Look to the Votes: "Moderate" Republicans and the Iraq War
There are few things in politics and in life that bother me more than hypocrisy. Ever since the speech by President Bush announcing the escalation of the Iraq War, there has been much gnashing of teeth by Congressional Republicans. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), while protesting those of his own party who opposed any effort for an anti-war resolution, said the follwing in response to the Biden-Hagel resolution in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
Senator John Warner (R-VA), joined with Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) in the Senate Armed Services Committee to draft a milder rebuke to the escalation of the war. Eventually, a deal was struck and the Warner-Levin resolution was agreed to and the Biden-Hagel resolution was dropped in an effort to find one resolution for Democrats to unite around. On Monday, there was a vote for cloture, to allow the Warner-Levin resolution to go forward, with much strong language by many involved on the war and on the need for a vote. So, how would you think Senators Warner and Hagel voted? If you think they voted to move a resolution they sponsored forward when "everyone should be counted," think again. Here is the way they voted on the cloture vote.
In other words, the only Republicans who were willing to have a vote on the resolution were Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Norm Coleman (R-MN). The only "Democrat" who voted against cloutre initially was Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) changing his vote to reserve the right to reintroduce a cloture vote. (Senate rules state that any member who voted against cloture can reintroduce cloture at a later date, so it is customary for the Senate Majority Leader to change a vote on cloture when it is obvious that it will fail when the leader wants to have a do-over.) A colture vote required a 3/5 majority to pass, and the final vote was 49-47 with Senators Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mel Martinez (R-FL) and John McCain (R-AZ) not voting, meaning that the final vote was ten short (nine including Reid's initial vote)of the 59 needed to pass. (It is 60 when all Senators are present.)
While Senator Coleman is a newcomer as a "moderate," he knows that he is in a very vulnerable place as he faces re-election last year, with GOP "dream candidate" former Congressman Mark Kennedy (R-MN) losing to then-Hannepin County Prosecutor Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) by 20 points and he knew that the vote would fail. This seems to be the only time that GOP "moderates" buck the party. The last instance that I can remember where a vote by "moderates" a Congressional Republican went against the leadership was Campaign Finance Reform in 2002, and the only other time that it meant anything in the Bush years was the vote by then-Senators Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and Jim Jeffords (I-VT) to reduce the amount of the Bush tax cut, with the aftermath leading to Jeffords' defection from the Republican Party.
This is something that happens a lot of the time. There are Republicans in Congress in districts that are Democratic-leaning who will say that they are moderate and point out the times that they made "courageous" stands against the Republican leadership, but none of these times are actually brave, because the vote has already been decided. As Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) said about "moderate" Congressional Republicans, "There is no such thing as a moderate Republican in Congress. They say that they only voted with Tom DeLay 70 percent of the time, but they vote with him 100 percent of the time when he needs their votes." It looks like Senators Warner and Levin are doing the same thing. They are introducing resolutions critical of President Bush, but when push comes to shove, they tow the party line just like the rest of them. Of course, the initial press coverage is there for their "opposition" to the war, but not so much for their vote against their own resolution. However, there have been some on MSNBC who have called them on this blatant hypocrisy. Are we seeing a new dawn? If so, let's take Senator Hagel at his word. He said that if you don't want to go on the record, you should go sell shoes. Well, he is up for re-election this year, so let's do what we can to help him chart that course.
In a related note, why do people say that Sentor McCain is genuine in his war posturing but Senator Clinton is not. It is ludicrous to suggest that one is being calculated and the other is not. Senator McCain knows that he is painted himself into a corner politically and that he has to go forward and keep saying that everything in Iraq would be solved with more troops. He has been suggesting this for years, and he is now stuck there. He knows that he has to be a hawk or else lose credibility, so we need to stand up and say that he is, in the immortal words of Black Sabbath, "Treating people just like pawns chess/They only started the war" just as much as every other hawk on Iraq.
I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.
Senator John Warner (R-VA), joined with Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) in the Senate Armed Services Committee to draft a milder rebuke to the escalation of the war. Eventually, a deal was struck and the Warner-Levin resolution was agreed to and the Biden-Hagel resolution was dropped in an effort to find one resolution for Democrats to unite around. On Monday, there was a vote for cloture, to allow the Warner-Levin resolution to go forward, with much strong language by many involved on the war and on the need for a vote. So, how would you think Senators Warner and Hagel voted? If you think they voted to move a resolution they sponsored forward when "everyone should be counted," think again. Here is the way they voted on the cloture vote.
In other words, the only Republicans who were willing to have a vote on the resolution were Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Norm Coleman (R-MN). The only "Democrat" who voted against cloutre initially was Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) changing his vote to reserve the right to reintroduce a cloture vote. (Senate rules state that any member who voted against cloture can reintroduce cloture at a later date, so it is customary for the Senate Majority Leader to change a vote on cloture when it is obvious that it will fail when the leader wants to have a do-over.) A colture vote required a 3/5 majority to pass, and the final vote was 49-47 with Senators Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mel Martinez (R-FL) and John McCain (R-AZ) not voting, meaning that the final vote was ten short (nine including Reid's initial vote)of the 59 needed to pass. (It is 60 when all Senators are present.)
While Senator Coleman is a newcomer as a "moderate," he knows that he is in a very vulnerable place as he faces re-election last year, with GOP "dream candidate" former Congressman Mark Kennedy (R-MN) losing to then-Hannepin County Prosecutor Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) by 20 points and he knew that the vote would fail. This seems to be the only time that GOP "moderates" buck the party. The last instance that I can remember where a vote by "moderates" a Congressional Republican went against the leadership was Campaign Finance Reform in 2002, and the only other time that it meant anything in the Bush years was the vote by then-Senators Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and Jim Jeffords (I-VT) to reduce the amount of the Bush tax cut, with the aftermath leading to Jeffords' defection from the Republican Party.
This is something that happens a lot of the time. There are Republicans in Congress in districts that are Democratic-leaning who will say that they are moderate and point out the times that they made "courageous" stands against the Republican leadership, but none of these times are actually brave, because the vote has already been decided. As Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) said about "moderate" Congressional Republicans, "There is no such thing as a moderate Republican in Congress. They say that they only voted with Tom DeLay 70 percent of the time, but they vote with him 100 percent of the time when he needs their votes." It looks like Senators Warner and Levin are doing the same thing. They are introducing resolutions critical of President Bush, but when push comes to shove, they tow the party line just like the rest of them. Of course, the initial press coverage is there for their "opposition" to the war, but not so much for their vote against their own resolution. However, there have been some on MSNBC who have called them on this blatant hypocrisy. Are we seeing a new dawn? If so, let's take Senator Hagel at his word. He said that if you don't want to go on the record, you should go sell shoes. Well, he is up for re-election this year, so let's do what we can to help him chart that course.
In a related note, why do people say that Sentor McCain is genuine in his war posturing but Senator Clinton is not. It is ludicrous to suggest that one is being calculated and the other is not. Senator McCain knows that he is painted himself into a corner politically and that he has to go forward and keep saying that everything in Iraq would be solved with more troops. He has been suggesting this for years, and he is now stuck there. He knows that he has to be a hawk or else lose credibility, so we need to stand up and say that he is, in the immortal words of Black Sabbath, "Treating people just like pawns chess/They only started the war" just as much as every other hawk on Iraq.
posted by Albert McStephenson at 1:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home