Must read if you want to know the skinny about the debate vote yesterday.

[kstewart33]

Go to: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

Steve Clemons who has great WDC connections, explains why some Repubs voted against debating their own resolution (Warner, Snowe, etc). Seems they got hugely ticked at both McConnnell and Reid and fired a letter off to both of them today.

Go read it.

[wryter2000]

1. Thanks

That's illuminating. I wish it made it clearer what shenanigans they were objecting to, though.

[cui bono]

2. That's not the whole story. Can you say CYA?

On Hardball yesterday Bob Shrum explained that the Publicans didn't allow a debate because they wanted to put forth a phony resolution calling to cut the funds for the troops. We all know that's not what they want, they were just putting it out there to force Dems to vote on something like that, something worded in a way that was not what ANY Dems support to try to make them look bad. They were trying to barter with Reid saying they'd give him 60 votes he needed if he'd give them the votes for the Gregg resoution. They're still playing the same games and Reid said no, we're not playing that game. Those who voted against the debate on the Warner-Levin Resolution were still playing the game and putting their party ahead of their country and the troops and nwo they're trying to cover their ass.

Partial Transcript:

MATTHEWS: Is that a fair description of what happened yesterday? That the Republicans don‘t want to vote on the war?

BOB SHRUM, HARDBALL POLITICAL ANALYST: It‘s absolutely fair. No. 1, it is time for the Congress, the Senate and the House to make an up or down vote on the surge. That‘s an easy vote to take. Maybe hard to cast it, but it‘s an easy issue to put in front of the Congress.

No. 2, the Gregg Resolution, which is what the Republicans are fighting about, this whole notion that somehow or another people are in favor of cutting off funds for troops in combat, is to the end of the war what weapons of mass destruction were to the beginning of the war, a big lie. No one is talking about cutting off funds to the troops while they are in combat.

MATTHEWS: Then why not just have the—OK, why not bring it up and let the Democrats vote against it, if that‘s the case?

SHRUM: Because the way it‘s written, its a phony. What happens if you cut off funding, is you don‘t cut it off tomorrow; you don‘t cut it off in two weeks. You say in six months or a year, the funding is over. The president begins the orderly withdrawal or redeployment of the troops.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17025658/