Senate Republicans Block Iraq Debate, Essentially Support Escalation
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
John Sununu (R-NH)
John Warner (R-VA)
Every one of them essentially voted to allow the Bush escalation to occur. Make sure their electorates don't forget it.
UPDATE (10:52 PM): Kos adds further thoughts on the specific cowardice of Gordon Smith and John Sununu.
posted by Senate2008Guru | 10:04 PM
5 Comments:
John Warner supports the escalation. That's why he drafted a resolution opposing the escalation. It makes perfect sense.
The amount of intellectual dishonesty that you put forth on this site is absolutely disgusting. You've reached the point where you've stopped trying to be a resource. You're now just a partisan cheerleader, willing to go to any length and tell any lie, to make you feel good about supporting the "side" you support.
va blogger - Yeah, John Warner drafted an anti-escalation resolution and then he supported the filibuster of the anti-escalation resolution!!! No, it makes no sense whatsoever - that's how off the reservation people like John Warner and Gordon Smith are on this.
The only intellectual dishonesty here is coming from Republican Senators who claim to oppose the escalation (as political posturing to appease their constituents back home) and then block a vote on the anti-escalation resolution (to appease their radical right-wing base and the Bush administration).
Or maybe if you used an ounce of reading comprehension to make an attempt as to WHY a five-term, esteemed statesman like John Warner, who has been routinely praised by both sides of the aisle, would do something as puzzling as filibuster his own resolution. I suppose its easier for you to blindly and falsely label every Republican Senator as a supporter of the surge, even though its a blatant lie.
There are four resolutions on the table, and the Republicans want all of them to reach a vote. Harry Reid only wants a vote on two of them. In order to allow more opinions to be heard in the debate, the Republicans are not letting action go forward until the Democrats play fair. Far from preventing a debate on Iraq, they're encouraging more debate.
Its this kind of nuance that's severely lacking in your understanding of politics. Its what seperates you from respectability. Other bloggers and other political observers have the ability to think beyond talking points. You not only lack that ability, but you also are zealously eager to parrot partisan hacks like the DailyKos. So in addition to having the political understanding of a Fig Newton, you have no originality either. Perhaps that's why no one reads your blog.
It boggles my mind how you think you can cover Senate campaigns when you can't even understand a procedural motion in the Senate. How did you become passionate about something which you have absolutely no understanding of?
va blogger - Are you a member of John Warner's family? Did I hurt your feelings or something?
You're whining about "playing fair" -- not exactly a hallmark of Republican leadership while they were in the majority. Heck, in a Republican majority, zero of these types of resolutions would even see a vote, much less two of them.
When Republicans were in the majority they'd whine about wanting up-or-down votes, and Democrats opted against filibustering more often then they should have (like on the Supreme Court nominees, in my opinion).
Now, the Republicans are all-too-happy to filibuster and avoid up-or-down votes and act like the "obstructionists" they claimed to find fault with.
Let's have an up-or-down vote: support the escalation or not, simple as that. Wouldn't that be "fair play"?
I'm not a member of John Warner's family, but he has enough credibility on the issue to raise doubts about your claim that he supports the escalation.
I'm not whining about playing fair; I'm criticizing you for blatantly lying for no reason other than to be a partisan hack. Warner opposes the surge, and he felt so strongly about it that he wrote a resolution proclaiming it, and got a sizable number of Democrats and Republicans to agree to it. The fact that he voted to block the vote should at least give a hint that there is more than meets the eye. Unfortunately, you're too busy trying to be a good Democrat to bother with understanding what's actualy happening in a story you're covering.
Have no doubt about it, the Republicans want these resolutions on Iraq to come to a vote, and they want a debate on the issue. That's why they're pressing for all four resolutions to come to the floor, on the off chance that 100 Senators have more than just two different viewpoints on the most important issue of our time. If you truly wanted a debate on Iraq, you would support the Republican efforts to block the half-assed attempt the Democrats are offering.
The problem with you is that you are far too simple-minded. You can only grasp two sides of the issue: for or against the surge. Your mind doesn't allow complexity of thought. You see Republicans blocking efforts to debate and you conclude that they support the surge, even though anybody with half a brain and a third-grade reading level would reach a different conclusion. You turn this into a political football because its far easier to see only two sides, black and white, than to see the true complexities of the Senate. You don't have the mind for this type of work, and so you come off as an uneducated, over-your-head partisan hack. Which brings me back to my original question: how did you become so passionate about something that you have absolutely no understanding of?
Post a Comment
<< Home