Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Republicans Will Be The Quasi-Peace Party And Obama Will Trap Democrats Into Voting For Pointless War That Will Never Be Won


Yesterday we looked at the cynical trick the White House is using to pass it's unpopular Afghan War supplemental. They're offering Democrats a "sweetener" in the form of $23-25 billion to keep public education and public safety of a local level from collapsing, to get them to vote for a package that includes that money plus the $33.5 billion for the occupation and escalation in Afghanistan. The money to save teacher, firemen and policemen jobs will be enough to get reluctant Democrats to go along with more war-- or at least give them an excuse for voting for it. Ironically, it gives Republicans an excuse to vote against it!

Pelosi says she won't lean too heavily on anti-war Democrats this time. (I guess that explains why Rahm Emanuel hasn't left to be mayor of Chicago yet.) House Dems say the Senate can go first on this one and Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn says he's going to put together a filibuster.
House Republicans have strongly criticized the effort to tack on the education funding, suggesting that they could oppose a war-spending bill for the second year in a row. Some Republicans have called the education funding another “bailout” that will add to the country’s $13 trillion debt.

“Giving states another $23 billion in federal education money simply throws more money into taxpayer-funded bailouts when we should be discussing why we aren’t seeing the results we need from the billions in federal dollars that are already being spent,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a statement.

Boehner and other Republicans have called for a “clean” war-spending bill.

“Our troops and the American people need this bill right now, not weeks from now, and certainly not after it’s been loaded up with billions in bailouts,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee.

While Republicans are balking at the idea of including the education funding with $33.5 billion for the war, the inclusion of the teacher fund-- which could save as many as 300,000 jobs, according to its proponents-- could make House liberals take a second look at the package.

Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) has opposed an escalation of the Afghanistan war, but he hasn’t ruled out backing a package that also included money for teachers.

“We’ll review the whole package the Senate will send us, but at this point he’s inclined to vote against the funding,” an aide to McGovern said.

Jonathan Tasini is running for the upper Manhattan House seat now being occupied by corrupt Democrat Charlie Rangel. Jonathan didn't like the way the White House paired this two issues anymore than we did-- and he put this video together last night:

If you think a progressive leader like Jonathan Tasini would make a good alternative to a special interests embarrassment, please help him raise the funds he needs to run an effective grassroots campaign in NYC.

UPDATE From Florida And New Jersey

Blue America-endorsed House candidate Doug Tudor is a career naval officer who was as disturbed by this trickery as the rest of us are around here; in fact-- in some ways, more so. This morning he issued this statement: “Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are putting their lives on the line everyday in Afghanistan. Instead of playing political games to win votes for a failing war effort, the leaders of my party should ask for an honest vote for continued funding. I, for one, would vote no, but members should be able to vote on issues of war and peace without those issues being connected to domestic spending packages. On a final note, if a member of the leadership ever tries to 'lean' on me regarding a war vote, he or she will be in for a big surprise. The thought of a Member of Congress allowing himself or herself to be pressured to vote a certain way when our troops’ lives are at stake is disgusting.”

Yesterday we met Tod Theise, who's running against right-wing warmonger, Scott Garrett. Today he told me that "decisions regarding war and peace should be based on tactical and moral imperatives alone. War purchased by legislative inducement can never be just or rational.  Peace offered at the behest of political patronage can never be lasting or meaningful. Any funding for the war effort in Afghanistan must be based exclusively on what is best for our national defense and our troops in the field. Period."

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home