Why Dodd Voted Against Levin-Reed

Interesting (4.00 / 1)

Thank you for the explanation.

Will Dodd support the Feingold bill?

---

by: JimC @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 15:47:38 PM CDT

So why did Dodd not object to the unanimous (0.00 / 0)

agreement to make the Webb amendment need 60 votes?

It was unanimous, so I don't mean to single him out.

Maybe I'm missing some parliamentary nicety here. But the Republicans screamed bloody murder when Democrats threatened to weakly suggested that they might filibuster a SCOTUS nominee. They said they were ready to end the filibuster entirely, ruling Rule 22 unconstitutional by a simple majority vote.

But when the Republicans say they're going to filibuster, the Dems - including Dodd - seem to ask, "Ooh, poor baby. will that be uncomfortable? Maybe we can introduce this under Special Rules and not make you cast such a bothersome vote."

Like I said: maybe there's something going on here, and I don't know what it is. But I'm disgusted with the entire US Senate and have been for four months.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 18:11:36 PM CDT

I enjoyed Big Tent Democrat's post on this: (0.00 / 0)

Link

Good riddance!. This article is false:

The Senate rejected legislation Friday that would have ordered most U.S. troops home from Iraq in nine months, culminating a losing week for Democrats who failed to push through any anti-war proposal.

The vote, 47-47, fell 13 votes short of the 60 needed to pass.

(Emphasis supplied.) The bill would NOT have ordered any troops out of Iraq. It was not binding on the President. Only funding restrictions bind the President

Senator Dodd voted against the bill for the right reasons:

This bill (Levin-Reed) will not stop this President from continuing to wage this war. While a firm deadline is necessary, it is not sufficient without it also being enforceable through the power of the purse. Given this President's loyalty to his own failed policy, it is clear to me that anything short of firm, enforceable deadline that forces his hand will only serve to perpetuate our involvement in this civil war. I will only vote to fully fund the complete redeployment of our troops out of Iraq."

(Emphasis supplied.) I repeat my question, is Chris Dodd the only person in the Senate who understands this? Oh by the way, the Democrats have lost NOTHING yet on Iraq. They will only lose if they PASS a bill that funds the war without establishing a date certain for ending funding.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 21:15:17 PM CDT

To Laura -- (0.00 / 0)

Right. I'm unaligned too, and I think this is well worth being front paged.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 21:27:05 PM CDT

Make them filibuster (4.00 / 2)

I don't understand all the senate rules, but I am really getting tired of hearing the excuse that without 60 votes we can't do anything.  Yes, we can. The Democrats can force the Republicans to filibuster - really filibuster. Make them stay up all day, all night, defending their position. Shut the senate down. With the 60 vote rule, and with Bush in office, they aren't getting anything done anyway. I'm tired of the Democrats looking like a bunch of weenies.

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 21:36:47 PM CDT