Feingold measure fails

Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2007 3:57 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Congress, Security

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Senate Democrats fell well short of the 60 votes needed to pass the Democrats' strongest measure for troops withdrawal. The amendment offered by Russ Feingold (D) failed by a vote of 28-70.

The Feingold amendment would have forced the president to redeploy most troops out of Iraq by July 2008. And it also would have cut funding for the war -- except fpr the the remaining troops used for going after al Qaeda, protecting US infrastructure/personnel, and training Iraqi forces.

No Republicans supported the measure. More than half the Democratic caucus did, including presidential candidates Clinton, Dodd, and Obama. (Biden is in Iowa)

The other Democrats supporting it were... Akaka (HI), Boxer (CA), Brown (OH), Byrd (WV), Cardin (MD), Durbin (IL), Feingold (WI), Feinstein (CA), Harkin (IA), Inouye (HI), Kennedy (MA), Kerry (MA), Klobuchar (MN), Kohl (WI), Lautenberg (NJ), Leahy (VT), Menendez (NJ), Murray (WA), Reid (NV), Rockefeller (WV), Sanders (VT), Schumer (NY), Stabenow (MI), Whitehouse (RI), and Wyden (OR).

EMAIL THIS

Comments

> The other Democrats supporting it were . . .

The usual cowards.

Steve Miller (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:08 PM)

We are not having a good week (DEMs). I hate to say it, but we are whimps. And to make matters worse, the alternatives are not acceptable (Repukes).

Chuk, NY (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:12 PM)

I'm curious about something. MSNBC has been consistently referring to there being 60 votes needed to pass the various pieces of legislation it has covered the past couple of days. Did the Senate pass a rule whereby it's no longer a majority of votes needed to pass legislation, or is MSNBC simply referring to the votes necessary to make it filibuster-proof?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:19 PM)

Obama was right just do not vote on this line of crap!

HP Boston (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:45 PM)

70% of Americans no longer support George's war. But King George and his drones say stay the curse. There is no military solution...must be political resolution within Iraq....ah hell its all been said a thousand times here...the blood & money keep flowing. BUSH SUCKS!!!

PJ (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:46 PM)

looks like we will be sending americans to they're death for sometime to come, hope someone thinks being iraqs police department is worth it, I really wish the people that think iraq is worth killing kids over would send they're own kids to take care of this noble cause, as a matter of fact any politician that votes for military action should be forced to send they're children male or female, that would put an end to these half ass police actions that always end in a mess, if a problem has no other solution than military force, use it, we could have told the iraqis that we intended to take out saddam and if they didn’t want killed to get out, then flattened the whole country, limited warfare never ends, there is never a victory, why would anyone think iraq is any different? this country did not learn a damn thing from vietnam

MK,MO (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:51 PM)

Why do we suck? Our Party is a bunch of whimps. How can we continue to say stupid things about Republicans if we look and act stupid all the time.

Dem Lemming, SF (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:52 PM)

Cowards? Steve, unless you're posting from Iraq, you might want to go ahead and rethink that for a while. The only coward I know of is he who, in the face of overwhelming evidence of a failed policy and a growing civil war, refuses to listen to anyone but the many voices is his own head.

A coward is someone who cannot face his own fear. In this case it’s a fear of being wrong.

Stacy S., Medford OR (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:17 PM)

You have to have 60 votes to end a fillibuster. Then you can vote on it and it is majority passes. However, if you don't get the 60 votes to end debate you can't get a vote on it to pass it to the President (which in this case would mean it is automatically vetoed). Then it would come back and the Dems would have to have 67 votes 2/3 the senate to overide the veto. This is why the war is not over. It is not because the Dems are weak. It is because the Republicans are blocking them, making it even more their war, and making it ever more likely that the Dems will have a super majority in both houses of Congress come 2008.

K Do, Kansas City, MO (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:40 PM)

Democratic senator from my state voted for Feingold, and no on the Petraeus Res. No wimps here.

PJ (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:46 PM)

Stacy S., Medford OR - A coward is someone who cannot face his own fear. In this case it’s a fear of being wrong.

Is this also the reason why Obama chose not to vote?

Miles Downs (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:02 PM)

Miles - Senator Obama gave his own reason for not voting - why are you asking me?

Stacy S. Medford OR (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:30 PM)

The answer is to NOT VOTE FOR FUNDS FOR THE WAR !!
The Democrats have to bite the bullet !!

They'll take political heat (stab in the back, coward, helping the terrorists.......) and it is politically dangeous.....

Don't vote for war funding ......
It's that simple

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:36 PM)

K Do - I understand the process of filibustering, thank you. My question was why MSNBC keeps referring to 60 votes needed to pass, which is inaccurate. They made need 60 votes to prevent a filibuster, but it is incorrect to state that legislation needs 60 votes to pass. My point is that they should use the correct terminology.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 7:35 PM)

Republicans will continue to protect the President rather than the troops or our nation. They raise no voice about Blackwater. They, along with Bush howl and scream about health care for children but have an open wallet for Iraq. They purport to support the troops but vote against limiting tours of duty in Iraq per the Webb amendment. They have no spine, they have no will other than to support one of the most reviled and contemptible presidents ever to occupy the White House. Democrats keep trying to change the downward spiral this nation has experienced under Bush since 2000 but unless they can gain a significant majority in the Senate in the next election, they will be continually blocked by Bush and his supporters in the Senate. The Democrats should be commended for trying. The Republicans should be ashamed.

R.Merrell (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 8:12 PM)

28-70? Kind of conflicts with the polls, huh?

Richard, Washington State (Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:28 PM)

I think there are going to be many republicans out of work after the next election.

Ron, St. Louis, Mo. (Sent Friday, September 21, 2007 9:13 AM)

I think there are going to be many republicans out of work after the next election.

For sure. Look at the polls. The emocrat led congress is up to 11% favorability. I'm betting on them.

Rodney Hamilton, Beach Front FLd (Sent Friday, September 21, 2007 5:10 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=371996