Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
Fri Sep 19, 2014, 10:12 AM Sep 2014

Both Feinstein and Boxer voted "Yes" to fund Obama's newest war in the ME

Read 'em and weep:

This is who voted "No." Boxer and Feinstein names are conspicuously absent.

Baldwin (D-WI)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Brown (D-OH)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heller (R-NV)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
Moran (R-KS)
Murphy (D-CT)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Warren (D-MA)

Feinstein, I would expect nothing less, but Boxer? I am VERY disappointed. I really would not like to think it's because she's up in 2016 and is doing it for political reasons.

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Both Feinstein and Boxer voted "Yes" to fund Obama's newest war in the ME (Original Post) Le Taz Hot Sep 2014 OP
Seems like I read Boxer was not fund raising for 2016 and may not run again tularetom Sep 2014 #1
Ah, you're right. Le Taz Hot Sep 2014 #2
We have not had the briefing on ISIS, Congress has, in view of the agressive nature of ISIS Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #3
Another name missing Iwillnevergiveup Sep 2014 #4
I wonder what the repukes' rationale was for voting No KamaAina Sep 2014 #5
I'm weeping. Dems to Win Sep 2014 #6
This is part of the email response I got from DiFi's office: LoisB Sep 2014 #7
DiFi needs to go. SoapBox Sep 2014 #8

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
1. Seems like I read Boxer was not fund raising for 2016 and may not run again
Fri Sep 19, 2014, 10:18 AM
Sep 2014

Which makes a "yes" vote even harder to explain.

Feinstein of course will make a few more millions of dollars from the deal.

BTW, that is sure an eclectic collection of "no" votes.

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
2. Ah, you're right.
Fri Sep 19, 2014, 10:22 AM
Sep 2014

I remember reading that now. I've been taking pain meds and I swear it's affecting my memory. Couldn't possibly be age-related.

VERY difficult to understand the reason.

I'm glad to see Warren and Sanders both voted "no."

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
3. We have not had the briefing on ISIS, Congress has, in view of the agressive nature of ISIS
Fri Sep 19, 2014, 10:41 AM
Sep 2014

the YES voters here have proven they understand the problem, the nay voters, who knows.

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
5. I wonder what the repukes' rationale was for voting No
Fri Sep 19, 2014, 12:16 PM
Sep 2014

except for the Rug Doctor, who is a committed isolationist.

 

Dems to Win

(2,161 posts)
6. I'm weeping.
Fri Sep 19, 2014, 01:49 PM
Sep 2014

No surprise about DiFi, but I would have expected better from Boxer.

Senator Boxer is a big supporter of Obama. She is likely not running for re-election, so maybe she decided to support Obama in this since she won't have to worry about voter response.

LoisB

(7,206 posts)
7. This is part of the email response I got from DiFi's office:
Fri Sep 19, 2014, 03:03 PM
Sep 2014

"I understand that you have concerns regarding the possibility of sending U.S. military service members back to Iraq or into Syria. While I understand and share your concerns, I believe that we must confront ISIL in Iraq before it further consolidates its power in the heart of the Middle East. I therefore strongly support President Obama's decision to directly intervene in Iraq to protect U.S. interests."

Got nothing from Boxer or Waters (my representative). I think this response is just another version of "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here".

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»California»Both Feinstein and Boxer ...