Republicans Block War Funding, But McConnell's Tricky Move Is Rebuffed
Okay, some really interesting stuff just went down in the Senate this morning with respect to Iraq war funding: GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell tried to pull off a tricky maneuver that would have slipped no-strings-attached war funding passed Senate Dem leaders -- but it flopped.
The Senate GOPers did, however, succeed in killing a Dem bill that would have provided funding for the war but also had a provision containing withdrawal from Iraq as a mere goal.
Here's what happened. Senate Dem leaders had scheduled a vote this morning on a bill that earlier passed the House and would provide $50 billion for the war but also set the goal of pulling out of Iraq by December of 2008.
But McConnell decided to try to go around Senate Dems. In a rare move he filed a motion to proceed on his own legislation, which would provide $70 billion to the war with no strings attached at all. Senate custom dictates that the Majority Leader sets the legislative agenda.
McConnell's move failed, however: The Senate Dem caucus stayed largely united and defeated McConnell's bill, 45-53.
That's not to say the Repubs came out total losers here, however. The Senate Dem bill then came up for a vote -- and because it contains the goal of withdrawal Republicans stayed united against it. And it went down to defeat, 53-45, falling short of the 60 votes it needed for passage under Senate rules.
Reid reacted angrily to the GOP's defeat of their bill. “The President and his enablers in Congress are so afraid of being held accountable for this disastrous war policy, that they would rather leave our men and women in uniform empty-handed than work with us to change course in Iraq," he said in a statement. “Let’s be clear: The only ones threatening to cut off funding for our troops are President Bush and Congressional Republicans.
It's worth pointing out, however, that a few days ago Senate Dems had floated a threat to force Repubicans to filibuster the bill. This threat never materialized.
More from John Aravosis.
Late Update: Okay, you commenters are right. I should have said it more clearly: The Dem measure failed to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.
But in fairness, I did say that "Republicans blocked war funding" in the headline.
Comments (16)
Crust wrote on November 16, 2007 11:49 AM:"And it went down to defeat, 53-45, falling short of the 60 votes it needed for passage under Senate rules."
Greg, I expect better of you. Why are you avoiding the f-word? There they go again, filibustering or threatening filibusters at a record rate. The press lets the R's get away with it, with innocuous framings like yours, but TPM can do better.
The Filibuster that Dare Not Speak its Name wrote on November 16, 2007 12:01 PM:Greg,
What, are you auditioning for a job at the NYT or WaPo?
"60 votes it needed for passage under Senate rules."
Crust is right--it's a Republican filibuster and we expect the guys on our team to speak the truth--and speak its name. Geez!
Pastor Doodah wrote on November 16, 2007 12:17 PM:Why do Republicans hate the troops?
low-tech cyclist wrote on November 16, 2007 12:18 PM:Crust, go down 2 more paragraphs:
a few days ago Senate Dems had floated a threat to force Repubicans to filibuster the bill. This threat never materialized.
There's your f-word.
Nah, I didn't believe they'd force a filibuster either.
NitPicker1 wrote on November 16, 2007 12:33 PM:"The Senate Dem bill then came up for a vote..."
Um, nope.
The vote to *allow* the Senate Dem bill to come up to a vote is what came up for a vote.
In other words, the Republicans successfully filibustered. Speak the truth, Greg.
"It's worth pointing out, however, that a few days ago Senate Dems had floated a threat to force Repubicans to filibuster the bill. This threat never materialized."
Well, yes that threat did materialize; it's just that it turned out to be an empty threat. Not because the Dems didn't have enough votes to *stop* the filibuster but because Reid apparently isn't going to force the Republicans to stay up all night reading from the phone book after all.
So I want to know, why did Reid go ahead and put the bill up for a vote if he wasn't prepared to follow through on his threat to make them actually *do* the filibuster the old-fashioned way? At least long enough to remind the media what is really going on with these cloture votes?
rogus wrote on November 16, 2007 1:04 PM:Does anyone actually have the stats on how many times the Repubs blocked bills?
Kija wrote on November 16, 2007 1:25 PM:And for this, telecom immunity was passed?
Didn't Reid sell his soul in exchange for the GOP's promise to pass this bill without a hassle? Just as they did when agreeing to pass a tax cut in an exchange for extending unemployment benefits in 2001, THEY LIED!!!!
When will Reid and others learn that you cannot cut deals with the Republicans unless they have to make the first step, because if you give them what they want, they will renege.
Dawn wrote on November 16, 2007 1:38 PM:Thanks NitPicker1 for the clarification. I had a hard time figuring out what transpired when the real words were not used! I have to assume that Greg wrote this in a hurry, because he is usually much more accurate.
I wish Reid would just once make them actually filibuster. I'm beginning to think he is afraid that people will be persuaded by their arguments.
Bottom line is that no emergency funding got passed, which is fine with me. The feeble strings attached would not have stopped Bush anyway, even if he didn't veto the bill.
Anonymous wrote on November 16, 2007 2:30 PM:i'm worried about all those repubs who cried for "a straight up-and-down vote" a few years back. i haven't heard from them recently. is their message being stifled? they must feel very frustrated.
angryspittle wrote on November 16, 2007 2:34 PM:Ok, I am sick and tired of fucking threats issued by the Dems. Threats of subpeonas, threats of this, threats of that, blah, blah, blah, blah, bullshit.
Quit the fucking threats and ACT goddamnit!
amphiction wrote on November 16, 2007 2:43 PM:I am starting to doubt the Dems' sincerity.
Greg wrote on November 16, 2007 2:45 PM:ok, you guys are right re "filibuster" -- please see update I added
seedeevee wrote on November 16, 2007 3:12 PM:"Late Update: Okay, you commenters are right. I should have said it more clearly: The Dem measure failed to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster."
-- Shouldn't it be "potential" Republican filibuster - since one did not actually happen?
BobT wrote on November 16, 2007 4:46 PM:Let me see now:
The only way you can show that you support the troops is if you keep funding the war.
We couldn't pull the troops out months ago because the surge was needed to reduce the violence.
With violence declining, we still can't pull the troops out.
To show that you're strong on defense, you fund the troops through a bill with a "goal" (we all know how important goals are in the context of Iraq) to bring troops home in a year, that the Commander Guy won't sign anyway.
The Commander Guy tells his buddy in Pakistan to stop trying to be president and head of the military at the same time. (He knows of which he speaks)
The GAO says there is no clear strategy in place to succeed in Iraq, thus, no clear direction/purpose for troops other than to stay there.
Pentagon says to congress "there is a strategy, but we can't share the document with you".
My heart breaks every time I see funeral pictures for soldiers on the web. My 7-year-old asks me why I call the president an idiot when we listen to the news in the car on the way home. And, the gas station I passed this morning is charging $3.56 a gallon -up from $2.75 about a week ago.
Oh well, at least it's predictable.
Persona non grata wrote on November 16, 2007 7:58 PM:110th Congress = Traitors
Coonsey wrote on November 17, 2007 12:03 AM:I sincerely wish there PLAYERS in Congress - from both parties - would quit playing GAMES. There HAS to be a way to get SOMETHING done about this war.
We all know that General Petraeus announced this past summer that he see's most of the 30,000 troops coming home by early Sept 2008 - SO - why not make that a date certain that instead of 30,000, change the amount to 60,000. Get as many out as possible - as soon as possible.
The surge was planned for political reasons. Get the violence down by Sept 2008 - 1-2 months before election 2008. Give the GOP something to CHEER about and BRAG about.
Once the election is over - CHANGE strategy again.
Unfortunately - this plan WILL work - but only till after election day. All heck will break again after that.
If Dem's want to make things happen - they'd best be GETTING to them NOW - or lose any chance of winning in 2008.
Coonsey's View
Political Blog and Forum
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
