Thread: War Funding Bill passed 80-14 Vote in Senate

House, Senate*pass war funding bill - CNN.com

The only question I have is what sort of leadership does this vote show when looking at the two front-runners of the Democrat Party? Sen. Obama and Clinton both voted 'no'. It really doesn't matter whether they voted that way for support in the primaries or if it was their actual viewpoint. If one of these two is going to be the Democrat's nominee for the White House shouldn't we expect them to show more leadership and the ability to pull votes on important issues? If their leadership within their own party is so weak on important votes what do they actually offer us for the White House? I understand they are both lawyers and perhaps I should give them the benefit of the doubt, they did convince 12 people to their point of view...

I'm very disappointed in the Democrats in regards to the war. They have backed down like cowards. Both parties suck!

I have a theory what's been happening in Congress, well not so much theory as educated guess but here it goes: We know Bush has been spying since 2001 (wiretapping etc.) I believe that they took a Karl Rove approach to politics and spied on all the opposing senators, even in their own party (mark foley) and dug up enough dirt on each of them to coerce them to vote a certain way. On the other hand, this is the same group of senators (4 new senators) also all voted on the Patriot Act/Homeland Security bills, so I figure its about the money or the threat of disclosure. Let's be honest though, there isn't much different between a democrat or republican, this site makes it seem very large, but defacto in modern day politics its very marginal.

Veto politics in a divided Congress and approval polls lower than GW's can create a lot of intended consequences without a conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Dispondent

House, Senate*pass war funding bill - CNN.com

The only question I have is what sort of leadership does this vote show when looking at the two front-runners of the Democrat Party? Sen. Obama and Clinton both voted 'no'. It really doesn't matter whether they voted that way for support in the primaries or if it was their actual viewpoint. If one of these two is going to be the Democrat's nominee for the White House shouldn't we expect them to show more leadership and the ability to pull votes on important issues? If their leadership within their own party is so weak on important votes what do they actually offer us for the White House? I understand they are both lawyers and perhaps I should give them the benefit of the doubt, they did convince 12 people to their point of view...

I think it shows exactly what you're saying, Obabma and Clinton are playing to the audience and have absolutely no influence, sound arguments, or political ability to move their own senators. The funding issue is a ticklish one, as shown in the poll someone else posted. Even though people are against the war, they are in favor of funding. Why? Well, do you want our sons and daughters blood on your hands? Most people equate not funding the war with leaving our forces without weapons, food, or putting them in other unsafe conditions. It's a fair point.

If Obama and Clinton wield no influence in the Senate regarding funding the war, just how much power would either of them have as a President?

Originally Posted by Dispondent

House, Senate*pass war funding bill - CNN.com

The only question I have is what sort of leadership does this vote show when looking at the two front-runners of the Democrat Party? Sen. Obama and Clinton both voted 'no'. It really doesn't matter whether they voted that way for support in the primaries or if it was their actual viewpoint. If one of these two is going to be the Democrat's nominee for the White House shouldn't we expect them to show more leadership and the ability to pull votes on important issues? If their leadership within their own party is so weak on important votes what do they actually offer us for the White House? I understand they are both lawyers and perhaps I should give them the benefit of the doubt, they did convince 12 people to their point of view...

Don't be despondent. When the Democrats won congress they had heated debates about strategy in caucus. It boiled down to 2 strategies. 1) Fight George Bush at every turn about Iraq. This would be very time consuming. 2) To work on domestic legislation, investigate and give George Bush enough rope concerning Iraq to hang the whole Republican Party in the '08 elections. They settled on strategy #2.

Originally Posted by billybobama

Don't be despondent. When the Democrats won congress they had heated debates about strategy in caucus. It boiled down to 2 strategies. 1) Fight George Bush at every turn about Iraq. This would be very time consuming. 2) To work on domestic legislation, investigate and give George Bush enough rope concerning Iraq to hang the whole Republican Party in the '08 elections. They settled on strategy #2.

There is plenty to be despondent about right there in your post, if you actually care about the issue and are not completely fixated on winning the presidency regardless of the ethics.

I'm very disappointed in the Democrats in regards to the war.

I agree and its a shame that the democrats couldnt produce the results they promised the electorate.

Originally Posted by Latherty

There is plenty to be despondent about right there in your post, if you actually care about the issue and are not completely fixated on winning the presidency regardless of the ethics.

You need to learn how the U.S. Government works. Even though the Democrats took the majority in '06, they did not capture enough seats to override vetoes. That is just one of the factors that go into deciding strategy. The other is if you let your majority fragment you no longer have the majority. Nancy Pelosi is a very smart woman, so is Hillary Clinton. The entire history of both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is in play right now. Most Americans have no concept of the history of these two parties. I have learned that everything has to be viewed in a historical context. When you do not you are taking in information completely out of context.

Originally Posted by billybobama

Don't be despondent. When the Democrats won congress they had heated debates about strategy in caucus. It boiled down to 2 strategies. 1) Fight George Bush at every turn about Iraq. This would be very time consuming. 2) To work on domestic legislation, investigate and give George Bush enough rope concerning Iraq to hang the whole Republican Party in the '08 elections. They settled on strategy #2.

I understand how the system works, its not about working the system its about leadership. Six people did not vote, so that means for this to have passed there was only a need for 48 votes in favor of this bill. Even if they knew they were going to pass this I would expect the potential leaders of the party to at least pull together some support to their side. Instead what we see is the exact opposite, barely a token force opposed this and two of them are presidential hopefuls. I expected the bill to pass, but I expected a token protest of around 30-40 votes in opposition. What the Democrats appear to have done is tossed Clinton and Obama out as a fringe element.