Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “The Bigg Fizz”

« Not A-Feared We're Gonna Lose... | Main | Conspiracy! »

February 16, 2007

The Bigg Fizz

Hatched by Dafydd

Once again, the Democrats tried to slap President Bush -- and got bushwhacked.

The "big news" as far as the media cares is that the House passed a meaningless resolution "refuting" Bush's troop buildup in Iraq.

(Yes, "refutes" was the word local radio station KRLA kept using; they're the station that carries Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Hugh Hewitt. Although "to refute" can mean "to deny the accuracy or truth of," the more common usage is "to prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof." In either case, you cannot "refute[] Bush's decision to send 21,000 troops to Iraq.")

But the real news is that only 17 Republican representatives voted for it -- and 2 Democrats, Jim Marshall (D-GA, 70%) and Gene Taylor (D-MS, 60%), actually crossed party lines and voted with the Republican majority against the resolution:

Seventeen Republicans voted for the resolution. Two Democrats, Jim Marshall of Georgia and Gene Taylor of Mississippi, voted against it. Mr. Marshall is the son and grandson of Army generals and was wounded in combat in Vietnam, according to The Almanac of American Politics. Mr. Taylor has a generally conservative voting record and is “strongly pro-defense,” the almanac says. Six representatives cast no vote.

The final vote was 246 to 182; six representatives did not vote (two Democrats and four Republicans, I believe), and of course conservative Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA, 100%) passed away a few days ago. But as recently as two days ago, Democrats were predicting that from 30 to 60 (!) Republicans would defect. Most analysts said the minimum would be "dozens."

The seventeen "white-flag Republicans" are:

Michael Castle (DE, 28%)
Richard (Ric) Keller (FL, 96%)
Timothy V. Johnson (IL, 52%)
Mark Kirk (IL, 36%)
Wayne Gilchrest (MD, 42%)
Frederick Stephen Upton (MI, 80%)
James Ramstad (MN, 46%)
Howard Coble (NC, 84%)
Walter Jones (NC, 80%)
James T. Walsh (NY, 65%)
Steven C. LaTourette (OH, 71%)
Philip Sheridan English (PA, 88%)
Robert Inglis (SC, 84%)
John J. Duncan Jr. (TN, 92%)
Ron Paul (TX, 76%)
Thomas M. Davis (VA, 57%)
Thomas Petri (WI, 72%)

What is so encouraging about this vote is that those voting in favor of a non-binding (meaningless) resolution came nowhere near the number needed to override a presidential veto, which is 290 (2/3rds of 435). Although this has no meaning in a non-binding resolution, which needs no presidential signature, it has great significance in the next round of the Democrats' assault upon America's war effort: the attempt by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA, 100%) to cut off funding for the troops in Iraq, which would prevent them from being reinforced or relieved by new troops, leaving them in a perilous position.

This has wide support among Democratic lawmakers; but there are not enough of them (only 233 in the House, 51 in the Senate, assuming Sen. Tim Johnson, D-SD, 95%, is well enough to vote) to override Bush's certain veto. But such a scheme will certainly get fewer Republican votes -- and probably fewer Democratic votes as well, considering the opposition by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD, 95%) -- than the meaningless exercise in symbolism they just passed.

That means that there is no chance at all that the Murtha scheme can ultimately succeed, which requires overriding a presidential veto... and in fact, depending on how many Democrats follow Hoyer, who opposes the Murtha scheme, even though he supported the non-binding resolution, they might not even get a simple majority to pass the Murtha scheme in the first place.

So how long will the anti-war Democrats continue along this march to futility? It would actually make much more sense, not just militarily (of course) but even politically, for the majority caucus to say something like the following: "While we have reservations about the president's current strategy, we'll support it for now and give it a chance; if it succeeds where all his other strategies have failed -- wonderful! But if it fails, then Congress will have to step in and decide whether continuing down this road is in the best security interests of the United States." (It doesn't matter whether they believe it; it's still in their best political interests to say it.)

That way, if it fails, they get credit for allowing Bush "one last-ditch effort" to salvage the war (I'm speaking from the perspective of Democrats; I actually think the war is going much better than the media pretends). But if it succeeds, which could happen -- failure is always an option, but so is victory -- then the Democrats can bask in the glory along with the GOP.

As it stands now, with their repeated and increasingly shrill attempts to sabotage the war, they will inherit some of the blame if we lose (because they "handcuffed" our troops, and so forth). But if we win, they will get no credit whatsoever... because they predicted nothing but defeat and dishonor.

The Democrats think they're in a win-win situation... but in fact, it's lose-semi-lose. Welcome to the "majority" of a closely divided Congress.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, February 16, 2007, at the time of 3:58 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1793

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

This is the kind of thing that drove me from the Democratic Party. their eagerness to declare defeat and take advantage of anything and everythig for the sake of gaining power. Now we have this silly vote together with Pelosi's hysterics about Iran. She could at least pretend to care about the Americans they are helping to kill...but nooooo...all she and her friends can do is try their damndest to protect the people killing them. Disgraceful.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at February 17, 2007 3:09 AM

The following hissed in response by: Fritz

I am left wondering how some in the press manage to retain their positions when they have such poor communication skills. Time and time again they use words wrongly, such as the use of the word refute you noted. And is it my imagination, or is that more common with the left leaners? It is almost impossible to debate them because they change the meanings of words to where you have no way to refute what they say because you have no idea what it is that they mean. When you bring up a counterpoint, they say that is not what they meant and keep on doing that no matter how many points you refute.
As for the suggestion you offered, that would never fly with the left so instead they will simply deny they were against the surge if it succeeds. Should you show them proof of what they said against it, they will still deny it saying you didn't understand them because their words didn't mean what any dictionary says they mean. But their more likely defense would be that no matter what, they will continue to say the surge was a failure, and they would continue to maintain that even if all killing stopped and Iraq was turned into the safest place on the planet. They have learned well from the communist model of the big lie. The sad part is that there are many in the electorate who will believe them without taking time to question or think.

The above hissed in response by: Fritz at February 17, 2007 6:11 AM

The following hissed in response by: charlotte

There once was a Pelosi Dem Congress
That surged to no-vote the Iraq “mess”
Its resolve was non-binding
and Nam protest reminding
Only our foes it managed to cheer and impress.

The above hissed in response by: charlotte at February 17, 2007 6:48 PM

The following hissed in response by: Scott

Timmy from IL's 15th is my mom's congressman...

I swear to god it's my mission in life to make sure his ass loses his next election... At least with a democrat in that seat we'll KNOW UPFRONT it's a spineless toad, not on pretending to have, you know, any sense of decency...

The above hissed in response by: Scott at February 18, 2007 1:27 AM

The following hissed in response by: kimsch

The "big news" as far as the media cares is that the House passed a meaningless resolution "refuting" Bush's troop buildup in Iraq.
(Yes, "refutes" was the word local radio station KRLA kept using; they're the station that carries Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Hugh Hewitt. Although "to refute" can mean "to deny the accuracy or truth of," the more common usage is "to prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof." In either case, you cannot "refute[] Bush's decision to send 21,000 troops to Iraq.")

Perhaps, Dafydd, they meant to use rebuke. 1a: To criticize sharply: reprimand. Or perhaps they meant rebuke's synonym of reprove 2: to express disapproval of: censure.
both definitions courtesy of Merriam Webster

Even so, someone to whom words are the job should be able to use the proper word in the proper context.

The above hissed in response by: kimsch at February 18, 2007 6:09 AM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

Even so, someone to whom words are the job should be able to use the proper word in the proper context.

.....And Dafydd therefore uses the proper word in describing "Murtha's scheme":

Scheme:A secret or devious plan; a plot.
To make plans, especially secret or devious ones.

Of course, there is a slightly different definition for the word "scheme", but in Murtha's case, the above is appropriate.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin at February 18, 2007 9:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: charlotte

Devious hippies still trying to stick it to the Man. Those aren’t pearls that Madam Speaker wears, they’re love beads. Murtha and Hagel are probably wearing theirs under their shirts.

The above hissed in response by: charlotte at February 18, 2007 9:55 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Kimsch:

Of course they meant to use rebuke -- that's what bothered me: the inability to distinguish between rebuke, which means to take one to task, and refute, which means to prove that one is wrong. As words are my business too, I wondered whether I could sue them for some sort of literary malpractice....

Charlotte:

I would happily trade, if I could, Chuck Hagel for another Joe Lieberman: I would dump an anti-victory Republican in favor of a pro-victory Democrat in a heartbeat.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at February 18, 2007 1:24 PM

The following hissed in response by: Tomy

This poll is heartening and enlightning.

Also, here is the chart I tried to post earlier. Is public support for the war now on an upward trend?

The above hissed in response by: Tomy at February 18, 2007 2:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: charlotte

Completely agree, Dafydd. But numbers count, and it's mostly the Defeatocrats, the 'Namocrats, and Pelosi's Congress who are leading the charge to defeat and global derision. The pro-victory Dems are virtually an extinct species.

Those significant few white-flag Repubs are disgraceful, of course. Glad you're calling them down by name, and down they should go.

The above hissed in response by: charlotte at February 18, 2007 2:32 PM

The following hissed in response by: kimsch

Ah Dafydd, you could sue them but they would tell you that they were right "irregardless". ;>)

The above hissed in response by: kimsch at February 18, 2007 3:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Kimsch:

Are you would saying they would flout their own ignorance by flaunting the dictionary definitions?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at February 18, 2007 5:52 PM

The following hissed in response by: kimsch

Dafydd, absolutely. They are the Elite Media. What they say, goes!