Today is

Friday, May 25, 2007

Democrats Losing Battles - Republicans Losing War

Several weeks ago, in what was falsely publicized as a bipartisan effort in Wisconsin, Democratic officeholders fought to have the Bush administration extend SeniorCare for three years, and failed.

They crafted a troop funding bill that included timelines and benchmarks to help bring an end to the carnage in Iraq. They say it was bi-partisan, but Wisconsin Dems Feingold and Kohl added a provision to save seniorCare at the last minute. Unfortunately the bi-partisan effort ended there when Wisconsin Republicans including Paul Ryan voted against this bill and Bush also kept his promise and vetoed it. So what does the Democratic Congress do?

They had to do what I was saying all along, that the war in Iraq will not end until the Republicans say so. Now, the democrats turn in a war funding bill that Bush and his republicans wanted all along without timelines, which was bad enough but for some reason and only they know why, Wisconsin Dems insert the SeniorCare provision again.
Bill Passes without Timeline:
In a highly unusual maneuver, House Democratic leaders crafted a procedure that allowed their rank and file to oppose money for the war then step aside so Republicans could provide the bulk of votes needed to send it to the Senate for final approval.
Knowing the Republicans would vote to keep Bush’s bloody quagmire funded without timelines, why Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wis., would re-insert the extension in the war spending bill this time around is truly baffling. Also, when the bill was first vetoed by Bush weeks ago, the names of those voting against the SeniorCare timeline war spending bill got zero print here in Wisconsin. Word was the democrats were playing politics.

But now that the bill is passed, everyone hears who voted against the spending bill. On the national scene, Clinton and Obama get dragged over hot coals by the liberal? press and the local politicians who fought for SeniorCare but voted against the bill also get plenty of print.

BDN Excerpt:
- Among Wisconsin's House members, the bill was supported by Republican Reps. Thomas Petri, Paul Ryan and James Sensenbrenner and Democratic Reps. Steve Kagen and Ron Kind. It was opposed by Democratic Reps. Tammy Baldwin, Gwendolynne Moore and David Obey.

- In the Senate, Kohl voted for the bill but Feingold voted against it. Feingold wanted the bill to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, but it was not included.
Most of people who worked hard on saving SeniorCare, writing the provision and slipping it into war spending bill – VOTED AGAINST IT! While nearly all the Republicans who opposed SeniorCare in the earlier war drafts get the credit for saving it.

Some democrats have offered the idea that votes were bought for domestic spending like SeniorCare by giving the republicans the war funding without timelines. It is possible after all, state Republicans never proposed saving SeniorCare in the House or Senate. Chances are high, if left up to the republicans SeniorCare would have died.

SeniorCare was saved by the Democrats, they worked on the plan, they wrote the provision and only they slipped it into the spending bill. My question is why would democrats put SeniorCare into a controversial bill they would eventually vote against knowing the bill would pass with partisan votes from the very same people who wanted to kill the program in the first place? Bush is holding the entire country hostage, but the Wisconsin democrats just handed the credit for saving SeniorCare over to the people who simply don’t deserve it.

2 comments:

xoff said...

Sometimes it's not about getting credit.

In this case, some Dems were able to do the right thing on SeniorCare and still vote their consciences on the war.

That's win-win. And the vote is easily explained.

Lou Kaye said...

I agree with you completely that the results matter more than the credit. It does seem unselfish and honorable for the democrats, but the masses who rely on the MSM newspapers will conclude otherwise and unfortunately that is all that counts at times.

If they are accused of playing politics they may as well use those accusations to their advantage. I just think democrats could have done this slightly different.

Post a Comment