Comments on: Marshall, Barrow vote against Iraq withdrawal timeline

By: RuralDem

RuralDem — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:54:01 +0000

Jeff,

I understand that but I would argue that funding for PeachCare is an emergency considering the crisis we’re facing in the state. Remember, because of this crisis legislators like Speaker Richardson as well as Rep. Ehrhart are wanting to lower the threshold from 235% to 185% and then making vision and dental coverage optional.

By: bird

bird — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:38:51 +0000

“Who cares?”

This vote means that a majority of the United States House of Representatives supports withdrawal from Iraq in 2008.

That is a big deal any which way you spin it.

By: CobbGOPer

CobbGOPer — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:12:55 +0000

JRM is right, this will have a very difficult time in the Senate.

By: Jeff Emanuel

Jeff Emanuel — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:51:14 +0000

I think that the primary argument against “pork” in this bill stems not from the necessity of the projects funded by their earmarks, but from the argument over whether they qualify as “emergency” funds to be allocated in this “Emergency Supplemental” bill, whose stated purpose was primarily the funding of troops in combat.

That’s my take.

By: JRM2016

JRM2016 — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:51:13 +0000

Who cares? This legislation is d.o.a. anyway.

By: RuralDem

RuralDem — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:32:03 +0000

Yeah that makes sense. Thanks, Jeff.

Also, I could not find any information related to who the appropriations were for. Basically, I know Congressman Bishop secured the peanut money. A Democrat from California, Congressman Farr, I believe, got the spinach money for his district. Anyone know who wanted the other so-called “pork projects”?

I have to disagree with the Republicans who called everything outside of the war issue in the resolution as pork. I do not think PeachCare and the other child health care programs are considered pork.

By: dmettler

dmettler — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:10:30 +0000

The Democrats who voted against were split between the anti-war (Woolsey, Watson, Lee, Waters, Lewis, etc..) and the more conservative members. I think the left wing dissenters wanted to immediately stop funding.

By: Icarus

Icarus — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:00:58 +0000

I’ll assume Lewis’s reason is similar to that of Kucinich.

By: Jeff Emanuel

Jeff Emanuel — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:58:01 +0000

Kucinich voted nay because the supplemental funded the Iraq War, period. He and some others in his ideological category have declared a moratorium against voting for any bills which fund the Iraq War to any degree.

By: RuralDem

RuralDem — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:43:28 +0000

Any idea why Lewis voted Nay? Strange to see him grouped with Marshall, Taylor, Lincoln Davis and Dan Boren.

Also, unrelated to Georgia but related to the resolution, Kucinich voted Nay. That’s a surprise as well.

By: Jeff Emanuel

Jeff Emanuel — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:41:08 +0000

Sorry, RuralDem, missed that one. Updated.

By: RuralDem

RuralDem — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:40:40 +0000

I don’t really see the surprise on Barrow’s decision to vote Nay on the war issue. You also declined to mention Lewis voting Nay. If anything, that should be the shocker.

Did anyone else notice the money covering programs such as PeachCare within the resolution? Now, with that inclusion in that bill, I am shocked members of the Georgia Delegation (at least the Democratic side) voted Nay.