THE PLANK MAY 25, 2007
The passage of yesterday's withdrawal-timeline-free supplemental made a lot of Democrats pretty unhappy -- 140 Democrats voted against it, including Pelosi, while every Republican except for 2 supported it. (ABC is characterizing the vote as "a tacit acknowledgement that, at least in this round of wrangling, President George W. Bush won.") But here's an interesting twist in the Senate:
But the no vote was not the mainstream Democratic view [in the Senate]. Indeed, of the 16 sitting senators who voted against going to war to begin with, 11 voted to provide funds for U.S. troops Thursday evening. "Though I loathe this decision to fund the war, I will not take out my feelings against the troops in the field," said Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who voted against authorizing use of force in Iraq in October 2002. "Our soldiers should never be bargaining chips in this debate."Durbin was joined by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chair of the Armed Services Committee, who also voted against going to war nearly five years ago.
That stat surprises me, but does support a concept I wrote about a few weeks ago -- that there's something consistent in the odd combination of opposing the war at the beginning and opposing funding cuts now.