The non-binding resolution 17 Republicans

Since the vote yesterday on the Democrats non-binding resolution against President Bush’s decision to increase U.S. troops in Iraq, I have heard from mothers, fathers, grandparents of soldiers, and they are very disappointed in this vote. Just who are the 17 who voted with the Democrats?

Among the 246 members voting for the resolution were 229 Democrats — and 17 Republicans. And while 180 Republicans provided the bulk of the votes against the measure, they were joined by two Democrats. (Six members did not vote and there is a vacancy in Georgia’s 10th District caused by the death on Tuesday of Republican Rep. Charlie Norwood.)

House Republicans voting for the resolution of disapproval (17)

• Michael N. Castle, Delaware’s At-Large

2006 Vote: 57 percent

2004 President: Kerry 53 percent

Long a partisan swing state, Delaware recently has leaned increasingly Democratic. But eight-term Rep. Castle is a long-popular moderate who previously served eight years as governor.

• Howard Coble, North Carolina’s 6th

2006 Vote: 71 percent

2004 President: Bush 69 percent

After a pair of close races at the start of his 12-term career, Coble has cruised to easy wins in this central North Carolina GOP stronghold.

• Thomas M. Davis III, Virginia’s 11th

2006 Vote: 55 percent

2004 President: Bush 50 percent

His visible engagement on local issues and relatively moderate profile benefits seven-term incumbent Davis, who has long had ambitions to serve in the Senate. But a Democratic trend in the Northern Virginia suburbs he represents is making him less safe.

• John J. “Jimmy” Duncan Jr., Tennessee’s 2nd

2006 Vote: 78 percent

2004 President: Bush 65 percent

A member of a local political dynasty in east Tennessee, 10-term Rep. Duncan has name ID and a partisan cushion in this Republican stronghold.

• Phil English, Pennsylvania’s 3rd

2006 Vote: 54 percent

2004 President: Bush 53 percent

English, in his seventh term, combines GOP loyalties with some moderate overtones, including an outreach to organized labor. But in the anti-Republican mood of 2006, his vote share in his Erie-centered district dropped 6 points from two years earlier.

• Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland’s 1st

2006 Vote: 69 percent

2004 President: Bush 62 percent

Though not exactly a maverick, this mild-mannered former teacher, now in his ninth House term, has distanced himself from party leaders before, especially on environmental issues.

• Bob Inglis, South Carolina’s 4th

2006 Vote: 64 percent

2004 President: Bush 65 percent

Straying from the party line is a relatively rare thing for the conservative Inglis. One of the few House members to stick to a term-limit pledge in the 1990s, he lost a Senate race in 1998 but returned to win an open House seat in 2004 and now is in his fifth term overall.

• Timothy V. Johnson, Illinois’ 15th

2006 Vote: 58 percent

2004 President: Bush 58 percent

Johnson, a moderate Republican in his fourth term, has a largely rural eastern Illinois district that is Republican enough to consistently provide him with comfortable margins.

• Walter B. Jones, North Carolina’s 3rd

2006 Vote: 69 percent

2004 President: Bush 68 percent

The namesake son of a late conservative Democratic House veteran, Jones had to explain his early and vocal criticism of Bush’s handling of the war to his strongly conservative constituency in 2006, but won a seventh term with ease. The district contains the Marine Corps’ massive Camp Lejeune installation.

• Ric Keller, Florida’s 8th

2006 Vote: 53 percent

2004 President: Bush 55 percent

After having to battle for a fourth term in 2006 in an Orlando-area district, Keller is likely to face another Democratic initiative to oust him next year.

• Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois’ 10th

2006 Vote: 53 percent

2004 President: Kerry 52 percent

An image as a leading House GOP moderate, combined with strong intellectual skills and a background in foreign policy, appeared to give Kirk political security in Chicago’s northern suburbs. But his percentage dropped sharply as he bid for a fourth term in last year’s tough political atmosphere, and Democrats may try to probe his vulnerability.

• Steven C. LaTourette, Ohio’s 14th

2006 Vote: 58 percent

2004 President: Bush 52 percent

Bush’s 2004 showing among LaTourette’s northeast Ohio voters suggests this is close to a swing district. But a weak Democratic recruiting effort in 2006 gave the party little chance of seriously testing the incumbent as he won a seventh term with ease.

• Ron Paul, Texas’ 14th

2006 Vote: 60 percent

2004 President: Bush 67 percent

A physician and former Libertarian Party presidential nominee, Paul has the nickname of “Dr. No” — earned mainly from his contrarian opposition to nearly all spending bills — that extends to some military issues he views as foreign entanglements. In his ninth full term over three separate tenures, Paul has taken a tentative step toward entering the 2008 GOP presidential race.

• Tom Petri, Wisconsin’s 6th

2006 Vote: 99 percent (no Democrat ran)

2004 President: Bush 56 percent

Now in his 14th full term, Petri has had only one relatively close re-election contest and has run several times without Democratic opposition. So he has the latitude now and then to differ with his party.

• Jim Ramstad, Minnesota’s 3rd

2006 Vote: 65 percent

2004 President: Bush 51 percent

Ramstad’s relatively moderate views and strong personal popularity have made Democrats view him as virtually untouchable after nine election victories. But Bush’s narrow lead here in 2004 suggests Democrats would have a shot in this suburban Twin Cities district should Ramstad ever retire.

• Fred Upton, Michigan’s 6th

2006 Vote: 61 percent

2004 President: Bush 53 percent

In his 11th term, Upton has a generally conservative record, but has stood apart on some issues ranging from the environment to gun control to fiscal issues — and now the Iraq War.

• James T. Walsh, New York’s 25th

2006 Vote: 51 percent

2004 President: Kerry 50 percent

Based on the 2006 results, Walsh may be highest on the Democrats’ 2008 target list among Republicans who broke with their party on the Iraq resolution. After being bolstered for years by his seat on the Appropriations Committee, Walsh faced the political fight of his career in 2006 before narrowly prevailing to win a 10th term.

House Democrats voting against the resolution of disapproval (2)

• Jim Marshall, Georgia’s 8th

2006 Vote: 50.5 percent

2004 President: Bush 61 percent

Marshall’s break with the Democratic line on the Iraq resolution wasn’t a new thing: He has been more supportive of Bush’s Iraq policy than most Democrats throughout the conflict. His success at projecting an image as a conservative Democrat was vital to his win for a third term in 2006, when he had to overcome former GOP Rep. Mac Collins and an unfavorable redistricting map.

• Gene Taylor, Mississippi’s 4th

2006 Vote: 80 percent

2004 President: Bush 68 percent

His consistent record as one of the most conservative House Democrats has enabled Taylor to grow deep roots in this southern Mississippi district since winning a 1989 special election, even though the 4th otherwise has a strong Republican edge. (Thanks to the NYT)

Please let these 17 know how you feel about their votes.
_____________________________________________________________-
Linked with:
Church and State, Open Trackbacks
123Beta, President's Day open trackback weekend
Woman Honor Thyself, FooD! OpenTrackback Weekend

Comments

[Mike In WNY]

Oops, my lost comment should have been addressed to Jason.

[Mike In WNY]

Julie, thanks for the additional info. It illuminates the fact that there is not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. They all deal in legal plunder, lies and power. The only Republican with principles is Ron Paul, and that is because he is really a Libertarian!

[Jason]

You are so right, Mike. Why, just look at the lies those politicians told us:
----------
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
(Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against
Iraq December 16, 1998
----------
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton
(Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
----------
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
----------
"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Senator John Kerry
(Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003
----------
By the way, these are just three of the thousands of comments made by DEMOCRATS regarding Iraq and Saddam. And almost all politicians, Democrat and Republican, made similar statements long before President Bush was even elected. So unless you are trying to claim that George W. Bush somehow made the Democrats say that Saddam had WMD and was supporting terrorism BEFORE he even ran for office, your "argument" has no basis in fact.

[Mike In WNY]

Yes, Julie, our troops do deserve better. They shouldn't be giving up their lives for foreign interventionist policies based on fear mongering and lies.

[mad_cow]

These 17 turncoats must hear from us. We must not let the anti-war, anti-America leftists define our policy on the war in Iraq. Our troops deserve better.

Thanks for posting this.

Julie