Posted on 03/21/2007 11:39:25 AM PDT by 3AngelaD
The most outspoken critics of the $124 billion wartime spending bill in the House are facing withering support in their fight to defeat it.
California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey said that many of their liberal colleagues were caving under pressure from Democratic leaders who, according to at least one congressman, have threatened to block requests for new funds for his district.
They also cited MoveOn.org's endorsement of the measure Monday as a blow to their efforts.
"This is the process: people who feel strongly about this issue hold out as long as they can," said Waters. "A lot of pressure comes to bear and they can't hold up under the pressure."
The $124 billion emergency spending bill, backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), includes not only more funds this year for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but also new military readiness standards, benchmarks for the Iraqi government and an Aug. 31, 2008 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
A floor vote is planned for Thursday.
Democratic leaders have also added billions in funds not related to wartime spending in a bid for more support.
That additional money was attractive for at least one lawmaker, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), an Out of Iraq Caucus member. His spokeswoman, Danielle Langone, cited $400 million for a one-year reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
Waters said that she and other opponents of the spending measure had entered the weekend with 20 to 25 members on their side but that they had suffered "a lot of damage" as Democratic leaders aggressively urged members to support the bill...
One congressman, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution from leaders, bristled at how aggressively he was being pressured to vote for the bill, singling out Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) as especially forceful.
"I really resent this," the lawmaker said. "Rahm Emanuel told us a vote against this bill is a vote to give the Republicans victory."
The congressman also noted that Democratic leaders had "made clear" to him that they might yank funding requests he had made for projects in his district if he did not support the measure...
A jovial Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger went up to fellow Maryland Rep. Albert Wynn as he sat off the floor with a reporter and told Wynn that a vote against the bill was a vote for Republican victory. He waved a copy of the MoveOn.org press release backing the measure...
Some anti-war activists assailed MoveOn.org's approach to the Iraq bill, alleging that the organization had used a skewed poll to conclude that 85 percent of its members backed the measure...
"MoveOn put out a dishonest poll that did not offer its members a real choice to end the war, and now the peace movement is lobbying activists to reform MoveOn or drop off its list," David Swanson, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, said in an e-mail to The Politico. "I unsubscribed from MoveOn this morning."
The most outspoken critics of the $124 billion wartime spending bill in the House are facing withering support in their fight to defeat it.
I'm sorry, I don't even know what that sentence means.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I'm surprised that it's still the 124B today that it was yesterday. I bet if I refresh it'll say 153.2 billion.
"I'm sorry, I don't even know what that sentence means."
Amen brother. More twisted logic I have not seen.
Obviously this person is not a native speaker. Waters and her ilk don't want to vote for a bill that would provide continued funding for the war in Iraq. So they are fighting to defeat it. But the leadership has loaded it with pork so Dems will vote for it AND WON'T BE ON THE RECORD VOTING TO DEFUND THE TROOPS. MoveOn.org is not helping things.
They are trying to convince the nation that a vote against this bill is an "anti-war" vote. The republicans are almost all voting against the bill because it seeks to surrender next year, but this headline suggests that passing the bill defeats the "anti-war" group.
It's what Dave Obey was caught on tape saying last week -- the democrats had a plan to pretend they were for the war funding while cutting off support for the war with timelines. But the anti-war crowd didn't see the subterfuge, and rightfully said that voting to fund the war was not "anti-war".
Now they have "come to their senses", since MoveOn has given them permission to do the politically expedient thing and vote the money along with the timelines.
The Dems really ought to keep better track of whom they get in bed with -- on so many levels.
They also cited MoveOn.org's endorsement of the measure Monday as a blow to their efforts.
---<>---<>---<>---<>---<>---
ROTFLMPO...
Not even Pelosi wants to be associated with these doofusses now... So much for their "owning the Demodog party"
Thank you!! I was sure I was going nuts. I read that sentence, and the first few sentences in the article, 5 times, and I still had no idea what it was trying to say.
The Democrats have got no souls,
They will fund the war, but undermine it and use our soldiers as bait to get more votes.
Anyone know how much of the bill is added pork that has nothing to do with funding the wars?
More than $20 billion, if I remember what I read this morning correctly.
Maxine has become a strong force in the democrat party.
Tomorrow maybe she be telling us she lost, becuz she be...
She is running down because there are no public buildings left in her congressional district to which she can attach her name.
You are absolutely right in your insight. The rabid anti-war leftists are being defeated by the looney leftists with this bill. The hard core anti-war people want a bill that mandates pulling out before the sun rises tomorrow and to take all the money for the war and put it into social spending. They have been defeated by other Democrats who are pushing a longer timetable for pulling out. Either way, the bill is dead in the Senate and will face a veto from the White House.
Bush is going to veto it anyways..
It's too bad that the treasury couldn't somehow "fail to send out paychecks" accidentally, of course....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.