Reid Watering Down Kennedy Anti-Escalation Legislation

[Ragin1]

http://edition.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/01/senate-to-debate-resolution-opposing.html

Senate to debate resolution opposing Iraq war
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Democratic-controlled Senate will begin considering a non-binding resolution next week opposing President Bush's new Iraq policy, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, announced Tuesday.

The resolution trumps an effort by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, to require President Bush to seek specific authorization before increasing troops in Iraq.

But Reid predicted the resolution with gain Republican support and will "do more to change the way in Iraq that any other thing that we can do."

"If there is a bipartisan resolution saying, 'we don't support the escalation of the war,' that the president's going to have to take note of that," Reid said. "I think that's the beginning of the end, as far as I'm concerned."

Reid said the resolution will be introduced next week but the full debate won't begin until at least the following week because the Senate will be debating an ethics reform bill.

[natrat]

1. thanks harry you wimp

[ellisonz]

8. Nice slander.

"If there is a bipartisan resolution saying, 'we don't support the escalation of the war,' that the president's going to have to take note of that," Reid said. "I think that's the beginning of the end, as far as I'm concerned."

What's your problem with that?

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. "...the president's going to have to take note of that..."

The pResident has not taken note of anything else congress has put before him he didn't like. Why would this be any different?

Going for bi-partisan support with the repukes = surrender to the repukes. We must present our case in the strongest possible terms, not throw some little 'we disapprove' at the pResident for him to ignore.

[ellisonz]

27. I disagree...

Reid is right. Please explain to me how Reid get's anything done with a 51-49 majority, and a weak one at that, without prying the GOP out of its collective malaise. You've got to remember what the Bushistas have done is totally unprecedented in American history, and my money is on the Senate reverting to its constitutional duties. We've got to seriously try to get the "moderate" GOPers to publicly jump ship. Either that or its going to be 60-40 come 2008. This is serious politics, not polemics.

Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Susan Collins (ME)
Chuck Hagel (NB)
John E. Sununu (R)
Gordon Smith (OR) - already has.
Arlen Specter (R)
Lindsey Graham (R)
John Warner (R)

If you pull these people into the fold (and I think we've got a shot at it), that may be 9 more votes down the road. Not enough to convict but certainly enough to put the remaining GOPers in a hard spot.

[jamesinca]

33. I think there is the Lieberman factor

That pro-war SOB will vote against it, so Reid needs to pick up 1-2 Repubs in order to get a simple majority. I think also putting up anti-war resolutions and then not being able to get a simple majority will only embolden the repubs. As much as I disagree with watering it down, I think it is a needed thing.

[fooj]

2. Thanks for NOTHING, Harry.

Anyone see the merit in this move? Is there something I am missing?

[madrchsod]

4. looks like a interesting move

set them up with a non binding then come back with a binding one- remember he was a boxer.we will see if that`s what he`s going to do in a few weeks

[paulk]

10. he's testing the water

More Republicans might be willing to sign on to a nonbinding resolution - that will send a message to Bush that he's losing the support of his party. If a binding resolution (especially one authored by Kennedy, who the RW hates) fails, then the Democrats will have lost a major round in this fight. And united the Republicans.

Reid probably has a better idea of the votes - whether a binding resolution will pass or not, than we do.

[geek tragedy]

6. They can always pass the Kennedy Bill or

withhold funding.

[katsy]

7. lieberman will not support this resolution.

I thought a couple of other Democratic senators said they wouldn't support it.

Maybe we can pick up a few repubics to make up for the blue dogs and the warmonger lieberman.

I don't know... maybe Reid is trying for some kind of victory rather than defeat. Not that I support it. Just trying to figure him out.

[Fridays Child]

3. Will somebody please slap Reid back to reality? Bush doesn't give a flying fuck...

...about non-binding resolutions. In fact, it's very nearly impossible to make him conform to the binding ones. But, at least, his violations of binding resolutions can set the stage for impeachment.

If Harry can't grow a permanent spine, I'll be forced to conclude that he's serving interests other than those of the American people.

[ellisonz]

11. Please stop punching the gift horse in the mouth.

:eyes:

[partylessinOhio]

5. Democratic leadership is really disappointing so far. Reid is whimpy.

We need a strong leader and then we need the Democrats to march lock step behind him just like the Repugs did behind * for the last six years just to throw the crap back in his face.

[ellisonz]

13. So you want the DNC to mirror the GOP?

Bollocks. Harry is doing a fine job in IMHO.

51-49.

[annabanana]

9. Maybe Kennedy was firing a shot across the bow...

It certainly sets up a "good cop bad cop" situation for the WH to contemplate...

[montanacowboy]

12. Harry is keeping his powder dry

What a stupid move; I watched Kennedy's speech, it was super. He wants a vote in daylight, yes or no to the escalation; what the hell does that wimp Reid have against that? oh, I forgot, he wants bipartianship, what a crock. Thanks for nothing Harry.

[ellisonz]

14. 51-49.

That's reality. Smart move on Harry's part.

[montanacowboy]

16. The repukes willl have to vote for escalation

in the light of day, that is the beauty of it; 61% of the American people oppose this; so let the pukes show themselves to their constituents as being FOR it. The biggest reason Harry is the leader is because of this war and he is wimping out.

[ellisonz]

17. Who do you think John Tester is going to side with?

A binding resolution would fail and that would set us farther back. Harry Reid is leading, not polemicizing. There's a big difference....

"The biggest reason Harry is the leader is because of this war and he is wimping out."

Haste makes waste.

[JerseygirlCT]

15. I really doubt anything would make the president take note

of anything he doesn't want to take note of.

Reid's kidding himself if he believes that.

He's a country of one, that man. It's all about his desires. The rest of us? Who cares?

[hashibabba]

19. Hear! Hear! Bush only cares about what he and his cronies

want. He doesn't care a bit about most of the republican people. I don't understand why, but they still haven't figured that out.

[ellisonz]

20. Not even his own party turning on him on the Hill?

Cynicism.

[superconnected]

18. At this point, a dem asking for bi-partisan means Bechtel or Haliburton owns him.

[ellisonz]

23. Oh Good Heavens...

Profiles in Courage is a book by John F. Kennedy, describing acts of bravery and integrity by eight United States Senators from throughout the Senate's history. The profiled senators crossed party lines and/or defied the public opinion of their constituents to do what they felt was right and suffered severe criticism and losses in popularity because of their actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiles_in_Courage

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Bullocks.

PiC was about politicians who followed the ethical course in spite of public opinion. I heard the same shit about jerry ford - that his pardon was a PiC moment - but what he did was follow an unethical course that saved unnumbered republicans from prosecution at the expense of his own political career - he fell on his sword for the party.

Reid is jockeying for political position at the expense of the ethical decision - so yes, he is wimping out.

[ellisonz]

29. See #27.

"Reid is jockeying for political position at the expense of the ethical decision"

This is about winning, not about appealing to the hard left of the base. Deal with it.

[ananda]

21. I tell you what..

.. politicians basically suck. No spine. No guts. No integrity.

They are heeding the call of their real employers who are not the people they represent.

The people don't want this war to go on another minute. They want us outta there now!
At least ASAP.

No escalation whatsoever. Period.

Sue

[MisterP]

24. don't wanna look soft for the 2036 election, ya'know...

it's strategery! chess! smrt move!
:sarcasm:

[YankeyMCC]

25. Sorry you're wrong Sen Reid

and I can't fathom how you can have been paying attention the last 6 years and be so wrong. NOTHING makes the man occupying the WH "take note".

He understands one thing - Power. Congress has power to rein him in to some extent at least - USE IT!

[brentspeak]

28. Hey, how about using the ACTUAL HEADLINE for your thread title????????

Instead of some divisive and inaccurate invention of your own?

Actual headline: "Senate to debate resolution opposing Iraq war"

[ellisonz]

30. Because that would...

disrupt the circular firing squad.

Welcome to Will Rogers Nightmare.

:hi:

[HuffleClaw]

31. like it matters. bush is gonna use his 'executive powers'

and sit back and DARE 'em to challenge them, knowing it would take a couple years of court challenges to deal with the matter.

[Vidar]

32. Run away, Harry, run away.

[scarletwoman]

34. Yeah, heaven forbid you actually take a STAND.

"Non-binding resolution" - feh! If ever we had an administration that needed BINDING, it's the bush* (mal)administration.

Bind the fuckers! Hogtie them! Rope 'em, cuff 'em, tie them down and gag them! DAMMIT! :grr:

sw

[mcscajun]

35. Locking.

From the rules on posting in the Latest Breaking News forum: "When posting articles, always use the published title of the article as the title of the discussion thread. Additional information may be included in a thread title (in parentheses) if it helps to make the title more clear."