Thursday, March 22, 2007

Pelosi Pentagon supplemental has the votes

Rep. Maxine Waters reports in a conference call with 98 United for Peace & Justice representatives, still going on as I write, that the Democratic leadership appears to have the votes to pass its version of the supplemental. There are now only ten Democrats who will vote to oppose, which gives the leadership 222 (one Democratic member will be absent for the vote).

Last night the Rules Committee passed a rule for the bill that will give four hours of debate, starting right now. Louise Slaughter (Rules chair) is reading the rule on C-SPAN; no amendments will be permitted. There could in theory be a vote tonight; it may end up being tomorrow. (I'm puzzled about how this situation complies with the House rule, restored under Pelosi, that there be 24 hours to read legislation; I guess the clock starts running when the rule is voted in.)

Waters said there was considerable nervousness among the leadership, given the very tight margin they have, that the whole thing could pass and then fall apart on the motion to recommit -- if Blue Dogs get cold feet and bolt at that point. That'd be fine with me; let them get the blame, vote with Republicans, and feel the wrath of Steny Hoyer now and voters in their district later.

MoveOn's poll had a significant effect, giving enough cover to liberal Democrats already under pressure to peel off the last four or five to the leadership position.

This is the last time the regime will push a Pentagon supplemental on the Congress; future funding for the war and occupation will be contained in budget proposals. And there are avenues for ending the occupation apart from funding: withdrawing authorization for the occupation, simply mandating withdrawal, and/or impeachment.

Bring 'em on.



At 12:03 AM, March 23, 2007, Blogger janinsanfran said...

I really appreciate your concise explanations of what has been going on about this. I've been out of the country, so missed this round. The whole thing reminds me too much of too many Contra aid votes in the 1980s.

At 11:10 AM, March 23, 2007, Blogger Nell said...

Welcome home, Jan!

Yeah, this hasn't been pretty, even for people used to seeing the sausage being made.

The last-minute surrender of Waters, Barbara Lee, and Woolsey seems to have been graciously received, so maybe there won't be as much retribution as feared.

But recriminations will be plentiful, I'm sure.

At 6:00 PM, April 01, 2007, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

For my part I am less concerned about congress voting to stop the surge than them standing solid against war with Iran. Not because I think the "surge" is a good idea-

1. I seriously doubt it is, and

2. If there are individual elements in the "surge" that are good ideas worth implementing, you can pretty much count on BushCo to avoid doing them, mostly because they're probably ones that de-emphasize blowing up things and stress fixing fractured relations with Iraqis.

Just because I think their anti-surge legislation is mainly intended to demonstrate that they "tried" to stop Bush, not to actually succeed in doing so. At this point the only serious way to stop him is to impeach him(them).

But the more they say little to nothing about Iran, the more they enable him. A war with Iran, at least is preventable.


Post a Comment

<< Home