Did DeFazio poll influence Smith's vote on Iraq supplemental?
On Tuesday, Sen. Gordon Smith voted with Senate Democrats to narrowly defeat an amendment to the Iraq supplemental spending bill that would have stripped the bill of its troop withdrawal provisions. The vote was 48 to 50- with Smith and Hagel voting with the Democrats, and Enzi and Johnson not voting. Pryor voted in favor of the amendment.
I've been gearing up for the past two days for the call to Smith's staffer demanding to know why Smith voted against a timeline for withdrawal (or filibustered it again) after he publicly stated that continued support for Bush's Iraq policy may be immoral. Looks like for once I'm not going to have to make that call.
Did the DeFazio/Smith poll released by the DSCC earlier this week have any effect on Smith's vote, I wonder? Even if there's no current sign of a DeFazio run (or, unfortunately, any bona fide challenger on either side), the polling alone demonstrates the DSCC's focus on this race. Maybe that was enough to convince Smith to forego the usual say-one-thing-do-another shell game this time.
The Senate bill includes a binding provision requiring troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, and a non-binding provision requiring withdrawal of most forces by March of 2008. The House version mandates withdrawal by August 31, 2008.
The Senate could vote on the final bill as early as Wednesday. The bill would then go to conference committee. Given that both bills have some form of binding withdrawal provision, the final version that goes to Bush for signature will most certainly contain a timeline for withdrawal of troops.
Context and a good summary from McClatchy Newspapers via the Kansas City Star:
Since the war began in March 2003, 3,236 American servicemen and women have been killed and more than 23,000 have been wounded. The United States has spent almost $400 billion on the war.Democrats also argue that voting to end most American military involvement in Iraq over the next year puts pressure on Iraqi leaders to speed their efforts to reach the political compromises necessary to stop sectarian violence and create a stable representative government.
Both House and Senate versions would provide all of the $103 billion the president requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would add about $20 billion for other items, mainly national security, health care for veterans and returning troops, and hurricane relief.
Both versions also would keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in 2008 and possibly beyond to fight terrorists, protect Americans and train Iraqis.
Here's the statement of purpose from the Cochran amendment that was defeated on Tuesday, which is just a bit on the inflammatory side:
To strike language that would tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief by imposing an arbitrary timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, thereby undermining the position of American Armed Forces and jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Cochran thinks that partially non-binding language in a bill that hasn't been passed yet is jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I would argue that failing to develop any sort of strategic war plan, failing to exercise oversight, failing to properly and fully equip, train and deploy the troops, failing to acknowledge reality, failing to seek out and listen to competent advice, failing to learn the history and political dynamics of the region, failing to control rampant war profiteering, and failing to learn from mistakes over the past four years is jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
On Tuesday, Sen. Hagel accused President Bush of mismanaging the war with "an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam". Sen. Reid said that the President can swagger all he wants, but "we have 3,241 dead Americans." It's not all about you, George! Will he ever understand that? (No.)
Question for McConnell, Boehner, Lieberman and others who have been calling the troop withdrawal timeline some sort of "surrender" provision: If the surge is working, as you anxiously assert it is, then clearly we can and should bring the majority of the troops home sometime within the next 4 to 18 months, correct? Or, by trying to knock out the withdrawal provisions, are you trying to tell us that the surge, the "last chance" you begged us to give the President and that he demanded like an entitlement, is not, in fact, working? What part of last do you not understand?
Where has Cheney been? He was on hand in the Senate to break a tie if needed, according to the Washington Post.
|
March 28, 2007 |
Michelle Neumann
|
|
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Mar 28, 2007 5:18:39 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, even as I pledge --I swear-- to work for whoever runs against him...but please give props to Smith for voting against the war. It doesn't matter of it's opportunistic, it doesn't matter if its "political." This was a significant, important vote...and Smith voted the right way. I say "thank you Senator Smith...good to see you trying to clear your conscience as you contemplate your retirement from the Senate".
Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 28, 2007 6:03:55 AM
Way to go Michelle - you're proving that Democrats will never support a Republican, even when he does exactly what you tell him to do. Your close mindedness and partisanship are instructive.
Posted by: Michelle | Mar 28, 2007 7:30:18 AM
David - A stretcher!? They probably had to hold Cheney back from beating Smith about the head and shoulders! (kidding - they send Lynne to do that!) (also kidding!)
Anon - When the White House was not so weakened, and re-election not so near, he seemed to toe their line pretty well. Smith swiftboated John Kerry, a fellow Senator, from the floor of the Senate right before the election. I have a problem with that, yes. Also, I'm always suspicious of "catch and release" voting, a tactic Tom DeLay made popular. If you know the result of the vote is assured (in DeLay's case, he usually had the votes to pass), he would let those members in vulnerable districts vote against to save face at home. In this case, it appears that because a veto is assured, the result is certain and someone gets to vote against to save face at home.
Posted by: Senate 2008 Guru | Mar 28, 2007 7:33:47 AM
I definitely think the poll influenced his decision.
I actually mentioned in my blog last night after the vote:
Gordon Smith of Oregon was one of only two Republicans (along with Chuck Hagel of Nebraska) to vote to keep the withdrawal deadline language - no doubt influenced by the recent poll showing him behind in a re-election battle.
He knows he's Oregon's only statewide GOP, and he knows that it can be pretty readily taken away from him. He also sees this poll and it becomes a reality.
Posted by: Michelle | Mar 28, 2007 7:41:29 AM
Listening to Bush's speech this morning, I have to note that today he says we need to listen to the military commanders on the ground. When he ordered the surge, however, he decided that he didn't have to listen to military commanders who advised against the surge. Let's also remember that Bush sent the surge troops over without equipment, and had many of them skip the required training so that he could get the troops to Iraq before Congress had a chance to act.
Posted by: josh | Mar 28, 2007 7:42:14 AM
It would not surprise me at all if Smith's vote was not only because of the poll, but also this is a rumor that has been going around for nearly a month(DeFazio running). I am also guessing the reason why DeFazio's name is the only one featured prominently in the poll, is because he is truly the only person who could beat Smith.
Posted by: alice | Mar 28, 2007 8:27:45 AM
To Gordon Smith,
As one of your constituents, too little too late. Too much "flip-flopping", too much Bushy loyalty. By sticking WITH him over the years, you have to understand, we won't forget. It's not about what you do now, it's what you did then. You ignored us when we asked you to listen. You failed your constituents.
Thanks for your vote, now but..........I have to ask, had you listened back then, would we be where we are now? Would the Oregon soldier who died last week still be alive?
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Mar 28, 2007 8:58:35 AM
Would the Oregon soldier who died last week still be alive?
The problem with that line of reasoning, in my opinion, is there will be many more Oregon soldiers dead between today and next year. And whose fingerprints are all over those?
"Out Now!" is an old anti-war slogan from the Vietnam era worth reclaiming. It's too bad more Democrats in leadership aren't responsive to the growing anti-war sentiment that helped propel their return to power and, a year from now, with the war still ranging, many voters will be wondering what the difference really was.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 28, 2007 10:06:34 AM
Way to go Michelle - you're proving that Democrats will never support a Republican, even when he does exactly what you tell him to do. Your close mindedness and partisanship are instructive.
Democrats and independents are not going to be persuaded by one or two votes by Smith that they agree with; although, anti-war voters will settle for Smith's vote to give Bush a blank check for the war on Iraq to be all they need to support anybody but Smith.
Alternet has an interesting article that suggests Smith might have received permission to vote for this bill.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 28, 2007 10:14:16 AM
Way to go Michelle - you're proving that Democrats will never support a Republican, even when he does exactly what you tell him to do. Your close mindedness and partisanship are instructive.
This is just one vote. It's a good one, but there are so many others.
Posted by: AnotherAnonymous | Mar 28, 2007 1:05:10 PM
Here's a good compendium on Smith's overall track record:
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 28, 2007 1:08:29 PM
This is just one vote. It's a good one, but there are so many others.
Kari's link showing Smith's pro-corporation, anti-citizen votes should put him out of business, but there are those die-hard Republicans who will vote the party ticket regardless and others that don't know any better but will be persuaded by his good looks and empty suit.
Posted by: BlueNote | Mar 28, 2007 2:29:06 PM
I want a Dem to win Gordo's seat in 2008. However as a part time student of political strategy, I think that Gordo is making all the right choices to win the 2008 election. That is very frustrating. I feel like I am shouting down an empty mineshaft, but WHERE IS THE HIGH PROFILE DEM CANDIDATE TO CALL GORDO ON HIS TWO FACED CRAP?
Whining on blogs does no good. Having Earl B. or Peter D. speak out would be worthwhile, but I am beginning to lose hope.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Posted by: David English | Mar 28, 2007 3:19:53 AM
I was a little shocked to hear he had voted against the amendment as well. He must be taking some flack right now from his own party for that. Had Smith voted no, it would have been 49-49 and Cheney would have cast the tie breaker which would have passed the bill without that provision.
I'm sure they had to have a stretcher near by for poor Dick Cheney after the vote.