Tuesday Open Thread
Jan 23, 09:23 AM CST
On this 14th day of the 100th Unicameral Session, Senators are scheduled to debate and vote on the following bills:
LB 80 (Natural Resources) Authorize additional assistance for projects under the Safe Drinking Water Act
LB 94 (Cornett, 45) Authorize municipalities to receive certain sales and use tax information
LB 98 (Flood, 19) Eliminate references to a fund that terminated
LB 167 (Revenue) Change property tax provisions relating to appeals, equalization, and assessor certification
LB 17 (Mines, 18) Change provisions relating to multiple office holding
LB 44 (Gay, 14) Change provisions relating to precinct lists of registered voters and sign-in registers
– by matt | Send this to a friend
In essence, the new resolution avoids some of the nasty language in the Biden-Hagel one and is a bit nicer to Bush in an effort to get a larger group of Senators to sign on to it. In other words, its main features are being created simply with the goal of creating something more Senators are willing to sign, enabling them to distance themselves from escalation—the actual impact of their resolution be damned. And though on-air commentators are already starting to make somber noises about this resolution’s centrist and bipartisan nature, as well as its reach for compromise, let’s be clear: This only represents the “center” of opinion in the Senate—if that. It has nothing to do with what the American people want.
Keep this in mind: Majorities are telling pollsters that they want concrete Congressional action to block escalation. Yet a resolution that’s supposed to represent some sort of middle ground, and create the possibility of compromise in the Senate, is not just non-binding, but actually holds that the mere use of the word “escalation” is too hot to handle. That’s nothing short of amazing, when you step back and look at it. Indeed, Senator Warner was just on CNN, stating very clearly that the purpose of the new resolution is not to reduce the number of troops in Iraq or set a timetable for withdrawal—two things that majorities of the American public have repeatedly told pollsters they want.
— Don Kuhns Jan 23, 11:37 AM CST #
I speak as a Democrat and as an American, and as someone who voted for Ben Nelson: stand up and be a leader, Senator. The President does not deserve, nor should he get, the benefit of the doubt here.
Words matter. Actions speak louder. In both his words and actions, Senator Nelson is capitulating to a disastrous policy.
Let me be clear: Nebraskans hate this war just as much as anyone else in this nation. They don’t want to send more troops to die. An indefinite commitment in Iraq should not be the goal of this Congress. And a Democratic Senator shouldn’t be afraid that Congress is going to hurt the President’s feelings.
— Dave Sund Jan 23, 03:39 PM CST #
— Steve Hollister Jan 23, 04:56 PM CST #
— Don Kuhns Jan 23, 06:16 PM CST #
I understand respecting the office of the Presidency, but its current occupant has lost every shred of credibility he may have ever had. What Richard Nixon did to besmirch that office pales in comparison.
— Brian T. Osborn Jan 23, 09:47 PM CST #
and FYI – Maybe you all didnt notice – but your champions of Bush bashing
Biden and Hagelstripped the word “escalation” from their own resolution before they voted on it in an effort to appease GOP critics. That’s the maverick Hagel for you – he wont even stand by his own words.Ben is showing leadership – dontcha think if the Senate gets 65 votes of no confidence for the president’s plan it send a stronger message to the white house than 51 Democrats and Hagel?
And since no other GOP senator voted for Biden and Hagel at the committee level, how many will when the full Senate votes.
“Spanking” the president might be a fun way to get your rocks off politically, but he is the President and we will have a new one soon and demeaning the office only hurts the country in the long run.
Imagine the fun the DNC might have if Senate Republicans vote against both resolutions or even a compromise version. Anyone think that the issue might help in the 08 congressional elections?
But wait, considering the big picture and the facts would make all this Nelson bashing seem downright dumb wouldn’t it?
And I guess a Democrat getting 64% of the vote in NE is evidence of an elected official suffering from “out of tuch DC mentality.”
Get a grip folks.
— DCHusker Jan 24, 08:47 PM CST #
“In some ways tougher?” Doubtful. It’s sponsored by two Republicans who have not yet admitted the need for withdrawal. The D.C. pundit class doesn’t get to decide the mainstream position here. The American people do.
The American people have spoken. Loud and clear. Unfortunately, a large number of United States Senators are still trapped in the frame of mind that withdrawal is a “liberal” position. It is not. Americans – a vast majority of Americans – want out.
And even if it weren’t for the overwhelming public opposition to the war, it would still be our moral obligation to oppose a policy that will only serve to get more troops killed.
This President has been wrong every step of the way. When we have told him that he was wrong, he has called us Nazi appeasers, traitors, and terrorists. So – no – he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
What is needed is far more than “we disagree.” This policy is immoral and irresponsible, and to lend any legitimacy whatsoever to it is not productive.
— Dave Sund Jan 24, 09:03 PM CST #
It’s not an easy question. I don’t pretend to know the answer. But, we have no place accusing Nelson of playing games with semantics when that’s exactly what we’re doing with demands of the harshest language to best capture our outrage, even if it comes at the expense of the resolution’s power and effectiveness.
It’s more complicated than this, of course, but we can’t forget that there truly is strength in numbers. Often, far more than that in words.
— Kyle Michaelis Jan 24, 09:31 PM CST #
— DCHusker Jan 24, 09:38 PM CST #
But the center of opinion in Congress is not yet with the American people – and nowhere is that more clear than this resolution, expressing a “disagreement” with the plan of “augmentation,” and making it very clear that there is no need for any immediate plan to get us out of Iraq.
We all know that these resolutions have little power beyond their words. Where the debate on Iraq goes from here depends on opposition, not disagreement. That is not simply a semantic difference, but a difference in philosophy. A difference in action. The same difference that convinced so many to vote for the war in the first place, including both of our Senators.
— Dave Sund Jan 25, 12:29 AM CST #
The goal of this resolution is to broaden the resolution’s appeal. It’s important to send a strong message to the White House and Iraq. And the more support the resolution receives in the Senate, the stronger our message will be......
In the end, we all have a responsibility to lead. We are accountable to our constituents – the American people – as is the President. When we see a policy development that we feel is not in the best interests of the United States and the US military, we must speak out, we must act, we must communicate with the President that we disagree with his plan.
Simply put, that is what we are trying to do – to express our concern, our opposition, or disagreement with deploying troops in the heart of a civil war in Iraq. The goal is maximum bipartisan support to send the strongest message possible from the Senate about our concern about this plan to the President, to the American people and to Iraq. Thank you.
— Kyle Michaelis Jan 25, 01:44 AM CST #
— bruin606 Jan 25, 08:20 AM CST #