Thanks for the info/analysis Frank.

THAT's what "Salon" SHOULD be doing, rather than issuing blanket "explanations" exhonerating the Dems.

That the "Aye" votes came mostly from close elections helps explain the lack of chutzpah … but it shouldn't condone it.

That Zach Space (63%), and Brad Elsworth (61%) voted for the funding means (to me) two things: insufficient armtwisting by the "leadership;" and (perhaps) a "buy my vote" mentality by some Reps. If they didn't get the pork they wanted they wouldn't give the support we needed.

Sound cynical? It is.

--

Anyway: thanks for the input. It helps clarify the issue (as opposed to "Salon"'s whitwash).

and anyone else who wants to know how all the representactives voted, go to clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll425.xml

Don't just give us freshmen. Tell us how every Democratic representative voted.

One issue, I think, is that W won't sign a bill unless people like Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy are pissed. It's immature, but that's the way W thinks. If the liberals hate it, it must be good.

Another thing this does is to make sure that Iraq is served up hot for the 2008 elections. It's a very crass way of thinking about it, but W is going to burn the troops no matter what happens, and the Republicans really deserve to be taken down another big notch.

I'm glad the minimum wage got slipped in there. Think of what else we could pass if we just made Russ feign disgust at a bill. Maybe we can win, one 'defeat' after another.

Of all the "New Democrats" voting "Aye" only two polled more than 54% in the elections. Zach Space took 63%, Brad Elsworth 61%. Go figure why they voted for the funding.

TX & FL - Nick Lampson and Tim Mahoney had the advantage of literally running against Tom DeLay and Mark Foley. Yet Lampson polled only 52% and Mahoney 50%. Who wouldn't be nervous?

NY - Kirsten Gillbrand won 53% against wife-beating and alcoholism charges plus George Bush.

KS - Nancy Boyda (50%) won on a stealth campaign, riding Gov. Kathleen Sibelius' coattails, with Kansas moderate Republicans sick of religious fanatics. (Jim Ryun spoke "in tongues" at campaign appearances, bought his house from an Abramoff-controlled non-profit for $100,000 off.) Late visits from Bush and Cheney failed to rescue Ryun from poor constituent services. Boyda was not even on pundits' charts as having a chance.

NC - Heath Schuler (54%) not only ran against Bush but incumbent's ethics charges.

AZ - Gabrielle Giffords (54%) won against Bush, the Foley scandal and a loopy non-incumbent who couldn't get an endorsement from the retiring, long out-of-the-closet Jim Kolbe.

PA - Altmire (52%) was supposed to lose.

WI - Steve Kagan took 51% against non-incumbent after a rough primary.

The oddest races were by former rep Ciro Rodriguez. His district was the only one "ungerrymandered" by the Texas courts after DeLay's money-laundered redistricting. In the November special election for the newly drawn district, he got hammered in most counties, finishing as low as 4th and 5th. But "incumbent" race traitor Henry Bonilla missed election by 1%, and Rodriguez obviously had divine intervention after gathering only 20% in the special. Bonilla's "Osama" charges backfired and his former majority juice was long gone by the runoff. Clearly divine intervention was a factor.

The Lord achieved balance by getting certifiable lunatic Michele Bachmann elected over Democratic pre-race favorite of some, Patty Wetterling, by a large margin.

Bottom line. Courage failed most of the "New Democrats" voting "Aye."

Most courageous? Newcomer Patrick Murphy, PA-8 prevailed over Michael Fitzpatrick by 1,528 votes yet voted "Nay."

Retired admiral Joe Sestak was somehow omitted from Salon's list. He won after the FBI raided scandal-plagued incumbent Weldon's office just prior to the election. He campaigned against Iraq war, yet voted "Aye."

This is great information, but it is incomplete. Why is Joe Sestak (D-PA-7; Curt Weldon's replacement) not listed? And why not include specific information on the exact bill number and a link to the Congressional Record so those of us with more tenured representation (my rep is in her second term) can at least be accurately researched?

Born again evangelical anti choice homophobe Heath Shuler.

… for virtually any one of these "ayes" on a case-by-case basis. Some states (PA + OH for instance) are not clear cut pro- or anti-war. Both have long been battlegrounds re the War and the PhonyPrez, and I've spent enough time (over the years) in both PA and OH to know that being "against" the War per se won't cut it. Not seeming to "abandon" the Boots is critical. (Hence, Murtha's about-turn). You can be "against" the war; but, god forbid if you appear to be "against" the troops. I suspect that a similar dynamic plays out in the other states. And, of course, there's the sense here that as you drift further and further west into the alleged "Red States" the more difficult any "anti-war" political stance becomes.

Two additional points:

What's missing from this list is any sense of just how thin the margins of victory were for any of these "ayes." If the aim is to stay "centered" and save the seat in 2008, a case can be made for this appalling vote. But …

(Point # 2):

THAT'S vote-counting 101.

When the Dems came down the pike with this "confrontation" I thought, "OK. They must've cobbled something manageable together, otherwise they'd not risk being embarrassed by a veto."

But, no matter how "friendly" my thoughts are as I look at this fiasco, I still can't seem to shake the gnawing conviction that "NO! They DIDN'T do their homework!" (didn't count the votes).

THAT'S just plain CRAZY.

Were they using the vote to "create" Party "unity"? Hoping against hope that the Dems'd come together and find a cause in time for 08? Hoping that if they "declared" they had an anti-war "mandate (they don't) they'd scare enough rank and file into line to make them seem to be 'on message" and "listening" to the American people?

Or, was it even more cynical: An exercise designed to wring some concessions on social spending from an Imperial Treasury hell-bent on War? Using the dead and dying to fund the barely living.

---

Personally: I find this list interesting, but uniformative.

A similar listing and analysis of the Senate fiasco'd be helpful.

Bottom line? There is no shortage of bright bulbs at "Salon". Surely someone (or two) could get the details re who voted "aye" or "nay" and an article analysing the results could be cobbled together in time to enlighten your readers and enliven our "discussions." That's what all of this needs.

But, make no mistake about it, the Dems got hammered on this … and RIGHTLY so. They forced a vote they couldn't win and backed down in the face of bluster and in return for what can only be described as minor "concessions."

The road to '08 looks bleaker by the minute.