Dem war votes target GOP lawmakers

[stephanie]

Well, they finally came out in this article, and show how the Democrats are PLAYING POLITICTS with our soldiers live....

As Democrats push to withdraw troops, they seek to undermine Republicans by creating repeated chances to side with an unpopular president.
By Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer
April 25, 2007

full article..
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=1&cset=true
WASHINGTON — As congressional Democrats move to force President Bush to veto a war spending bill that would start a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, they are simultaneously pursuing a carefully crafted offensive aimed at another target: Republican lawmakers.

In the charged debate over the war, the strategy aims to achieve Democratic objectives on both policy and political fronts, according to party leaders and aides.

Convinced that Bush will never listen to their calls to bring troops home, senior Democrats have concluded that they must force Republicans to vote again and again in defense of the unpopular war until enough plead with the president to change course.

But Democratic strategists also believe that repeated votes on the war will allow the party to expand its congressional majorities in next year's elections by continuing to link GOP lawmakers with the president and his war policies.

"It bewilders me why these Republicans have tied themselves so closely to this president…. God bless them," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and former head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

"Our goal is to keep giving them votes" on Iraq, said Emanuel, widely considered one of Capitol Hill's savviest political tacticians.

The Democratic withdrawal plan is scheduled for a vote today in the House and Thursday in the Senate. A presidential veto is expected within days.

'The best thing to do'

GOP leaders insist they are taking the responsible position by opposing Democratic attempts to set an arbitrary timeline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces.

"Our members are doing their best to try to figure out what's the best thing to do, as opposed to what is the popular thing to do," said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

He also argued that despite polls showing support for the Democratic position, public attitudes could change as the dispute over war funding drags on.

Vice President Dick Cheney pressed that case Tuesday, accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) of playing politics with the war.

"Leaders should make decisions based on the security interests of our country, not on the interests of their political party," Cheney said after meeting with GOP senators at the Capitol.

Reid — who shot back that he was "not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration's chief attack dog" — has openly discussed the potential political advantages of pushing antiwar legislation.

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war," he said recently.

But Reid and other Democratic leaders say their push to ratchet up pressure on GOP lawmakers also reflects a belief that such a strategy is the only way to end a disastrous war that the president won't abandon.

"There are only three ways that we're going to bring about a change in direction on the Iraqi war," said Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), an antiwar lawmaker who chairs the House Appropriations Committee and helped draft the current plan tying a timeline for withdrawal to Bush's request for about $100 billion in emergency war money.

"The first is if the president has sort of the 'St. Paul on the road to Damascus' conversion in his views. I don't see that happening any time soon. The second is to muster sufficient votes to override a presidential veto. I don't see that happening any time soon," Obey said.

"The only avenue open to us is to try to create enough pressure … so that we can persuade enough members of Congress who today do not agree with us to reconsider."

Obey, first elected to the House in 1969, often compares the current political environment to the Watergate scandal, when President Nixon ultimately resigned after key congressional Republicans told him he had lost the confidence of members of his own party.

[Gaffer]

The whole anti-war thing is all about the dems getting back in power. I will never again vote for a democrat. And I stand by that never. If there's no republican I like I go independent. If no other choice I won't vote.

[Gunny]

The whole anti-war thing is all about the dems getting back in power. I will never again vote for a democrat. And I stand by that never. If there's no republican I like I go independent. If no other choice I won't vote.

That'll be two of us.

[avatar4321]

Its going to blow up in their faces. Because they are just pissing people off now.

[diuretic]

Isn't it simply terrible that a political party would use politics as part of its strategy? What next I wonder?

[Joe Steel]

Looks like the Democrats have a copy of the Republicans' play book.

[Hagbard Celine]

Well, they finally came out in this article, and show how the Democrats are PLAYING POLITICTS with our soldiers live....

As Democrats push to withdraw troops, they seek to undermine Republicans by creating repeated chances to side with an unpopular president.
By Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer
April 25, 2007

full article..
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=1&cset=true
WASHINGTON — As congressional Democrats move to force President Bush to veto a war spending bill that would start a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, they are simultaneously pursuing a carefully crafted offensive aimed at another target: Republican lawmakers.

In the charged debate over the war, the strategy aims to achieve Democratic objectives on both policy and political fronts, according to party leaders and aides.

Convinced that Bush will never listen to their calls to bring troops home, senior Democrats have concluded that they must force Republicans to vote again and again in defense of the unpopular war until enough plead with the president to change course.

But Democratic strategists also believe that repeated votes on the war will allow the party to expand its congressional majorities in next year's elections by continuing to link GOP lawmakers with the president and his war policies.

"It bewilders me why these Republicans have tied themselves so closely to this president…. God bless them," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and former head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

"Our goal is to keep giving them votes" on Iraq, said Emanuel, widely considered one of Capitol Hill's savviest political tacticians.

The Democratic withdrawal plan is scheduled for a vote today in the House and Thursday in the Senate. A presidential veto is expected within days.

'The best thing to do'

GOP leaders insist they are taking the responsible position by opposing Democratic attempts to set an arbitrary timeline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces.

"Our members are doing their best to try to figure out what's the best thing to do, as opposed to what is the popular thing to do," said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

He also argued that despite polls showing support for the Democratic position, public attitudes could change as the dispute over war funding drags on.

Vice President Dick Cheney pressed that case Tuesday, accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) of playing politics with the war.

"Leaders should make decisions based on the security interests of our country, not on the interests of their political party," Cheney said after meeting with GOP senators at the Capitol.

Reid — who shot back that he was "not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration's chief attack dog" — has openly discussed the potential political advantages of pushing antiwar legislation.

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war," he said recently.

But Reid and other Democratic leaders say their push to ratchet up pressure on GOP lawmakers also reflects a belief that such a strategy is the only way to end a disastrous war that the president won't abandon.

"There are only three ways that we're going to bring about a change in direction on the Iraqi war," said Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), an antiwar lawmaker who chairs the House Appropriations Committee and helped draft the current plan tying a timeline for withdrawal to Bush's request for about $100 billion in emergency war money.

"The first is if the president has sort of the 'St. Paul on the road to Damascus' conversion in his views. I don't see that happening any time soon. The second is to muster sufficient votes to override a presidential veto. I don't see that happening any time soon," Obey said.

"The only avenue open to us is to try to create enough pressure … so that we can persuade enough members of Congress who today do not agree with us to reconsider."

Obey, first elected to the House in 1969, often compares the current political environment to the Watergate scandal, when President Nixon ultimately resigned after key congressional Republicans told him he had lost the confidence of members of his own party.

I'll give you a hint sweetie. ALL politicians play politics.

[Gaffer]

They are playing politics with the lives of our soldiers, extending the war by encouraging our enemies.

[Birdzeye]

Looks like the Democrats have a copy of the Republicans' play book.

You noticed that too, eh?

[Birdzeye]

They are playing politics with the lives of our soldiers, extending the war by encouraging our enemies.

Oh, bullshit. This war keeps going on because Bush wants it to. Otherwise he wouldn't act as if he intends for this war to go on indefinitely.

[loosecannon]

The article that this thread is based on is pure BS and spin.

The democrats are not forcing Bush to veto anything. Bush is refusing to fund the war on dem terms.

The system is working the way it was intended to work, only the congress can appropriate funds.

Take it or leave it.

The dems surely are playing politics and surely want to win, discredit the GOPers and drive GOP congress critters to support the drawdown of troops. Duh.

But the Dems are in no way forcing any GOPers to side with the president therefore damaging themselves.

That choice is made by the GOP congress critters alone. Nobody is forcing them to do anything.

The lead article is playing politics with our troops lives by spinning the story to damage the dems, and favor the GOP.

If Bush vetoes the bill, he and he alone is refusing to fund his own war. He will be the one who is not supporting the troops. The nation supports the bill and the president should stop playing politics with the troops lives and listen to them.

Congress appropriated the money. Bush will reject the money.

[82Marine89]

"There are only three ways that we're going to bring about a change in direction on the Iraqi war," said Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), an antiwar lawmaker who chairs the House Appropriations Committee and helped draft the current plan tying a timeline for withdrawal to Bush's request for about $100 billion in emergency war money.

The $124.2 billion bill would fund the war, among other things:

HURRICANE KATRINA
$25,000,000 Livestock Indemnity Fund for Hurricane Katrina. Compensates livestock producers for losses.
$15,000,000 for loss of crops.
$100,000,000 Citrus Program
$120,000,000 Shrimp and fish
$35,000,000 Aeronautics and Space
$48,000,000 Costs to NASA
$37,080,000 Construction to Coast
$1,300,000,000 Flood Control
$650,000,000 Construction in New Orleans

DISASTER RELEIF
$25,068,000 Disaster Loans Program
$4,310,000,000 Disaster Relief
$4,000,000 Office of Inspector General

GULF STATES EDUCATION
$30,000,000 Elementary and Secondary Education

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
$80,000,000 Indian Housing
$10,240,000 Hurricane Katrina Housing

FARMING
$25,000,000 Spinach losses from FDA Advisory
$20,000,000 Crops losses from freezing.
$283,000,000 Milk Loss Contract Program
$74,000,000 Peanut Storage Costs
$5,000,000 Aphis Emergency Order
$48,000,000 Farm Service Agency Expenses
$4,000,000 Office of Women’s Health
$60,400,000 Fisheries Operations and Research

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
$100,000,000 Wildland Fire Management

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
$7,398,000 Bird Morbidity

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
$525,000 Bird Morbidity

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
$5,270,000 Surveillance of hunter taken birds

U.S. FOREST SERVICE
$400,000,000 Wildfire Management
$400,000,000 Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
$49,500,000,000 Allergies and Infectious diseases
$200,000,000 Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
$969,650,000 Public Health Emergency Fund
$50,000,000 Compensation for Victims of Vaccine
$7,172,994,000 Public Education

WIDOWS AND HEIRS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
$165,200 Gloria Norwood

DEPARTMENT OF THE CAPITOL
$50,000,000 Capitol Power Plant

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
$10,000,000 United States and Mexico Construction
$149,300,000 Transportation Safety Board
$47,500,000 Housing and Urban Development
$1,281,100,000 Public Housing

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
$750,000,000 Scholarship shortfall

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE AND BUSINESS TAX RELIEF
All of the new minimum wages and tax relief requirements are included in This bill.

[gabosaurus]

It is not our fault that the Bushies and the GOP politicians don't support our troops