Senate debate quashed; Dems shun fund cut debate for now
"The fact that . . . Democrats could pull together only 49 of the 60 votes needed to break a procedural impasse on the resolution opposing Mr. Bush’s plan was a product of many competing agendas.
There was the Democratic desire to avoid getting tied up on any vote that could be perceived as undercutting United States troops or endorsing Mr. Bush’s plan. At the same time, a surprising number of Republicans showed they were not yet ready to abandon the president even though many blame him for their November election losses and worry he will hurt them again next year. Then there were the presidential ambitions of several senators who are trying to distinguish themselves from others on the issue.
. . . [Republicans] knew that the bipartisan plan . . . did not have 60 votes. But the plan calling for no reductions in spending . . . was likely to get at least 60, meaning the only resolution that would have passed would have been one that essentially backed the president.
Most Democrats are not ready to begin the politically charged discussion of restricting war spending."
source
Hulse, Carl. (The New York Times). Many Voices, No Debate, as Senate Is Stifled on War. February 7, 2007.
posted: friday, february 9, 2007, 10:29 PM ET
tags: iraq senate surge
There was the Democratic desire to avoid getting tied up on any vote that could be perceived as undercutting United States troops or endorsing Mr. Bush’s plan. At the same time, a surprising number of Republicans showed they were not yet ready to abandon the president even though many blame him for their November election losses and worry he will hurt them again next year. Then there were the presidential ambitions of several senators who are trying to distinguish themselves from others on the issue.
. . . [Republicans] knew that the bipartisan plan . . . did not have 60 votes. But the plan calling for no reductions in spending . . . was likely to get at least 60, meaning the only resolution that would have passed would have been one that essentially backed the president.
Most Democrats are not ready to begin the politically charged discussion of restricting war spending."
source
Hulse, Carl. (The New York Times). Many Voices, No Debate, as Senate Is Stifled on War. February 7, 2007.
posted: friday, february 9, 2007, 10:29 PM ET
tags: iraq senate surge
posted by eric at 10:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home