Thirteen Democratic Senators Vote to Support Bush on Wiretap Bill

Thirteen Democratic Senators voted to support the Bush Administration on its controversial wiretap bill by voting against a Democratic alternative. The thirteen Democrats are mostly, but not all, from states that Bush carried in 2000 and 2004. They are as follows: Bayh from Indiana, Carper from Delaware, Inouye from Hawaii, Johnson from South Dakota, Landrieu from Louisana, Lieberman from Connecticut, McCaskill from Missouri, Mikulski from Maryland, Nelson from Florida, Nelson from Nebraska, Pryor from Arkansas, Rockefeller from West Virginia, and Salazar from Colorado. (We realize that counting Lieberman as a Democrat seems wrong, but that is the way the Senate records his party affiliation.)

Of those 13 Senators, nine of them come from states that Bush carried in both 2000 and 2004, assuming that you accept the fact that Gore lost Florida in 2000. The Senators that come from states that Democrats carried in both elections are Carper,Inouye, Lieberman, and Mikulski.

On the Republican side, no Senators voted with the Democratic position, although two of them, McCain and Graham, did not vote. Two Democratic Senators also didn't vote, Obama and Clinton. They, like McCain, are campaigning for their party's presidential nomination, but even if all four of them had been present, the bill still would have had 60 votes and been assured passage by a margin great enough to overcome a filibuster.

Eight Democrats who voted for the bill who came from states that Bush carried in both 2000 and 2004 are Baucus from Montana, Brown from Ohio, Byrd from West Virginia, Conrad from North Dakota, Dorgan from North Dakota, Lincoln from Arkansas, Tester from Montana, and Webb from Virginia. Obviously for the above eight Senators, this was not an easy vote, and they are to be commended for their political courage in opposing the Bush Administration on this bill.

Senator Sherrod Brown Votes Against Iran Resolution

The Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iraq came up for a vote on Wednesday, September 26, 2007. Although the Resolution was amended to take out some of the more egregious wording, it still labeled a unit of the Iranian Army a "terrorist" organization. As Senator Jim Webb pointed out this Resolution was never discussed in a Senate Committee and this was the first time that a branch of the U.S. Government has labeled a branch of a foreign country's military a "terrorist" organization. Many people fear that the Bush Administration is determined to drag us into a war with Iran before leaving office. Giving them any sort of justification to do so is like giving a gun to a baby.

Senator Joe Biden Calls Bush Iraq Policy "God Awful" in Senate Debate

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can see a video clip of Senator Joe Biden, (D-MD) referring to President Bush's policy as "God awful". The clip shows a very passionate Biden responding to comments of Senator John McCain just moments before in which he said that those who oppose the President's plan should have the "courage" to cut off funding for the troops. Biden's response was to say to McCain "have the courage to tell the President that his policy is God awful." It is a very intriguing video clip.

Flip-flopping George Voinovich Votes With Bush on Iraq

Okay, this is what Senator George Voinovich has done over the last two weeks. First he voted against ending the Republican filibuster on the Warner-Levin Resolution which meant that the Resolution couldn't come before the Senate for a vote. Then he signed a letter to both Reid and O'Connell grousing about the Senate not conducting a debate on the Resolution. Then, today, February 17, 2007, he again votes against ending the Republican filibuster on the Resolution that was passed by the House of Representatives. Now, we imagine that he will now issue some sort of statement about how he really doesn't support Bush on Iraq or some sort of statement to make it appear like he doesn't support Bush on Iraq.

This guy is, and has been since 2001 when Bubble-Boy took office, a Bush enabler. In the 1990s, when Clinton was President and he was Governor, he railed against deficit spending by the Federal government, then helped pass Bush's reckless tax cuts that plunged America into historic deficits. He has helped Bush put right-wing zealots on the Federal bench. He refuses to take a stand against Bush's war in Iraq. On every major vote, he has supported Bush, and yet the Ohio media keeps spinning the myth of good old "moderate" George Voinovich. Well, as they say in D.C., a Republican moderate is a person who if you were drowning 15 feet off shore, would throw you 10 feet of rope. (Click on the link in this entry's title to see how the entire Senate voted.)

Senate Republicans: Too Clever by Half?

According to an article in the Washington Post, Harry Reid is no longer backing the Warner-Levin Resolution, which is 1500 words. Instead he is backing the House Resolution which is against Bush's escalation of troops in Iraq and reaffirms support for funding the troops that are already there. (You can read the WP article by clicking on the link in this entry's title.) Reid believes he can get the House resolution before the Senate for a vote in about a week or so. This, of course, will put the Republicans once again in the spot of having to either support Bush or respect the will of the American people, of whom about 60% or more are opposed to any troop increase in Iraq.

Those pundits who thought that the Republicans get the better of Harry Reid when they successfully fought off an attempt to end their filibuster of the Warner Resolution should think again. Now, Republicans are going to face another difficult vote. One that once more will put several of their at-risk incumbents on record as either supporting Bush, and thereby ticking off independent voters, or defying Bush, thereby ticking off the conservative base of the party. It would have been far better to have let a vote take place on the Warner Resolution and be done with it.

Voinovich Votes in Favor of Bush's War Policy

George Voinovich, who claims that he is against escalation of the Iraqi War, just voted against ending a filibuster on the Warner Resolution. In short, he voted to make sure that there is not a vote on Bush's plan to escalate the war. Here is how the Washington Post explained the process:

At issue are four separate resolutions. The main resolution, worked out by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), would put the Senate on record opposing the additional troop deployment and calling for a diplomatic initiative to settle the conflict, but it would also oppose a cut-off of funds for troops in the field of battle. The Republican leadership's alternative, drafted by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), would establish tough new benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve but would not oppose the planned deployment.
Against those competing resolutions are two others replete with political mischief-making. The first, drafted by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), recognizes the power of the president to deploy troops and the "responsibility" of Congress to fund them before stating, "Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of fund." A second, hastily written by Democrats, would simply oppose the president's plan and insist all troops are properly protected with body armor and other materiel.

The Democratic leadership gave Republicans a choice: Allow all four resolutions to come to a vote, with a simple majority needed for passage, or debate and vote on just two resolutions, Warner's and McCain's.

McConnell said each of the resolutions should only come to a vote if it attains the 60 votes needed to cut off debate. The reason was simple. Both Democrats and Republicans believe the only measure that could win 60 votes is Gregg's.

Democratic leaders feared that a debate designed to put the Senate on record opposing President Bush's war plan could conclude with passage of a resolution opposing a cutoff of funds for that plan.

To keep the heat on Republicans, Senate Democratic leaders charged that their opponents were simply trying to stifle a debate on the most hotly contested issue of the day.
"If Republicans cannot swallow the thin soup of the Warner resolution, how are they going to stomach a real debate on Iraq?" asked Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.).

Ohio voters should remember the way that George Voinovich is acting on the Warner Resolution. He says that he is against Bush's escalation but doesn't want to go on record saying so. This is not exactly Voinovich's Profile in Courage moment we are seeing here. What we are seeing is a Republican who is against Bush's war except when it counts.