Shalrirorchia
06-02-2007, 04:59
Neoconservatives, rejoice. You have one more victory in against those employed in the War against the War On Terror tonight.
Senate Republicans voted to block discussion and debate within the full Senate, denying the demands of an increasingly skeptical American public that the war in Iraq should be subjected to increased oversight. Though the vote for debate clinched a majority (49-47), the 49 votes are not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster. Essentially, the motion for debate has been killed.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell claimed that Republicans "welcome the debate and are happy to have it.", but also stated that the minority would use its' powers to ensure "fair treatment".
Ironic, considering that this same Republican Party spent the past seven years doing everything possible to minimize the Democratic voice in Congress.
A specific incident comes to mind. Back in 2004 when John Kerry was running for President, he cancelled several campaign events in New Mexico and returned to the capital to cast a vote for a bill that regarded health care benefits for veterans (at the time, he was running for President AND holding on to his Senate seat, a fact that angered Senate Republicans). GOP Senate leaders, however, refused to call for a vote while Kerry was present in the Senate, preventing him from executing his function as a senator. These same Republicans then had the unmitigated gall to accuse Kerry of not representing his people in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Republicans called upon him to resign the Senate seat, knowing full well that Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of Massachusetts, would then be able to appoint a Republican to fill Kerry's seat (fortunately, Kerry refused).
Nor was this an isolated incident. Republicans developed a whole suite of tactics during their long, almost-uninterrupted reign designed to quash Democratic opposition. They would hold open votes for Republican pet-legislation until enough votes could be gathered to pass it (ignoring time limits on the voting period), but would immediately close down Democratic legislation when time elapsed. They would rewrite rules in debate in order to prevent Democrats from speaking out on legislation. When Senate Democrats filibustered Republican legislation, Republican Senate leaders even threatened to employ what they called "the nuclear option"...essentially stripping Senate Democrats of the right to filibuster (never mind the fact that the filibuster is a governmental practice backed up by several hundred years of American precedent).
Now these same Republicans demand "fair treatment" that they are in the minority.
Revenge is not a worthy pursuit of the true American patriot, but respect and fair treatment have to be earned. Concepts such as "fairness" rest on the integrity of the system; if the rules are frequently ignored or rewritten (as the Republicans have done), then respect for the political system is lost, and so too is the political civility upon which bipartisanship depends.
It is even more ironic considering that one of the mantras these same Republicans beat Democrats over the head with for years was "giving legislation a fair up or down vote".
If the discussion and the vote could be held today, Republicans would lose. There is more opposition than support for the President's policies...both in the Senate and in the country. 49 is a greater number than 47. Opposition out in the country is stronger. 55% of Americans support a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq (something that the President and his Party viciously oppose). 62% call the war in Iraq "a mistake". 75% of people disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq, and his general approval rating barely hovers above 30%. 52% say Iraq is getting worse, and 53% say that we are not at all likely to win there. That is why the President and his Party struck out hard at this effort to condemn them, even though it was largely symbolic. The Democrats were not attempting to cut funding for any troops. They were not attempting to pass a resolution ordering the commander-in-chief to bring the troops home. But any opposition, even symbolic opposition, is nigh-on intolerable to the neoconservatives that have largely assimilated the modern Republican Party. Many of the most diehard ideologues in the farthest fringes of the Right have come to see themselves as the final line of defense for an America that has been overcome by "defeatist, pansy, liberal traitors." They use increasingly harsh language and increasingly brutal political tactics to try and sustain a war that, in the eyes of many on all sides of the political spectrum, has become unwinnable.
The truth is, the Republicans of late have been more interested in "fair up or down votes" only when they are assured of winning those votes. Their supporters are only interested in "free speech" so long as the content provides glowing, unconditional support for the President and his war. Perhaps this is a hard outlook on politics in the country today, but it is also the depth to which we have plunged under the Bush agenda. It is a window into their own hypocrisy. Decrying Democratic attempts to bring the War to an open debate in front of the American people, Republican Senator John McCain accused Democrats of "offering no alternative plans for victory."...yet what McCain cannot say is that Republicans have any realistic plan for victory themselves. Sending 20,000-40,000 additional troops into Iraq is not a "plan for victory"...it is a reaction to the nightmare unfolding on the ground.
The most sobering thing of all is that, while they are playing political games, good men and women are dying for no apparent gain in Iraq. How long will the game go on, and how many must die so that feckless Washington politicians can continue to play games?
Senate Republicans voted to block discussion and debate within the full Senate, denying the demands of an increasingly skeptical American public that the war in Iraq should be subjected to increased oversight. Though the vote for debate clinched a majority (49-47), the 49 votes are not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster. Essentially, the motion for debate has been killed.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell claimed that Republicans "welcome the debate and are happy to have it.", but also stated that the minority would use its' powers to ensure "fair treatment".
Ironic, considering that this same Republican Party spent the past seven years doing everything possible to minimize the Democratic voice in Congress.
A specific incident comes to mind. Back in 2004 when John Kerry was running for President, he cancelled several campaign events in New Mexico and returned to the capital to cast a vote for a bill that regarded health care benefits for veterans (at the time, he was running for President AND holding on to his Senate seat, a fact that angered Senate Republicans). GOP Senate leaders, however, refused to call for a vote while Kerry was present in the Senate, preventing him from executing his function as a senator. These same Republicans then had the unmitigated gall to accuse Kerry of not representing his people in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Republicans called upon him to resign the Senate seat, knowing full well that Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of Massachusetts, would then be able to appoint a Republican to fill Kerry's seat (fortunately, Kerry refused).
Nor was this an isolated incident. Republicans developed a whole suite of tactics during their long, almost-uninterrupted reign designed to quash Democratic opposition. They would hold open votes for Republican pet-legislation until enough votes could be gathered to pass it (ignoring time limits on the voting period), but would immediately close down Democratic legislation when time elapsed. They would rewrite rules in debate in order to prevent Democrats from speaking out on legislation. When Senate Democrats filibustered Republican legislation, Republican Senate leaders even threatened to employ what they called "the nuclear option"...essentially stripping Senate Democrats of the right to filibuster (never mind the fact that the filibuster is a governmental practice backed up by several hundred years of American precedent).
Now these same Republicans demand "fair treatment" that they are in the minority.
Revenge is not a worthy pursuit of the true American patriot, but respect and fair treatment have to be earned. Concepts such as "fairness" rest on the integrity of the system; if the rules are frequently ignored or rewritten (as the Republicans have done), then respect for the political system is lost, and so too is the political civility upon which bipartisanship depends.
It is even more ironic considering that one of the mantras these same Republicans beat Democrats over the head with for years was "giving legislation a fair up or down vote".
If the discussion and the vote could be held today, Republicans would lose. There is more opposition than support for the President's policies...both in the Senate and in the country. 49 is a greater number than 47. Opposition out in the country is stronger. 55% of Americans support a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq (something that the President and his Party viciously oppose). 62% call the war in Iraq "a mistake". 75% of people disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq, and his general approval rating barely hovers above 30%. 52% say Iraq is getting worse, and 53% say that we are not at all likely to win there. That is why the President and his Party struck out hard at this effort to condemn them, even though it was largely symbolic. The Democrats were not attempting to cut funding for any troops. They were not attempting to pass a resolution ordering the commander-in-chief to bring the troops home. But any opposition, even symbolic opposition, is nigh-on intolerable to the neoconservatives that have largely assimilated the modern Republican Party. Many of the most diehard ideologues in the farthest fringes of the Right have come to see themselves as the final line of defense for an America that has been overcome by "defeatist, pansy, liberal traitors." They use increasingly harsh language and increasingly brutal political tactics to try and sustain a war that, in the eyes of many on all sides of the political spectrum, has become unwinnable.
The truth is, the Republicans of late have been more interested in "fair up or down votes" only when they are assured of winning those votes. Their supporters are only interested in "free speech" so long as the content provides glowing, unconditional support for the President and his war. Perhaps this is a hard outlook on politics in the country today, but it is also the depth to which we have plunged under the Bush agenda. It is a window into their own hypocrisy. Decrying Democratic attempts to bring the War to an open debate in front of the American people, Republican Senator John McCain accused Democrats of "offering no alternative plans for victory."...yet what McCain cannot say is that Republicans have any realistic plan for victory themselves. Sending 20,000-40,000 additional troops into Iraq is not a "plan for victory"...it is a reaction to the nightmare unfolding on the ground.
The most sobering thing of all is that, while they are playing political games, good men and women are dying for no apparent gain in Iraq. How long will the game go on, and how many must die so that feckless Washington politicians can continue to play games?