Jon @ 141: Calling Members of Congress names for not voting the way you’d like is unproductive and shows surprising naivety. On votes like these, Members of Congress do have to take into account their constituency back home. This is especially true for new Members of Congress.

Nancy Boyda (KS) represents a very conservative Kansas district where military issues are very important. Even though her district tilts slightly in favor of getting out of Iraq, her constituency won’t support an immediate withdrawal. She is aware of this and has to vote accordingly. She is also facing a tough re-election fight.

You don’t build a movement by castigating Members of Congress for not voting the way you want them to vote. You educate them on your issues and help them to educate their constituency on your issues and why those issues should be the issues of their constituency. A new Member of Congress cannot do that overnight. It is a long-haul process that requires recognizing that Members of Congress do, in the end, have to represent their constituency. On some important votes they will stand with you and other important votes they may have to stand against you. That’s why building strong coalitions requires time, tremendous effort and infinite patience.

My understanding was that she ran as an economic progressive?

However, sounds a bit of BS’er to me… This is what she said when she wanted to be elected:

“Foreign Policy

Establish a Realistic Plan for Iraq

The three-year-long Iraq war has cost thousands of American lives and has left Iraq without a functioning government. This chaos is a direct result of the current administration’s poor planning for the occupation of Iraq. Due to their failures, Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists, who may pose a greater threat to our security than Saddam Hussein ever did.

Out of respect for the Iraqi people and in honor of the American patriots who have already died, we have stayed for over three years and helped Iraq restore at least minimal government functions. But our assistance cannot be a blank check extending indefinitely. “Stay the course” is a political slogan, not a military strategy.

The administration must establish a responsible, realistic plan for dealing with the insurgency and a timeline during which the Iraqi citizens must establish a viable government for themselves…

Wasn’t she a republican at one time? Turned democrat in 2003 — convenient — Figures…

Foreign Policy: http://www.nancyforcongress.com/issues.php

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Nancy_Boyda_War_ _Peace.htm

2003 was a convenient time for a Kansas Republican to turn Democrat??

In which alternate universe??

ok, here’s what i see from a preliminary skim of h.r.2206 (not including the parts on hiv/minimum wage/small buisness tax cuts/… (there’s 202 pages).

…

Thank for delving in :) … will have a read tomorrow… Also what did ever happen to the House : ‘Accountability in Contracting Act’?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde…..es_ac.html

…regarding our ‘paid’ army that we need to keep an eye on…

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=190995

Jon @ 141: Calling Members of Congress names for not voting the way you’d like is unproductive and shows surprising naivety. On votes like these, Members of Congress do have to take into account their constituency back home. This is especially true for new Members of Congress.

Nancy Boyda (KS) represents a very conservative Kansas district where military issues are very important. Even though her district tilts slightly in favor of getting out of Iraq, her constituency won’t support an immediate withdrawal. She is aware of this and has to vote accordingly. She is also facing a tough re-election fight.

You don’t build a movement by castigating Members of Congress for not voting the way you want them to vote. You educate them on your issues and help them to educate their constituency on your issues and why those issues should be the issues of their constituency. A new Member of Congress cannot do that overnight. It is a long-haul process that requires recognizing that Members of Congress do, in the end, have to represent their constituency. On some important votes they will stand with you and other important votes they may have to stand against you. That’s why building strong coalitions requires time, tremendous effort and infinite patience.

My understanding was that she ran as an economic progressive?

However, sounds a bit of BS’er to me… This is what she said when she wanted to be elected:

“Foreign Policy

Establish a Realistic Plan for Iraq

The three-year-long Iraq war has cost thousands of American lives and has left Iraq without a functioning government. This chaos is a direct result of the current administration’s poor planning for the occupation of Iraq. Due to their failures, Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists, who may pose a greater threat to our security than Saddam Hussein ever did.

Out of respect for the Iraqi people and in honor of the American patriots who have already died, we have stayed for over three years and helped Iraq restore at least minimal government functions. But our assistance cannot be a blank check extending indefinitely. “Stay the course” is a political slogan, not a military strategy.

The administration must establish a responsible, realistic plan for dealing with the insurgency and a timeline during which the Iraqi citizens must establish a viable government for themselves…

Wasn’t she a republican at one time? Turned democrat in 2003 — convenient — Figures…

Foreign Policy: http://www.nancyforcongress.com/issues.php

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Nancy_Boyda_War_ _Peace.htm

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/51632/

Thanks. Really, really ON topic after all! Missed it earlier.

Calling Members of Congress names for not voting the way you’d like is unproductive and shows surprising naivety. On votes like these, Members of Congress do have to take into account their constituency back home. This is especially true for new Members of Congress.

Nancy Boyda (KS) represents a very conservative Kansas district where military issues are very important. Even though her district tilts slightly in favor of getting out of Iraq, her constituency won’t support an immediate withdrawal. She is aware of this and has to vote accordingly. She is also facing a tough re-election fight.

You don’t build a movement by castigating Members of Congress for not voting the way you want them to vote. You educate them on your issues and help them to educate their constituency on your issues and why those issues should be the issues of their constituency. A new Member of Congress cannot do that overnight. It is a long-haul process that requires recognizing that Members of Congress do, in the end, have to represent their constituency. On some important votes they will stand with you and other important votes they may have to stand against you. That’s why building strong coalitions requires time, tremendous effort and infinite patience.

My understanding she ran a progressive
Jon @ 141

Calling Members of Congress names for not voting the way you’d like is unproductive and shows surprising naivety. On votes like these, Members of Congress do have to take into account their constituency back home. This is especially true for new Members of Congress.

Nancy Boyda (KS) represents a very conservative Kansas district where military issues are very important. Even though her district tilts slightly in favor of getting out of Iraq, her constituency won’t support an immediate withdrawal. She is aware of this and has to vote accordingly. She is also facing a tough re-election fight.

You don’t build a movement by castigating Members of Congress for not voting the way you want them to vote. You educate them on your issues and help them to educate their constituency on your issues and why those issues should be the issues of their constituency. A new Member of Congress cannot do that overnight. It is a long-haul process that requires recognizing that Members of Congress do, in the end, have to represent their constituency. On some important votes they will stand with you and other important votes they may have to stand against you. That’s why building strong coalitions requires time, tremendous effort and infinite patience.

Sounds a bit of BS’er to me… This is what she said when she wanted to be elected:

“Foreign Policy

Establish a Realistic Plan for Iraq

The three-year-long Iraq war has cost thousands of American lives and has left Iraq without a functioning government. This chaos is a direct result of the current administration’s poor planning for the occupation of Iraq. Due to their failures, Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists, who may pose a greater threat to our security than Saddam Hussein ever did.

Out of respect for the Iraqi people and in honor of the American patriots who have already died, we have stayed for over three years and helped Iraq restore at least minimal government functions. But our assistance cannot be a blank check extending indefinitely. “Stay the course” is a political slogan, not a military strategy.

The administration must establish a responsible, realistic plan for dealing with the insurgency and a timeline during which the Iraqi citizens must establish a viable government for themselves…

Was she a republican at one time? Figures…

Foreign Policy: http://www.nancyforcongress.com/issues.php

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Nancy_Boyda_War_ _Peace.htm

My message to Carney:

I would have thought that a former officer would have enough concern for the troops to get them out of a bad situation. I guess not. What a disappointment. Funny how your website seems full of concern about bringing the troops home. When you get a chance to vote on it, you vote against it.

Does this show how low the integrity and honor of the officer corps has fallen to?

You do know the guy worked for Feith and had a fundraiser headed by Richard Perle! nuff said/

Nancy Boyda (KS) represents a very conservative Kansas district where military issues are very important. Even though her district tilts slightly in favor of getting out of Iraq, her constituency won’t support an immediate withdrawal. She is aware of this and has to vote accordingly. She is also facing a tough re-election fight.

You don’t build a movement by castigating Members of Congress for not voting the way you want them to vote. You educate them on your issues and help them to educate their constituency on your issues and why those issues should be the issues of their constituency. A new Member of Congress cannot do that overnight. It is a long-haul process that requires recognizing that Members of Congress do, in the end, have to represent their constituency. On some important votes they will stand with you and other important votes they may have to stand against you. That’s why building strong coalitions requires time, tremendous effort and infinite patience.

selise – Thank you for that analysis. That actually gives me a little hope back. It sounds as though the provision for the second vote in late July may have been written so as to give a vote to end the occupation clear passage even if no oil law has been passed in Iraq (despite the fact that Democrats may be secretly hoping one has passed by then).

It seems this House bill is unlikely to become law, what with veto threats and all, so I guess the next question is how much more is David Obey prepared to give Bush: is mandated passage of an Iraqi oil-forfeiting law going to be the next bargaining chip in play? [Bush’s new “benchmark talk” leads me to suspect that’s what he’s hoping for.]

It’s also not clear to me how much a problem no specified end-date in a bill would be should Congress vote (in July) to end the occupation and to fund a redeployment. The magnifying glasses need to be close at hand as this bill moves into the Senate…

selise – I am with you and dont plan on calming down much til we (are out of Iraq) prevail with peace.

i know. thank you.