Interesting that some of those Dems voting against the measure had objections from the left... Waters, Woolsey, Lewis, and others. And no doubt they were released to voice thier objections by leadership once it was clear the vote was won. And among the more conservative Dems, two were the Georgia Dems who just squeaked past re-election challenges in 2006, so I'd be willing to bet they were released to protect themselves for 2008. Davis from Tenn., also may fit into that catagory.

So all in all, a pretty fair job by the leadership in managing their caucus. If I had to guess, I'd say only about 4-5 of those Dems are truly "off the reservation" as it were.

Kucinich voted against this? Is he trying to go for the "Move-on isn't liberal enough for me" crowd?

At least it passed. It never makes sense to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Breaking News

BUSH SAYS HE WILL VETO $124B HOUSE SPENDING BILL THAT CALLS FOR TROOP WITHDRAWAL IN 2008

So Bush is voting against the troops.

After all, he's the decider, and he's deciding that they aren't going to get their funding.

Very odd to see the Out of Iraq people voting with the Blue Dogs. Strange bedfellows to be sure.

People keep saying it's wrong to "micromanage" the war, but is it? The president is clearly an incompetent boob. As far as I'm concerned, his entire day needs to be micromanaged by some responsible adult.

Don't forget to thank Walter Jones and Wayne Gilcrest. It takes some balls to break away from the Borg and vote your individual conscience.

Now lets repeal the original authorization for this war, repeal the Military Commissions Act, shut down Guantanemo, restore Habeas Corpus, Get Abu Gonzalez out, impeach Cheney, yadda, yadda.

UA

Good for those three Republicans. Shame on the Blue Dogs who opposed it.

And double-shame on Lynne Woolsey, Barbara Lee, and Dennis Kucinich for failing to understand that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Edit: oops, didn't realize that NJ Lawyer had already made that point.

If this bill makes it through the Senate and to the president's desk, it's going to be vitally important that those who voted against it have gotten a MASSIVE earful from their constituents. Otherwise, the votes won't be there to override a veto. It's going to be a near-impossible override anyway, but I think the next step is to fight like hell to make this bill stick. That's OUR job.

Like it or not, this is the best and only bill we've got at this point and I don't see Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich getting anything better passed in this century.

If your representative voted against the bill, please consider giving them some serious hell. Loudly and often.

Maybe Kucinich can count votes too.

I hate just about all the ideas the Republicans are pushing these days. But what I particularly hate is that the Democrats constantly allow the Republicans to frame the debate and passively go along with the B.S. Why is any Democrat still talking seriously about Bush's phony War On Terror®© as if it was anything more that an obvious sham and a strategy for grabbing power Bush couldn't otherwise get? And why aren't the Democrats telling Bush and McCain to sit down and shut up when they spout that absolute CRAP about how if we fail in Iraq, the terrorists will "follow us home". I'd love to get the opportunity to ask McCain for just ONE concrete piece of evidence he has to back up that phony claim. (I'd also like to ask him to prove that if we succeed in Iraq, the terrorist WON'T follow us home.)

But the one that really torques my ass is the one where the Democrats allow the Republicans to paint this as a Republican vs. Democratic issue. Because it's not. It an American people vs. the supporters of this phony war issue. The Democrats aren't doing nearly enough to point out that they're the ones standing up for the American people while the supporters of Bush's surge are truly obstructionists.

If the Republicans are good at one thing, it's framing the conversation. And if the Democrats are bad at one thing, it's noticing that they're constantly getting chumped into fighting with the Republicans over Republican talking points.

The House bill is bigger than most of the media coverage is acknowledging. Essentially, the House is setting itself up to exercise a veto over the war. Now that the House has passed the supplemental appropriations bill with the deadline attached, the main contingencies are that Senate might not pass supplemental appropriations legislation that matches that of the House or the president might veto such a bill if it got out of the Senate. However, the House doesn't have to play along with either the Senate or the President. Pelosi doesn't have to send representatives to a conference committee, doesn't have to compromise with the Senate if they do send representatives, and doesn't have to vote in favor of any compromise that did come out of conference. Likewise, the House doesn't have to pass a new bill if the President vetoes. In fact, the powers of the Speaker are such that they really don't have to bring new legislation up to the floor for a vote.

In this sense, the House can cut-off funding for the war simply by refusing to send the President a bill he can sign. The upshot is that the nation is either in for a game of high-stakes chicken over the next three weeks or Bush is going to cave, sign the bill, and attach a signing statement saying he can do whatever he wants.

Right now I'm thinking that Bush might cave.

Speaker Pelosi holds the cards and the Senate and the Prez will have to deal with it. It will be very interesting indeed.