I know its been commented on below, but I wanted to mention it again with particular emphasis: Peter Welch voted against the war funding supplemental, which was another such demand from the Presidency without a timetable for withdrawal (possibly in face of this criticism, however, the administration is reaffirming its August 2010 global deadline for its mostly-withdrawal, after officials had been sounding increasingly soft on it…we’ll see. Cross your fingers.). Given that it was a popular Democratic president pushing for it this time, the pressure was reportedly intense, with Rahm Emanuel furiously bargaining and pressuring (of course, he was reportedly back to working with his favorite partners, the blue dogs and Republicans) and Nancy Pelosi herself whipping members to get behind the vote.
But Welch, despite rumors to the contrary, held firm, and we thank him for that. For my part, its nice to, once again, have my faith in him re-confirmed. We may not agree on everything every single time, but its good to know he continues to stand by his word to Vermonters.
Thanks also to folks like Robert Greenwald, Digby, and especially Jane Hamsher who really latched onto this and almost achieved an amazing political coup under the media radar.
As for the bill, it passed 226-202 – interesting enough, with virtually no Republican support. Republicans objected to $108 billion appropriated in loan guarantees as part of an agreement to help shore up the International Monetary Fund. It’s more base-fodder masquerading as fiscal responsibility, as the anti-everybody-but-America wing of the right sees the IMF as part of its dreaded new world order, even though the Republican caucus has had no problems with supporting it in the past (of course, a lot of us on the left aren’t thrilled with the IMF either – and that’s an understatement – but probably a story for another diary). It is interesting, though, that the sort of bill Republicans have bullied Democrats with, as being a with-the-troops-or-against-them vote has a different flavor without George Bush pushing for it. Call it political relativism, if you want to be diplomatic. The good news is that this GOP hypocrisy seems to be the emerging media narrative in the wake of this vote.
In the meantime, we’ve clearly got a long way to go as a nation on the “better” part of this “more and better Democrats” plan.
But, as Hamsher said in the linked diary above:
Just remember:
They had to hold it open 10 extra minutes and after the Dems hit 218 and there were five GOP votes that scurried in under the wire.
We made the President of the United States himself whip to get the votes.
We tried to make the Dems fight like this when Bush was in office to stop funding the war, but they wouldn’t–so we did it ourselves.
I’m very proud to have worked with every single one of you. This was going to be a rout. They had to work for it.
Let’s do it again.
So say we all, eh?
the thanks to Welch. I wondered if he would gradually become just a party player given the new trifecta, but I’m pleased to see that he is willing to be an independent voice when necessary.
I called you out for openly wondering if you’re just too cynical, but I guess you could say I’m doing the same here… was it really so hard to vote the way his constituents were pressing him to once the Dem leadership knew they had all the ‘yes’ votes they needed to pass? If this really were coming down to the wire, would he survive the Party pressure? Would he trade this vote for another, or for funding of this or the other VT pet project?
Here in Vermont we often feel that we’re left out of the national battles. I don’t know how many groups and networks I’m on that regularly send out calls to people across the country to call the Senators and Representatives to vote a particular way, or to sponsor a bill, and our entire congressional delegation is already on board. This is a good thing, no question about it, even if it makes us feel irrelevant in little Vermont.
Then a vote comes up where we can make a difference, and the liberals and progressives here mobilize and actually influence the vote.
How is this not a good thing?