The Bosque Boys

H CON RES 63
16-Feb-2007
3:22 PM

The House approved a resolution "disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq" by a vote of 246 to 182.

Here is the roll call break down from the Clerk of the House.

Here is an interesting cross section from the Washington Post.

Notes of interest:

1. Texas 17 representative, Chet Edwards (D), voted in favor of the resolution to disapprove the President (see his statement here ).

An aside: the above is a bit of a shock to me. My guess is that this may make Texas 17 a bit more competitive next time around. It all depends on what happens in the next eighteen months--but this may give the next Republican candidate something to hang his (or her) hat on. Previously, Congressman Edwards has been nearly 100 percent supportive of the President on these types of questions.

2. Only two Democrats broke ranks: Gene Taylor, MS (whom I have written about previously here) and Jim Marshall, GA (see his statement on his website here). The two defecting Democrats, not surprisingly, were Southerners. The breakdown by region shows that the South was the only section of the country to vote with the President. Where I come from...

3. Seventeen Republicans defected. The Washington Post had been predicting 30 to 50 all week. Seventeen represents less than 10 percent of the Republican delegation. The "less than expected" number is a moral victory for the President and probably improves his position in the impending showdown over funding.

Now what?

Today from David Broder in the Washington Post: "Bush Regains His Footing"

Broder does a fine job articulating some things I saw in the President's press conference Wednesday:

Broder: It may seem perverse to suggest that, at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback. But don't be astonished if that is the case.

I was struck by this yesterday, and Broder notes today the President's use of the Patraeus confirmation, the conciliatory tone toward his opponents in Congress:

And third, by contrasting today's vote on a nonbinding resolution with the pending vote on funding the war in Iraq, he shifted the battleground to a fight he is likely to win -- and put the Democrats on the defensive. Much of their own core constituency wants them to go beyond nonbinding resolutions and use the power of the purse to force Bush to reduce the American commitment in Iraq.

But congressional Democrats are leery of seeming to withhold resources from the 150,000 troops who will be fighting in that country once the surge is complete; that is why they blocked Republicans from offering resolutions of their own in the House or Senate pledging to keep financing the war. Democrats did not want an up-or-down vote on that question, but Bush has placed it squarely before them.

Read all of Broder here.

My review of the press conference here.

Much is being made of the diversity of the leading Democrat presidential candidates: a white man, a white woman, and a black man. Agreed, there is some diversity there. But, overlooked in the media is the diversity among Republican presidential candidates. Henry Payne at NRO makes the case :

'08 race for president a winner on diversity," declared the lead A1 headline in a Jan. 21 Detroit Free Press story about the Democratic field. Let's review the top three candidates:
* a lawyer now serving in the Senate;
* a lawyer now serving in the Senate;
* a lawyer who served in the Senate.

Now for the three Republican frontrunners:

* a naval officer, Vietnam veteran, and POW now serving in the Senate;
* a businessman who founded Bain Capital, one of the country's most successful investment firms; president of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City; governor of Massachusetts, 2002-2006;
* a lawyer who served as associate attorney general, 1981-1983; U.S. attorney for New York South District, 1983-1989, prosecuted major organized crime and Wall Street insider trading; served as New York City mayor, 1994-2001; named Time's Man of the Year, 2001 for his leadership in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attack on New York City; founded an investment and consulting firm, 2004.

In addition, as Payne points out, the Republican big three vary from the Republican platform far more than the Democrat big three vary from their party's. Article here.

Jay Tea from Wizbang on the unserious Democrat posturing in a dangerous world. What he said.

I fear we are falling under the long shadow of short politicians.

On Style:

The President was confident, funny and in command of his facts. In terms of tone, he was also conciliatory and gracious toward the opposition party. He was, in fact, articulate in his explanation of the common ground shared by American public servants of all stripes.

The quote: "we [are people] willing to put our families through the grind of politics [because] we wanted to serve our country, [and] we care deeply about what takes place in Washington, America and the world."

On Iraq:

More of the same: he did not call Iraq the "central front" on terror, but he made it clear that the fight against terrorism hinged on the fight for Baghdad: "if we fail there, the enemy will follow us here."

He described a violent enemy who will stop at nothing to win: "these are people that will kill innocent men, women and children to achieve their objective...."

The President reaffirmed his dissatisfaction with the status quo, but he reaffirmed the strategy of "clear, hold and build." He attempted to embrace the Baker-Hamilton, Iraq Study Group findings. Embracing the argument that his "new way forward" is the necessary precursor (creating "political breathing space") for the new direction recommended in the Study.

On Iran:

He held his own. We'll see what happens.

On Politics:

The President was careful to call his opponents patriotic and well meaning. But he hammered at the paradox of a unanimously confirmed commander on the ground in Iraq, David Petraeus, and a Congress working to disavow the general's strategy: "Later this week the House of Representatives will vote on a resolution that opposes our new plan in Iraq -- before it has a chance to work."

The President conceded that the non-binding resolution of disapproval would pass the House--but he laid the groundwork for his case against any substantive legislative action to limit funds on the plan he is carrying out.

Bush: "Our troops are counting on their elected leaders in Washington, D.C. to provide them with the support they need to do their mission."

He is setting the stage for the coming debate over funding, which is the real showdown. And, for a president with an approval rating in the mid-30s, presiding over a four-year military debacle, he is actually in a fairly good position to win the next round in the now-ongoing battle with the opposition-controlled Congress.

The press conference in full here.

110TH CONGRESS RESOLUTION:

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced
on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional
United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives:

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

The first day of the proposed three-day debate in the House of Representatives over the above resolution proved that there really was no need for debate.

We certainly need more oversight; we need better leadership. We are in desperate need of hard-headed, rock-ribbed and bipartisan realism. We would all be served well by a rhetorical ceasefire. But clearly thirty-six hours of speeches from the well of the House restating four years of hackneyed and partisan talking points will not prove helpful.

One thing is certain: not one person in Congress will change their mind as a result of this debate.

The Democrats:

False and misleading...failed administration...civil war...we support our troops...George Bush is the only person in America who thinks this plan can succeed...this is a first step to defunding this awful war...this is not a first step to defunding this awful war...our troops are heroic and we support them...wrong war, wrong time, wrong place...sectarian violence...end of the line for a tragically flawed policy...I knew all along this was a bad idea.

The Republicans:

See anyone of my myriad schizophrenic posts on the subject (some options here and here).

In a C-SPAN interview from Sunday, President bushed defined "noise" as Washington chatter. "Everybody in Washington likes to talk," he said. Amen.

But the Democrats have a couple of things right: 1) the war is a mess and 2) the buck stops at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Having said that, now what?

One other note: the news coverage seemed ho-hum. The debate did not seem to be the lead anywhere. Most people still seem more concerned with Anna Nicole Smith.

One last note: C-SPAN has an excellent resource for listening to individual speeches here.

It is not just conservative, Republican-leaning religious folk who are upset with John Edwards for keeping two hateful bloggers on his campaign. Democrat-supporting Roman Catholics also are upset and vocal. LGF has the story.

In case you missed it, the biggest story in Washington this week was the advent of a powerhouse player in the United States Senate.

Why were Harry Reid and his Sancho Panza so angry, to the point of throwing adult-sized temper tantrums?

They had been had. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell quietly outflanked the Majority Leader and his minion with a maneuver of sublime adroitness. As the world anticipated the advertised spectacle of George Bush receiving his comeuppance at the hands of the newly crowned emperors of the world's greatest deliberative body, something funny happened on the way to the forum.

The Plan.

The Democratic-controlled Senate, with the help of several celebrated Republican defectors, contrived to move a non-binding resolution chastising the President for his general ineptitude and, specifically, castigating the troop surge he and his generals are implementing.

What Really Happened?

McConnell insisted that a statement of this magnitude would require a 60-vote threshold (fairly commonplace in the modern Senate). He also insisted that the Upper Chamber consider a minority-backed non-binding resolution affirming the Senate's intention to fund the war regardless of the non-binding resolution disavowing the troop increase.

The problem for Harry Reid?

The non-binding resolution attacking the President likely did not have sixty votes. The non-binding resolution affirming funding likely had a comfortable excess of sixty votes. So, instead of a public spanking of the President, Leader Reid was likely to preside over a public endorsement and major victory for the President. Reid was forced to pull the plug on the debate.

No wonder Reid and Dick Durbin were so red in the face. Even if you did not read this story in the mainstream media, make no mistake, McConnell made his bones this week, even while maintaining his signature gracious smile and temperate tone. He may not be Everett Dirksen (or he may be), but he is head-and-shoulders above our recent congressional leadership. He will be fun to watch in the years to come.

What he said. Here. Link from the Rott.

God bless you Joseph Lieberman.

Newsweek has this article on Hillary's Christian faith. I have no comments for now, but do note the friendly tone taken by the writer.