Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Feingold-Reid bill presents another Democratic gut check

Posted by Bob Geiger at 9:12 AM on April 3, 2007.


Bob Geiger: Who really wants to end this war?
feingoldreidgutcheck
Gut Check

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Bob Geiger in your
mailbox!

 

When Ned Lamont whipped Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senatorial primary in August and became the Democratic party's nominee for U.S. Senate, I began a campaign of contacting the offices of Democratic Senators and seeing how fast they would be willing to go on the record and support Lamont over the Bush-hugging Lieberman.

Some pledged support for Lamont quickly, while others took a while to come around to the earth-shattering notion of being a Democrat and actually supporting the Democratic nominee. And some failed the gut-check entirely and chose to support Lieberman -- who, at that point, had abandoned the Democratic party -- over Lamont, who had won the support of Connecticut's Democrats fair, square and convincingly.

This one should be easier.

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), with the strong support of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), will come back from the Senate recess next week and propose legislation that will challenge any veto made by George W. Bush on the war-funding bill that's just passed both houses of Congress. The Senate and House measures include provisions calling for a complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by March and September of 2008, respectively, and Bush has promised to veto whatever legislation he gets that contains language about bringing the troops home.

The Feingold-Reid measure matches the bill that just passed the Senate by ordering Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 120 days of enactment but will up the ante considerably by putting Bush on notice that funding for the war will stop in less than one year.

In other words, the tough, tenacious Feingold and former-boxer Reid are looking Bush straight in the eye on his veto threat and doing the legislative equivalent of saying "go ahead, make my day."

Being too stubborn to back down and with a track record of caring little about the welfare of the troops or what the American people think should be done, Bush will, of course, veto the supplemental bill within two seconds of it hitting his desk. At that point, Reid has vowed to bring the bill he is cosponsoring with Feingold to the floor for a vote and we will be off to the races in seeing who has the guts to do what's right for the country and the overstretched military.

So let's start tracking again… We have at least a couple of weeks before the House and Senate versions of the supplemental funding bill go to "conference" to reconcile differences, which gives us plenty of time to canvas Democratic Senators and find out how they'll vote when the time comes.

I'm guessing some will say they have no comment because voting on the Feingold-Reid bill is hypothetical until it's formally proposed and until Bush actually vetoes the supplemental. Some may also tell us that they need more time to study the Feingold-Reid bill.

I hope we don’t hear either, because both assertions would be utter nonsense.

It's important that Bush get some advanced notice of what he will face when -- not if -- he vetoes the supplemental and every Senator in that chamber knows that Reid will indeed bring the new legislation to the floor if he needs to. And my nine-year-old son could digest and analyze the 187 words of the bill in question in less time than it takes him to watch an episode of SpongeBob SquarePants -- and that's if he hadn't already seen almost identical language in other bills as each of these Senators so often has.

So I start contacting the offices of Democratic Senators today, along with Republicans Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon, both of whom voted with Democrats last week on the troop withdrawal. For some, it should be easier than others… Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama are running for president in 2008 and what could be easier than to pledge a vote that matches the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of the American people?

John Kerry (D-MA) has already agreed to cosponsor the bill and I predict Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) will be next. The gut-check may be more severe for some red-state Democrats but, hey, doing the right thing is what's supposed to separate Democrats from most Republicans.

As of this moment, we have Senators Feingold, Reid and Kerry prepared to force Bush to bring our troops out of a bloody civil war and focus on our country's true security imperatives.

I'll keep you posted on what the others say.

Update: Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has just signed on as a cosponsor.

Digg!

Bob Geiger is a writer, activist and Democratic operative in Westchester County, NY. You can reach Bob at geiger.bob@gmail.com and read more from him at BobGeiger.com.


Bush Arrives For Convention in St. Paul ... Nebraska?
Seems that the RNC really didn't want him there ...
September 2, 2008.
Notes From The Senate All-Nighter
Bob Geiger: The rhetoric is flying in the Capitol.
July 18, 2007.
Leahy: Bush is "Contemptuous of the Congress"
Bob Geiger: Judiciary Committee Chairman rips Bush stonewalling
July 10, 2007.
The GOP's Bill Clinton Double Standard
Bob Geiger: The same GOP senators who fought to impeach Clinton because of the Monica Lewinsky affair remain silent or call for a pardon of Libby, whose crimes amount to treason.
July 5, 2007.
No Joy This Fourth of July
Bob Geiger: How far we've fallen under Bush.
July 4, 2007.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Another fine job by Bob Geiger, "Democratic Operative"
Posted by: SteveB on Apr 3, 2007 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI)... will propose legislation that will challenge any veto made by George W. Bush on the war-funding bill"

How does a separate bill with the same loophole-filled "restrictions" as the funding bill the Dems already passed "challenge" Bush's veto?

Here's what this bill is really about: after Bush vetoes the funding bill, the Dems will cave and give him the money no-strings-attached (Barack Obama has already admitted this to the Associated Press).

Then, to appease antiwar sentiment in the Democratic party and in the public, the Dems offer up a separate bill with the same restrictions (that's Feingold-Reid). This bill either won't pass, or will be vetoed by Bush.

This has nothing to do with ending the war and evrything to do with shifting blame for the war. The Dems, who are providing the money to make the war continue, want to redirect the attention back to Bush.

But there's a need to spin their caving in to Bush as tough and oppositional, and that's where Bob Geiger, Democratic Operative, comes in. "Challenge Bush's veto" indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Bother?
Posted by: djnoll on Apr 4, 2007 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush "could" sign the supplemental bill then add one of his damnable signing statements that negates the entire part about bringing the troops home. He has done it before so many times, because he just does not care about what the American people think. He gets his money, he does not have to act, the pork legislation goes through, and Congress does nothing again! Everybody in Washington goes home happy, and the young men and women keep dying half way around the world for the glory of BushCo.

It is time for someone to get it through that madman's head that the American people are the ones who decide what is the goal in Iraq - and we have accomplished that mission the day Sadam Hussein hung! Send the regular military troops to Afghanistan, get the SOB Bin Laden, and then bring them home. Start with those troops who are second and third deployments, National Guard troops, and Reservists coming home now. We need them here for National Security. Let his private army of Christian, Right-Wing crusaders wage his private war for money and oil in Iraq if he and his daddy want. Then when we can, arrest the miserable war criminal and give him and his cohorts up to the World Court for the war crimes trial of the century. See how he likes being a political prisoner with over half a million deaths to his credit. He will not fair any better than Hussein.

Enough is enough. Will someone please stop this clown and all the others who are supporting this madness!?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can you trust them?
Posted by: Morgaine Swann on Apr 4, 2007 7:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bob - I really admire your work, and I applaud you for having seemingly endless energy for it.

At this point, I don't trust any of them, especially Kerry. He didn't stand up to Bush in 2004 and I have no reason to think he will now.

I think when it comes down to a vote, they'll all wimp out, as usual. I'm praying that they prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'll believe they want to end the war when they turn down campaign money from defense contractors and cut the funding completely. They need to bring those soldiers home immediately. Any deadline that is more than 30 days is too long. I'm sick of their weakness. American kids are dying in that stinking desert so that Halliburton makes record profits. Nothing is, has been or will be accomplished. It's enough, already!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]