Posted on 02/04/2007 9:02:57 AM PST by Valin
WASHINGTON - A few senators from President Bush's own party may determine the outcome of an Iraq war vote this week that would deal a blow to him. These Republicans, up for re-election in 2008, are faced with balancing party loyalty against voters' anger at a war that is generally unpopular in their states.
On the table is a resolution by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., that would put the Senate on record as opposing President Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
With Republicans ready to use parliamentary delays that would take 60 votes to force a vote on the Warner measure _ and some Democrats opposing the resolution _ a handful of the GOP lawmakers who face voters soon are likely to play a crucial role.
Democrats hold a 51-49 working majority in the Senate for organizational purposes _ with backing from two independents _ but all 51 don't necessarily vote the same way on a particular issue.
"What's important is that people in New Hampshire know the concerns I've raised, my position on the issue, my support for the Iraq Study Group recommendations and my concern about the increase in troop levels," said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H.
He faces a potentially tough fight next year in a state that dumped its Republican politicians last election in favor of Democratic challengers.
A vote on Warner's resolution "doesn't change that position," he said. Sununu declined to say how he will vote.
But Sununu and colleagues in his position are in a difficult spot.
"I'm unhappy about the conduct of the war in Iraq and I would like to express my support for the troops at the same time," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. He, too, is up for re-election next year and would not say how he would vote. "I want to find an appropriate way to express that."
So far, six Republicans _ including Warner _ support his measure. Five are among the 21 GOP senators whose terms are up in 2008: Warner, Susan Collins of Maine, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Hagel, who could opt to retire, is considering a run for the White House.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who won re-election in November, also supports Warner's resolution.
Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Sam Brownback of Kansas are considered the other GOP wild cards in the vote. None is heading into a re-election year, although Brownback is a 2008 presidential contender. They have said they lean toward Warner's proposal.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., is a potential supporter. He said he is skeptical the additional troops would work and has challenged Bush's assertion that it is the president who must decide whether to send in more soldiers.
The vote would be the first on Iraq since the Nov. 7 elections, where voters unseated six Republican senators and put Democrats in charge.
Passage of the resolution would be a blow for the White House, which says sending more troops to Baghdad is the best shot at winning the war. Bush and other White House officials repeatedly have met in private with lawmakers to try to shore up support for his plan.
Republicans on Friday acted to block a vote on Warner's resolution. They insisted that several proposals be considered and each be subject to 60 votes _ a strategy that could dilute support for Warner's proposal and make it tougher for any measure to pass.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters that all 49 Republicans, including Warner, have agreed to block a vote unless Democrats allow consideration of their other measures.
Democrats have agreed to the 60-vote threshold but want to limit debate to Warner's resolution and one by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that indicates support for the president's plan.
As the two sides negotiated, Sununu and other members _ including some Democrats _ said they were reviewing Warner's legislation to see how they would vote.
To win, Warner will need 14 Republican votes, possibly more, to exceed the 60-vote threshold.
Of the 51 members who caucus with the Democrats, Warner has lost at least four votes. One of the Senate's two independent, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, is opposed to Warner's resolution. The other independent, Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, has not taken a position.
Warner also has lost support from Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. They say a provision to protect money for troops might preclude Congress from taking stronger measures to end the war.
Other Democrats, including Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Barbara Boxer of California, said they had similar concerns and were unsure how they might vote.
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., hospitalized after suffering a brain hemorrhage shortly after the elections, is recovering and will not vote this week, a spokeswoman said.
The vote means nothing. It is a symbolic gesture. The law means nothing to the press.
I think that this is a bunch of hysteria about nothing. What blow? He's the commander in chief. He's not prime minister. In fact, I heard a guest on Bill O'Reilly's radio show last week who said that the fact that Bush is still pursing the "surge" and doesn't seem shaken by the November elections has really rattled the middle east. IOW, the terrorists thought that they had won in November and now realize that they have another two years that they have to plug away at least.
Not now, not ever. We aren't supposed to remember that the Democrats' much heralded "victory" is marginal at best.
I think I'll just refer to the media as the 'Democrats mouthpiece' from now on. Republicans who support the Dems are good, Dems who support the Pubbies are bad. End of every media story.
The problem is the message it sends to both allies and enemies. The message to allies is we're cutting and running, and you can't depend on America to back you up when the going get tough.
And to our enemies...'just hang on a little longer and you'll win, OBL was right, just kill a few Americans and they'll run'.
I had a Dem friend who was upset at Chavez belittling GWB and Pelosi commenting about it. I pointed out that Chavez wasn't saying anything that our own Democrats don't say, day in and day out. The enemy of our country is within and has taken power in the House and the Senate.
I'm confused, I thought Warner had backed away from his initial decision or proposal and said he would support the President. I am happy to hear that Hagel is leaving, sooner rather than later? The Republicans can and should pressure the turncoats in their own Party and start warning these people that campaign funding is at risk if their constant opposition continues. Pay a price for turning against those who put you in office is a novel idea for Republicans but long overdue.
But my point is that unlike Clinton, Bush doesn't care about the poles and he cares even less about the opinion of the international community. Which is why, no matter what his policies, I love the man.
"....that would put the Senate on record as opposing President Bush's decision "
"Passage of the resolution would be a blow for the White House"
This writer certainly lets us know who she considers the enemy. The only consideration in her little world is how this affects the White House. Not the troops, not the WOT, not the increased destabilization of the Middle East and the possible consequences or the effect it could have on our economy if the price of gas goes to $7
This bears repeating.
I am convinced the constant spewing hate speech that's come from the Left for the last four years has done more to kill and injure Americans and prolong the war than all the IED's and terrorists Iran could send in their in our lifetime.
I see Lamar! is intent on losing his seat to Harold Ford Jr. next cycle.
I noticed that too, the liberal media gives no consideration at all to a vote that supports the enemy BLOWING up women and children in the marketplace.
All they care about is a "blow to Bush".
You are correct
Warner to Oppose Vote on Own Resolution
Powerline ^ | 2/3/07
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1778620/posts
Posted on 02/03/2007 10:58:13 AM CST by Valin
Senator John Warner will join what appears to be a unanimous Senate Republican caucus in opposing a Senate vote on his anti-Bush administration resolution, unless competing resolutions are also voted on:
(snip)
The problem is it's still on the table.
The press is the propaganda arm of the American left and they have an agenda...see this:
Oh I agree, on the GWOT he's been solid as a rock.
"I think that this is a bunch of hysteria about nothing"
My point is that it's not just "bunch of hysteria about nothing". It has send the wrong message to the world.
If Republicans would step up to the plate and start shouting back at Democrats, the public would pay attention.
Democrats are monopolizing the discussion. Republicans are acting like fraidy-cats, intimidated and mute.
Voters won't admire that. Voters won't re-elect that. Voters want someone ON THEIR SIDE. Regardless of whether the media are all socialist turncoats, a lot of voters understand that America needs to win, and will respect a politician willing to take that stand. A party willing to stand up and shout that from the tallest mountain.
Republicans need to SPEAK UP.
For winning. For America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.