The House (280-142) and the Senate (80-14) passed the Iraq war funding bill today. There is no timeline for withdrawal (or surrender as the righties are saying). The Western Word (TWW) believes the Democrats in the House and the Senate lost on this vote. Bush was the winner.

Indeed, the Democrats seem to be in a pickle. In 2006 the Democrats ran on ending the war. They gained the majorities in the House and Senate at least partially for their stand against the war.

Montana’s U.S. Senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester (both Democrats) voted for the bill (Roll Call Vote #181), which probably angered many people in their party. Congressman Denny Rehberg, R-Mont-AL voted for the two house amendments (Roll Call Votes #424 and #425).

It will harm Baucus more than Tester as Baucus is up for reelection in 2008. Tester just bitterly disappointed many lefties in his party. It appears Tester tried to deflect his vote for the war funding, by holding a press conference today saying the war is hurting first responders in this country. Baucus also had some remarks in the Tester press release. Maybe they should not have voted to cut the Homeland Security grants that helped fund first responders? Hmmm. But, TWW asks, “Then why vote for the war funding?” Use the billions spent on the war to refurbish the first responders. If you vote to de-fund the war, nobody will be without bullets or protection; they would just come home sooner. It is that simple.

On the other hand, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both voted NO, but it was a late in the vote when the outcome had already been decided. Obama voted first and then Clinton. They both know they need the “base vote” to win the Democratic nomination for President.

Many Democrats have been angered by the leaders of their party in the Senate and the House not standing their ground against Bush. Today many House and Senate members were giving speeches trying to explain why they are against the war, but voting for the funding.

“I am against the war, but I voted to fund it because I support the troops,” seems to be the Democrats method of operation. How well that plays with the home crowd is still yet to be seen. Some would like to see the Democrats draw a “line in the sand” a line that they promised they would do in 2006. That line better come soon or they may be back in the minority after the next election.