Reid Allowed Vote On Mukasey In Exchange For Military Funding Bill

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/reid_allowed_vote_on_mukasey_in_exchange_for_military_funding_bill.php

Reid Allowed Vote On Mukasey In Exchange For Military Funding Bill
By Greg Sargent - November 9, 2007, 6:00PM

Here's some more on what exactly happened in the negotiations that led up to the rushed confirmation of Michael Mukasey yesterday.

According to sources inside and outside the Democratic leadership, Harry Reid allowed a vote on Mukasey because in exchange the Republican leadership agreed to allow a vote on the big Defense Appropriations Bill, which contains $459 billion in military spending but doesn't fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Reid had wanted to get this bill passed before the end of this week, and in fact, the defense bill did come up for a vote late last night and was passed after the Mukasey vote.

One key reason Dem leaders wanted this defense approps bill passed, sources tell me, is that they wanted to be able to argue that they had sent a bill to the President funding the military, if not the war itself. The idea was that doing this would allow them to protect themselves in the days ahead when the battle over Iraq funding heats up and Republicans inevitably charge that Dems are refusing to fund the troops.

"This lets us argue, `Hey, we just sent $450 billion to the military," one leadership source tells me.

According to sources, Reid went into this week with a few primary goals in mind: Get a massive $286 billion farm bill through the Senate, and get action on the Defense Appropriations Bill.

Yesterday Reid entered into closed-door negotiations over the Mukasey confirmation with his Republican counterparts; Reid hoped to use the talks to win quick action on the farm and defense approps bills, sources said.

According to some reports, Reid threatened to postpone action on Mukasey until next week or later. According to a source, this was about trying to force the Repubs to relent on the Defense Approps bill. The Farm Bill was less of the focus and was not a part of the deal for yesterday's vote Reid ended up striking with Senate Republicans. Mixed messages were emanating from the leadership all day about whether a vote would take place on Mukasey. But Reid finally got agreement from Repubs on the approps bill, so the Dem leadership sent out a notice to senators at around 7 p.m. that said there would be a vote on Mukasey by midnight at the latest.

What of the talk that Reid might allow a filibuster of the Mukasey confirmation vote? Asked why this didn't happen, a leadership source claimed that it was because Dem leaders were convinced that Repubs would be able to break off enough Dems to reach the 60 vote threshold and defeat the filibuster.

"They would have gotten 60," the leadership source says, adding: "Some on the Democratic side honestly fundamentally don't believe in filibustering cabinet secretaries. We are on the cusp of a new administration, and we think it will be a Democratic one. Filibustering here would have set a bad precedent."

Of course, this argument will ring hollow to some. Good behavior by Dems now is hardly likely to produce the same on the part of Republicans; indeed, they've already been filibustering like nothing else. And it also seems likely that the Dem leadership preferred to avoid the filibuster because it really wanted to get the defense approps bill passed as a shield against GOP criticism (though it can also be argued that there's pressure on Dems to get defense approps passed for other reasons) and so leaped at the chance to do this. That seems to be the reason that Dems rushed the vote through last night. Critics will point out that Dem worry about GOP attacks was hardly a good enough reason to wave the Mukasey vote through.

"It's important for us to say that we gave money to the military," the source said. "Because when Bush starts coming at us and saying that the troops are running out of money , we'll be able to say, `We just gave you $450 billion.' It kind of gives us a cushion here."

pocket...the only people who get first dibs on american taxpayer money...:grr:

immediately

regardless of votes, democrats must stand on priciple.

other considerations.

You can't get what you can't get. And gridlock is so 'Newtonian.'

The choice was between a recess appointment of the guy (in exchange for NOTHING), continued incumbency of a rightwing fuck in Gonzo's seat (in exchange for nothing) or what they got.

They would have gotten gridlock, and people just like you, on the right and left, would be complaining that they got nothing done.

The next step is to prohibit waterboarding as a practice from this day forward, without ruling on other legalities--the 'Is it legal in the first place?' debate, though the GOP insists it is. That preserves the opportunity to go after people LATER.

Of course, Bush will pardon everyone and anyone if need be. That's just fact.

But hey...WHATEVER.

Woulda been better to just do jackshit nothing (because that would have been the result), and get the whole world pissed at them....?

459 billion for the Pentagon...and a farm bill...the democrats get what?? A 'promise' from the Pentagon that the funds will not be used to fund the war?

What, they're gonna say "Hey, you baaastids on that aircraft carrier, no FOOD AND PAY for you!!! And say, you bums at those USAF installations, turn out the lights, we aren't paying your heating bills either, and wipe your ass with your hand, because there's no dough for toilet paper...Marines? Nobody MOVE--we have no money for airline tickets for PCS moves!"

There's very little discretion in those appropriations. It goes where the HASC/SASC says it goes.
A military doesn't last long if ya don't PAY and FEED it.

like the Pentagon tells Congress what black ops...torture trips...or any other meddling in foreign countries their up to..let alone what the likes of Randy Cunningham etal., are up to awarding 'contracts' and what not.

They can cadge from that for the longest time, but you are CONFLATING.

What was approved is allocated. If they shift it, that's a matter of public record.

Pentagon waste has been going on for decades. A little thing I worked on a decade or so ago had the waste up around a TRILLION or more, and they weren't even done. Oh, Bush wasn't the Pretzledunce then. The waste went back past his deddy, though, to Reagan at least.

Stop acting like it's a new thing, and stop acting like THIS PARTICULAR APPROPRIATION can be extrapolated. This money has been authorized to keep the paychecks coming and the lights on.

is supplying some 'information' regarding the Pentagon's use of the 'military budget'. Conflating? What does that mean? This particular 'appropriation'..'extrapolating'? What does that mean? The lights on? What does that mean? This has nothing to do with 'waste'..this has to do with a complete lack of 'over-sight', and 'funding, and legalizing 'torture'. Wow... 'Stop Acting like this is a new thing?' What Homeland Security, national surveillance, the consolidation of all that power in the Pentagon? Are you for real?

It doesn't. They're writing the rent check to keep the installations open. They're writing the check to pay the soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines. They're putting money in the empty PCS fund, and funding the other line items that each Service has requested.

This money has a place to go, is what I am saying.

And yes, I AM for real. I know how this shit works.

suggesting is that billions of dollars/goods go missing habitually...and no one knows..or seems to care.. where it goes...how can anybody say on where and what the DOD opts to spend money? I am sure that you are far more knowledgeable than I, about "how this shit works", but from my limited perception of government spending ala Duke Cunningham I am convinced that money appropriated goes anywhere it wants.

There's outright theft, there's skimming, there's Duke Cunningham-ish crap going on too. I don't argue any of those points. But see, those funds are already allocated before they're stolen. They get doled out to programs, and THEN they're stolen from those programs in nefarious fashion.

If the funds are reallocated on the other hand; in other words, pulled out of say, barracks maintenance, or PCS funds, or Navy fuel costs, and put somewhere else, they've got to jump through hoops to make that happen, and that process IS transparent.

Should be required reading for those who aren't realizing that quid pro quo, like it or not, is how it's done. I especially found this 'long view' remark from "the leadership source" (Gee, WHO do ya suppoze dat was??) interesting:

"They would have gotten 60," the leadership source says, adding: "Some on the Democratic side honestly fundamentally don't believe in filibustering cabinet secretaries. We are on the cusp of a new administration, and we think it will be a Democratic one. Filibustering here would have set a bad precedent."

many hissy fits some of you have thrown or will throw, it's the bottom line. Grow up and deal with it--or vote your so-called "consciences" the way you did in 2000.


on edit: typo

buying torture one vote at a time. Every single incumbent deserves to be voted out of office.

It appears facilitating torture and war funding means being a grownup to you. Those cutesy games played by the Congress translate into damage to real people and disruption of real lives. I do not support this war. I do not endorse torture. I make no apologies for our government participating in either. I condemn them all. And it's about time that more than a handful of principled people up on that Hill started standing up for something besides the status quo and the almighty dollar.

Dollars for Death. Death toys. It is still a freaking cynical game played by both sides.

That's nice. Unhelpful, but nice.

Seriously, who wouldn't like that? It's not happening in our lifetime. We have to live in the world we've got.

enough like minded people might be convinced to change the rules of the game? That collectively peace might be waged instead of war?

marched off a cliff, followed by those feeding into, and from, the MIC around the world.

There aren't enough "like minded people" to achieve critical mass in that regard.

It's a lovely sentiment. That's all it is.

Oh, wait..they don't have the votes. Or, maybe their powder isn't dry enough.

Or, maybe, they don't want to defund the war while giving another pay-off the military and looking "patriotic".

The bill includes funding for the military, but not for the war.

It's actually pretty plain, what they sent to him.

Everyone that blasts our Democratic but hair-thin majority needs to read this. Politics is the art of compromise, that's the way it (still) works in this country (although it was hard times from 02 - 06). Always has, always will.

My argument for the last year has been that the main purpose of this congress is to 1) stop any further damage that might be done to the country during Bush's last 2 lame duck years (and there was a ton of stuff that will not get done for Bush and the GOP now) and 2) stop the war if possible then 3) keep the GOP's agenda at bay the best you can until 4) we elect a Democratic president and we can truly control the agenda.

Truer words were never spoken. If they think the republicans will play nice because the Dems refused to stand on principle for the umpteenth time, I want some of what they're smoking.

I'm so sick and fucking tired of hearing Dems bleat that they caved because they somehow mysteriously intuited that other Dems would defect to the other side, as if that entitles them to a pass, I could vomit copiously into my mouth. If we do manage to get a Dem in the WH in 2009, I will abso-fucking-lutely guarantee there will be a Republican majority in either the House, Senate or both, and they will revert to what they do best - partisan, scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners, backstabbing, dirty-dealing, lock-step tactics to derail any change in policy, and prevent confirmation of judges or other cabinet nominees without apology.

How noble.

One day Reid has a petition on his website to thwart the Mukasey nod, the next he's making deals?

Doesn't sound like much of a deal - giving Bush and the GOP what they wanted in both cases.

Did they expect the GOP and Bush would vote AGAINST military spending?

brilliant. what a position of tactical power you operate from, o' wise leadership. remind me to play poker with you some day...

God forbid Cargill would have to go without government subsidies.

Reid has been "had" on things like these before. Promises broken.