pull out; and (c) the long term benefits, both in Iraq and vis a vis jihadist terrorism if we stay in, the Democrats never talk about anything beyond the day of withdrawal. All they can imagine is turning back the clock to the day before the Iraq invasion. Their unspoken belief is that, if we do that, the jihadists will themselves retreat and make nice with us forever after.
The Democrat viewpoint inverts and ignores a few things. First, while 3,600 American soldiers have given their lives for our freedom, the fact remains that it took 4 years for the jihadists to snuff out those lights. Before we got into Iraq, on 9/11, it took the jihadists three hours to snuff out almost as many people. And since we’ve been in Iraq, there have not been any attacks on American civilians, barring contractors who have operated within the theater of war.
Additionally, during this same period, jihadist attacks have escalated, not just against Britain which is our ally, but against all sorts of other people who have nothing to do with Iraq (attacks in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Russia spring to mind).
In other words, despite Democratic rhetoric, as to both Americans and many other nations, there is no corollary between increased jihadist violence and involvement (or lack of involvement) in Iraq.
The Dems’ posturing therefore is especially despicable because it’s selling a bill of goods to credulous Americans who are not tightly tied into the news and have not realized that (a) American civilian risk peaked before we entered Iraq and (b) worldwide civilian risk from jihadists in countries unaffiliated with the Iraq war continues to escalate dramatically.
Pingback:False posturing in Congress « Bookworm Room
Maine may make a comeback one of these days. After moving to Maine from Georgia a few years back, the temptation to refer to the state as one of the People’s Republics is overwhelming. But I have found that a good number of people are right of center, but as the left controls the debate with the usual mechanics, moderate to right of centers are cowed into silence…most of the time.
In our little town in the mid coast, the angry lefties are left sputtering when they figure out that their monopoly is being challenged, and they are beside themselves when someone actual introduces facts, logic, and reasoning into the debate. Oh, they still rely upon – let’s face it – mendacity to make their points, but it is entertaining to watch them talk themselves into a rhetorical box canyon.
But you’re right, Snowe and Collins are RINOs in the purest sense…however, if you were privy to their opposing Democratic candidates, you would have the surreal experience of actually appreciating the fact that they represent the state. The alternative? Much, much worse.
Snowe and Collins aren’t too bad. So long as you pull their particular strings, they understand what going along to get along means.
I would welcome your analysis, Neo, of how formerly staunchly rock-ribbed New England turned to the Left. I recall the 1st black member of the US Senate, from MA, was a Repub!
pollingreport.comStumbley wrote:
“…let’s suppose that the democrats’ winning control of Congress was a signal from rank and file Republicans that the base was dissatisfied with its performance on immigration, earmarks, Abramoff and other issues.”
On the other hand, let’s acknowledge that every major recent poll shows that Iraq is the public’s top concern, and that according to at least one, that Congress make “significant changes in U.S. policy in Iraq” was considered:
Extremely important: 40%
Very Important: 37%
Somewhat Important: 15%
Not Important at all: 7%
Unsure: 2%
That being the case, inaction by Washington on Iraq could conceivably account for not only Congress’ low rating but also Bush’s historic low as well.
I for one would like to hear of a poll in which people were asked whether they had heard of the Anbar Salvation Council, whether they knew that a large group of militants had abandoned al Quaeda and joined the government, whether they knew that X number of enemy fighters and Y number of bomb labs had been captured or destroyed, etc. Especially important would be to frame it in terms of the improvement since last December.
Getting into the debate hard numbers about public ignorance enforced by the MSM could only help.
“[the[public’s top concern…that Congress make significant changes in U.S. policy in Iraq”
IOW, the surge. Which wasn’t even in place before the very gasbags that screamed for it the loudest were already calling it a failure.
It doesn’t get any more transparent than that.
Polls can never provide a full enough picture to be adequate indicators of what the public wants, and determining war-time policy by a cynical pruning of what they say is the road to disaster.
Pingback:state analysis and control room
Hello…Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts ! it was a great Thursday .