Feingold Amendment goes down, garners only 29 votes

May 16, 2007

I’m not entirely surprised the measure lost, but the margin was disappointing.

The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008.

The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and other Democrats who want to end the war. But the effort picked up support from members, including presidential hopefuls previously reluctant to limit war funding — an indication of the conflict’s unpopularity among voters.

The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance.

Here’s the final roll call. These were the senators who had the guts to support it: Akaka (D-HI), Biden (D-DE), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Reid (D-NV), Sanders (I-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Stabenow (D-MI), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR). (You’ll notice, of course, that the four Senate Dems running for president all voted for it.)

The news wasn’t all bad, I guess. As Greg Sargent noted, “[A]long with the House vote last week on the James McGovern measure — a straight up-or-down on whether to end the war — it helped further the gradual strengthening of the hand of progressives in both chambers.”

It also put Republicans, all of whom voted against the Feingold Amendment, on record. With some of these GOP senators facing tough re-election fights next year — Sens. Coleman, Collins, Smith, and Warner, I’m looking in your direction — this vote could come back to haunt them. Maybe.

As long as we’re on the subject, it’s worth noting that it’s a busy afternoon on the Senate floor for Iraq-related votes.

At the start of the day, there were four measures scheduled for votes.

Feingold-Reid: Would require the president to begin redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days of passage and cut off funding for the war on March 31, 2008. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say they’ll vote in favor of cloture on the measure; John Edwards has already called for the redeployment of U.S. troops to begin immediately and to be completed within a year.

Reed-Levin: Would require the redeployment of U.S. troops by March 31, 2008, but would also allow the president to waive the redeployment requirement.

The Warner amendment: The Associated Press says a “small group” of Republican senators is “coalescing” around a measure that would require troop deployments from Iraq if the Iraqi government calls for them. The measure would also cut off further economic aid to Iraq unless the president certifies that Iraq is making “satisfactory progress” on political and security reforms, but that provision would be subject to presidential waiver, too.

The Cochran amendment: The measure, introduced by Mississippi Republican Thad Cochran, would simply call on Congress to pass a war funding bill that the president is willing to sign.

Feingold-Reid came up far short, while Levin ended up pulling his measure from the floor altogether. Warner’s amendment was too weak for most Dems — it garnered 52 votes, but it needed 60 to advance.

As for Cochran measure, most of the chamber thought it was harmless (and largely meaningless). It was really little more than a nonbinding resolution saying that the Senate wants to wrap up a war spending measure by Memorial Day. It passed, 87 to 9.

All in all, it’s a disappointing afternoon. Dems couldn’t stick together on the Feingold Amendment, and for all the talk about Republicans distancing themselves from the White House, none was willing to stray very far.

Stay tuned.

Who’s suprised?

  • Hey, CB, it’s NOT a disappointment. What the vote did was establish exactly “who-is-for-what.” It’s time this vote was taken.

    Reid can now go to work, if he wants, and not waste time on those who are already for it.

    This vote is just the beginning – no need to be disappointed.

  • Feingold-Reid is very close in verbiage to Feingold-Kerry. Remember that Feingold-Kerry got just 13 votes. We’re at 29 now.

    Disappointing, yes. Less disappointing than a month ago? Yes, again.

  • It’s pretty simple. The Democrats are walking a fine line, or at least think they are. They seem to appreciate that most of the public wants an end to the war in Iraq; hence passage of the first supplemental funding bill. They also seem to believe that the public is not in favor of simply cutting off the funds. I’m not sure that they are wrong about this. Some polls indicate otherwise, but it seems that that belief is pretty shallow. Keep in mind that Bush’s reaction might very well be to keep the troops there and ignore the resolution. That really would leave the Democrats in the position of having cut off the funds necessary to fight a war that is ongoing.

    If they are right, and the public would react badly to just stopping the funding, then doing so has the potential to be a political disaster. Trying to deal with crazy people, which the administration clearly is made up of, is always dangerous. They won’t simply back away from the ledge and give up the gun when you ask them to. Simply stating the obvious, and passing sensible bills, doesn’t do the job.

    I, too, wish that the Feingold Amendment had passed. I think that it’s the best alternative out there. Nonetheless, Senate Democrats are, through no fault of their own, playing a much more complicated game than those of us on the outside are. I’m sure that there are some Democrats who honestly believe that just cutting off funds is a bad idea. There are also some, and I’m sure Carl Levin is a perfect example, who are on board in concept, but think that there’s a better approach to accomplishing the same goal.

  • What happened to Tester and Webb? –Jessica, #3

    Damn straight. I’m *very* disappointed with Webb; no more cash from me, however little it might have been. He had been against this war from the beginning, he’s got an investment (only son) there and he won’t go on record with his vote??? What’s he waiting for? Bleh.

    And, CB, it puts not just Repubs but Dems as well on record which may come to haunt them in ’08. Repubs aren’t the only ones coming up for re-election then.

    • Comments are closed.