I'm back on the Boyda bus - for now

[Mabus]

I called Boyda's office (again), this time I talked to someone else and, frankly, I have to say, I support Boyda. I take back anything and everything bad I said.

Here's the pertinent portion of the conversation I had:

The 110th Congress doesn't get to vote on whether or not Bush decides to send more troops to Iraq. That's an Executive policy decision.

What the 110th Congress does get to vote on is funding the war. More importantly, what the 110th Congress can also do is oversight.

Boyda's office also told me that Ike Skelton (D-MO), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has announced (or will announce) that Gates will be called in front of the Committee and asked to justify the surge in troop levels.

*********

My comments and why I support Boyda. First, I'll start with reposting the transcript:

Gibson: Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?

Boyda: I think we’re going to vote to support what the commander in chief and head of military asks to do. At least, I am certainly going to vote to support it.

Gibson: If he wants the surge, he’ll get it.

Boyda: Yes…. He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision.

Gibson: But the polls would indicate, and indeed, so many voters when they came out of the ballot box, said, “We’re voting because we want something done about the war and we want the troops home.”

Boyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/05/congress-escalation/

Here's my take, Nancy's not real savvy in front of the cameras right now. After speaking with her office, I think what she meant to convey was encapsulated by her when she said, He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision. In other words, Bush, as commander-in-chief, decides to deploy troops, the Congress doesn't get a say. What Congress can do is fund or not fund the troops. What Nancy was saying is, if Bush does send the troops she will vote to fund them. Look at the question that Gibson asked her: would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq He did not ask her if she was in favor of the surge. Instead, basically he was asking her to assume there were an additional 20-40K troops on the ground in Iraq and if she would vote to appropriate money to support them. If she had said, "no" than people would be jumping on her for not supporting the troops. It was a question like "are you still beating your wife."

Additionally, what Nancy said, is in line with what the other two said in Gibson's interview. According to the thinkprogress website,

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), an Iraq war veteran, came out strongly in opposition to escalation, saying, “We need to listen to the military experts, people like Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Abizaid, that say, ‘Listen, the surge isn’t going to work.’” Another newly elected member, Rep. Health Shuler (D-NC) was more circumspect. Shuler said he didn’t think escalation was “the solution” but would consider it if “that’s what our military leaders said.”

From their answers, I don't think they were asked the same question Nancy was, i.e., Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?. Murphy's answer sounds like it is in response to a direct question about whether the surge is necessary. Shuler's answer sounds like it is in response to a question about whether the surge is a solution to the problems in Iraq and he doesn't dismiss it. Then, it appears it is Boyda's turn. From what I can tell there is a progression in Gibson's line of questioning. Gibson has gone from "is the surge necessary" with Murphy to assuming the surge has taken place and asks Nancy if she would fund them. What's she going to say? No, let them starve? get blown to bits?

When Gibson asks her whether Bush will get a troop surge if he wants it, she correctly points out that he's the commander-in-chief. He has the ability to call up troops, not Congress. Congress can provide oversight. Remember that Nancy is now a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Perhaps we should reserve finally judgment on whether we've been sold down the river. I want to see how Nancy handles Gates when he testifies in front of the Armed Services Committee.

Oh yeah, as for that last bit about the voting in 2000 and 2004, I think she's saying that Bush was s/elected as commander-in-chief of our military, and basically, the American people are getting what they voted for. It wasn't really politic of her but I don't think it has the meaning that thinkprogress gives it.

[evlbstrd]

1. Dupe

Fat fingers. And it's beer time here at the office.

[Mabus]

8. I thought you were just calling me names

:shrug: ;)

[evlbstrd]

2. I see what you mean.

But, I, for one, am sick and tired of having to parse the real meaning behind public statements.
And, I might add, that I haven't gotten a goddammed thing I voted for in the last 12 years.

[Mabus]

3. I think it was the way it was presented by thinkprogress

and she fucked up. She was right but she was trying so hard to answer the question that Gibson actually asked (she is married to a lawyer) that it came out wrong.

[evlbstrd]

4. If it were me being misconstrued,

that would be understandable. (It's hard to get the gist when half of what you say is bleeped.)
But she's had months to get her position out there, and we thought we knew it. Then this thing pops up.

[MuseRider]

5. I will wait and see too.

I hate to just jump ship on the first day. I can't imagine having to talk to the media let alone the national media. For now I will hold tight and see how she votes. It always takes work to get our reps to represent us, even the best intentioned can make a big mistake if we do not let them know what we want.

I know I have been worried, don't really know why because I really did like her.

Thanks for the explanation. I am still upset over some of the things she said but then it is the media thing, I am no good with them and can cut her a little slack on her first day.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Nope

That comment about voting for bush was just so wrong. You can't really interpret it any other way. She says we got what we voted for. But a LOT of us (especially most of us who worked on her campaign) did NOT vote for him EITHER time he ran. She also is ignoring the FACT that those elections were (to say the least) questionable. Yet she expects us to accept the results and live with them?

So now we can count her out on election reform.

I figure we have also lost her on Medicare reform since she comes out of big pharma and they undoubtedly gave her money to run for office.

Now she is going back on her word to vote to end the war. I HEARD HER SAY SHE WANTED THE TROOPS TO COME HOME.

Unless she takes back what she said and votes to end the madness in the middle east, she is toast in my book.

So now we have TWO dems in Congress from the sunflower state who might as well be repukes. :puke:

[Mabus]

7. She was alluding to his commander-in-chief status

He is the pResident and he can order the troops to battle. Congress can't really stop him. Sending troops is a function of the executive branch. Funding and oversight are functions of the legislative branch. All I'm saying is, based on upon, several (yes, I called them again) phone calls to her office, I'm willing to give her a chance. I mean, let's wait at least until a vote actually comes up. I also want to see what she does when Gates appears before the Armed Services Committee. She's on it and let's see what she asks and how she votes there.

[JeremyWestenn]

9. When are his confirmation hearings?

I am totally requesting time off from the place I work part-time at to see that. I'm still with her though, even after those statements, Democrats for the win, any time all the time. In this district it'll be either her or a Republican with no legitimate primary contender that couldn't potentially loose us our election and I'll take her any day of the week.

Unless she goes back on her opinion that Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be repealed. I'll be fucking furious...

[Mabus]

10. They were last month and conducted by the 109th Senate

On November 8, 2006, after the 2006 midterm election, President George W. Bush announced his intent to nominate Gates to succeed the resigning Donald Rumsfeld as U.S. Secretary of Defense.

Gates was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate Armed Services Committee on December 5, 2006. During his confirmation hearing on December 5, 2006, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan asked Gates if he thought the United States was winning the war in Iraq, to which Gates responded: "No, Sir." He then went on to say that he did not think the United States was losing the war either.<17> The next day, Gates was confirmed by the full Senate by a margin of 95-2, with Republican Senators Rick Santorum and Jim Bunning casting the two dissenting votes and senators Elizabeth Dole, Evan Bayh, and Joe Biden not voting.<18> On December 18, 2006, Gates was sworn in as Secretary of Defense by White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten at a private White House ceremony and then by Vice President Dick Cheney at the Pentagon. <1>

from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates#Secretary_of_Defense), for citations go to link.

fwiw, one of the duties that the Senate has (and the House doesn't) is confirming cabinet members.

The Senate has several exclusive powers enumerated in Article One of the Constitution not granted to the House; most significantly, the President cannot ratify treaties or, with rare exception, make important appointments (most significantly ambassadors, members of the federal judicary, including the Supreme Court, and members of the Cabinet) without the advice and consent of the Senate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate

[SheilaT]

11. When I saw those remarks

I was rather incensed, and drafted a letter, saying basically that she seems to have misunderstood the recent election. This evening I learned that her staff had spent much of the day fielding calls from angry constituents, so I don't feel I need to send it.

It was pointed out to me that she's quite new at this, and does not fully understand the impact of any comments she makes. All new jobs have a learning curve. The majority of Senators and Representatives start life as attorneys. I've recently realized that the essential task of an attorney is to play well with others. Those who are not attorneys, who come from somewhere else aren't quite on the same page. However, I'd argue that we need a lot more non-attorneys in Congress and in various state governments.

We need to remember that she took the "advice" of the DNC two years ago and lost. This year she did her own thing and won.

As for the 2000 and 2004 elections, Bush lost the popular vote the first time around, and probably the second time. People here on DU understand that.