Shark 0 #1 November 7, 2003 By Al Neuharth, USA Today Founder The exclusive club called the U.S. Senate has 100 members. This week 94 of them ducked and ran before a pre-arranged voice vote gave President Bush the $87.5 billion war check he wanted. The six senators who had the guts to stay around to voice a vote: *Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. *Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I. *Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. *Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii *Harry Reid, D-Nev. *Ted Stevens, R-Alaska Among the six, Byrd shouted a loud "No!" The other five voted "Yes." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is an admired acquaintance of mine. Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., is a longtime respected friend. But both were wrong in agreeing to the cowardly voice vote so senators didn't have to go on record on the controversial bill. Republicans who favored it were afraid constituents might think the price is too high. Democrats against it feared being called unpatriotic. By contrast, the House earlier put its members on record when it approved the bill 298 to 121. In the "debate" before the Senate voice vote in an almost empty chamber, Stevens, the longest-serving Republican, carried the ball for Bush. "We will not walk away from Iraq," Stevens pledged. Byrd, the longest-serving Democrat, argued: "This $87 billion ... provides the wherewithal for the United States to stay the course in Iraq when what we badly need is a course correction. The president owes the American people an exit strategy for Iraq, and it is time for him to deliver." Polls show we're split about 50-50 on Bush's handling of Iraq. But 100% of us should shame those 94 senators who were afraid to be counted on one of the most important and controversial bills to come before this Congress. Feedback Other views on the Senate's voice vote on Iraq: "Every senator had a chance to use the hot line or come to the floor to voice his or her opinion. Anyone who wished to disagree could have. Absent any evidence to the contrary, one might assume that the rest of the Senate supported the bill." -- Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I. "It's a sham; the Democrats got a free pass. They carped for the past two months, but in the end didn't have the moral backbone to vote on it." -- Tripp Baird, director of Senate relations, The Heritage Foundation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #2 November 7, 2003 Another reason to be a libertarian....... Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #3 November 7, 2003 QuoteAnother reason to be a libertarian....... Yeah, they weren't on the senate floor either Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #4 November 7, 2003 >Another reason to be a libertarian....... Interesting statement. How do you figure a libertarian senator would vote on this issue? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #5 November 7, 2003 Tough one - about the only thing a pure libertarian would support is defense so they'd vote maybe on a loan, but not a gift ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #6 November 7, 2003 Good question. I'm an admitted hypocritical libertarian, so perhaps I'm a bad one to ask. My remark was aimed at the notorious libertarian habit of always having the guts to state our opinions and the basis upon which we found them - even when our opinions are unpopular. I gained respect for those senators who stayed and gave their opinions publicly - even everyone's favorite Klansman - and lost respect for all of those who didn't (except for some, for whom I held no respect anyway). I would have voted yes for quite a few reasons, though certainly I think the bill is flawed. but think that pure libertarians would be split on the issue at hand - grants vs loans. Libertarians - most of us I believe - would support the portion of the bill aimed at sustaining the sailors/airmen/troops we have over there. However, the grant portion of the bill probably has pure libertarians screaming bloody murder - that's where the argument in the libertarian party lies. The grants tick me off to an extent, but part of me realizes that getting the new gov't off to a new start is going to take some capital, much/most of which cannot be paid back and I think many libertarians realize that as well. I think Finland is the only nation that ever repaid the US for Marshall plan money - trivia; think I read that somewhere. My 2 cents. I haven't been to the party's national homepage in a long long time. Perhaps they have something posted there. What do you think, Bill? On a tangent issue, does anyone know what has become of the pre-war debts owed by the Iraqi government? Should the US replacement government NOT honor them then I think that puts us in a really tough to defend position on the international stage, given our staunch opposition to the forgiveness of massive third world debt. Beers and blues to all, Vinny the Anvil Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #7 November 7, 2003 Or call it bipartisan lameness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
