LJWorld.com weblogs Congressional Briefing

Boyda: 'I'm going to vote to fund the war'

Advertisement

Here are today's headlines from the Kansas congressional delegation:Rep. Nancy Boyda (D) ![][1][(CQPolitics.com) Democrats' Mission: Win Back an Angry Base:][2] If Bush continues to veto spending bills with withdrawal timetables, there just aren't that many Democrats who are willing to let the funds run out. That's especially true of those who got elected in swing House districts, underscoring the reality that Democrats can't keep their majority by appealing to their base alone. "I'm going to vote for it if it has a timetable, and I'm going to vote for it if it doesn't have a timetable, because I'm going to vote to fund the war," said freshman Nancy Boyda. The Republican-leaning part of Kansas she represents, Boyda said, "was not going to send someone to Congress who was going to end the war immediately."[(The Hill) Rushing the Blue Dogs:][3] It has the makings of a reality TV program: Eight House Democratic lawmakers are vying for five openings in a select society. But instead of trying to make the cut to join a privileged eating club or sorority, the eight lawmakers want to join the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of self-described fiscally conservative Democratic lawmakers. Reps. Bart Gordon (Tenn.), Zack Space (Ohio), Chris Carney (Pa.), Harry Mitchell (Ariz.), Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.), Nancy Boyda (Kan.), Henry Cuellar (Texas) and Nick Lampson (Texas) are competing for the five remaining slots. The winners will be announced next week. [1]: http://ljworld.com/specials/election04/primary/boyda.jpg [2]: http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/05/democrats_mission_win_back_an.html [3]: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rushing-the-blue-dogs-2007-05-30.html

Comments

slowburn 7 years, 11 months ago

Thanks, Rep. Boyda, for yet again doing exactly what you said you wouldn't do. I'm sure we are all looking forward to having another Republican take your seat soon. At least then we won't get our hopes up.

63BC 7 years, 11 months ago

Wow. I didn't even vote for her and I feel betrayed.

Doesn't it usually take a couple years to forget the folks back home?

Holy mackerel.

temperance 7 years, 11 months ago

Thanks for NOTHING Nancy. I was thrilled when you won now I just think you're embarrassment.

blackwalnut 7 years, 11 months ago

I'm disappointed in Boyda's anemic fight against the war, but not disappointed enough or dumb enough to trade her for another Bush-apologist GOP hack like Jim Ryun.

Sigmund 7 years, 11 months ago

Good job Nancy, I'm impressed. It's hard to go against your party but it exactly the right thing to do. Cutting funding for troops in the field is not the answer. I wish there were more moderate and level headed Democrats like you in Congress.

rhd99 7 years, 11 months ago

Ryun won't have a snowball chance of winning, even if bungling Boyda is supporting this war. Republicans, don't hold your breath. It's not worth it.

karensisson 7 years, 11 months ago

I don't see that Boyda had any choice.

Bush is to blame for this neverending war. Not Boyda.

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho 7 years, 11 months ago

I don't see that Boyda had any choice.

Wrong. She could have said "no". Instead, she pretty much said, "Who do I make the check out to?"

KS 7 years, 11 months ago

Sigmond, you are right on. Good decision, Boyda. It's too bad so many people can't see the forest for the trees. That should stir up some of you folks. Typical Americans, wanting instant gratification.

coneflower 7 years, 11 months ago

Good riddance to Jim Ryun.

Now, it appears we might have to find a better Democrat to replace Boyda.

karensisson 7 years, 11 months ago

KS (Anonymous) says: Typical Americans, wanting instant gratification.

I'll say. It's only been longer than WWII and longer than the Civil War, and people are getting impatient. Spoiled brats, I say.

justthefacts 7 years, 11 months ago

I have an idea - instead of electing representatives to decide things for citizens, why don't we just put a little black box into every home where a citizen lives (one for each former voter) and put each and every decision up to a popular vote, each time it becomes an issue? That would cut out all the middle men and women.

Before you say "YES" to that idea, consider a few things: (1) Will each citizen have enough information to make informed decisions on all matters? (2) Will a decision to proceed one day be able to be reversed the next day, and reinstated the day after that? If so, how can anyone know what the law(s) provide from day to day? (3) Would this rule by the people dispense with the need for leaders, or would those who are the best "Salespeople" (good with selling something to the most people) end up getting the most "votes" on their agendas?

The theoretical reason our country decided to have elected representatives, at all levels, was to provide some leadership and expertise. Too bad that a lot of elected representatives have done such a poor job that faith in them and our system of government has erroded to the point that voters want to change their minds, every other day.

Promises made by those seeking office are always a lot more believable if they come from someone who has all the facts before hand. I suspect that Ms. Boyda ran up against reality when she went to DC. After she took office, she was probably given a lot more facts about the entire situation, political and practical. She may have made promises she hasn't kept, but she also probably made those promises without realizing they were impossible to keep.

My solution? If you don't like the job someone is doing on your behalf, do the job yourself. In this case, that may mean going with the little black box voting idea - OR anyone who thinks they could do a better job should run for office and see if they can actually make a difference.

rhd99 7 years, 11 months ago

JTF, thank you. I would run if I had the money. That's the problem, running for political office requires more money than most of us can earn in a lifetime.

white_mountain 7 years, 11 months ago

Apparently her constituents have spoken, and they want the war funded.

Why else would she vote to fund the war?

white_mountain 7 years, 11 months ago

the "New Direction" is 360 degrees away from the old!

dagopman 7 years, 11 months ago

Nancy Boyda is highly inconsistent if nothing else. I'll give her credit for that. Makes me think of John Kerry's line that went something like: "I was for the war before I was against it". Huh???

ropadope 7 years, 11 months ago

wait -- why the hell did i vote for you? not sure who the bigger idiot is, Boyda or me. but i promise not to make the same mistake next election. assuming we'll still have elections.

drewdun 7 years, 11 months ago

What did you want her to do? She knew that if they kept sending the timeline-included bill back to Bush he would keep vetoing it. HE would have let the funds for the troops run out with them still in the hellhole to prove a political point, rather than do the right thing, the thing that the vast majority of people in this country want: to bring our brave troops home to their families. They did their jobs, its now up to the Iraqis to stop their own civil war.

Bush knew the Democrats would not have let the funds for the troops run out with them still in the hellhole, so when they 'caved' and provided money for the soldiers without timelines he immediately (along with the 'liberal' media) tried to portray their funding the troops as some sort of political victory. How sad that our soldiers have been reduced by their commander-in-chief to pawns in a disgusting political game.

The best tack the Dems can take now is to harp on September as when the pressure to end the war will produce something. The Republicans have already backed themselves into a corner by continually mentioning September as some sort of seminal date, after which they will jump ship to save their own a$$es, so they can claim by November 2008 that they have been against the war for more than a year. Their cowardice will not be forgotten, and the blood of our soldiers will stain their hands, but unfortunately not their consciences. SHAME SHAME SHAME

werekoala 7 years, 11 months ago

Look, folks. She's doing the best she can. I'm moderate, and I can't understand the mindset that wants to use our troops as pawns. Sure, if they'd had the votes to over-ride the veto and pass funding with a timeline, then that'd have worked. But until the votes are there, all an attempt to cut funding when Bush has sworn to leave the boys over there would do is hurt the troops.

Plus, how is going to look if after campaigning on the troops lacking body armor and armored hum-vees to cut the funding to those same troops?

Nancy seems like exactly the type of person I was hoping she'd be; a pragmatist, and a realist. We've had enough of extremists from both sides, and thank god we kicked out Ryun. It's time for the adults to be in charge for a while, and spend the next decade or so cleaning up King George's mess. But you don't do that by cutting funding. Hopefully, next year the votes will be there to pass a bill with timelines as Reps get scared to be tarred with Bush's brush. But in the meantime, continuing to give the troops the funding that they need is the only decent and moral choice to make.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 11 months ago

While I do not necessarily agree with her stance, she is doing exactly what she said she would do. If I recall, she said she would not have voted to go to war. This is very different than continuing funding for a war that is already happening.

At this point, these votes are largely irrelevant, as Bush will veto and the votes aren't there. In six months, however, the story might be different. Many more republicans will begin to abandon ship if things don't improve by the fall. Bush could see a veto overridden in the next session if pull-outs haven't begun already.

Folks, this war is over. It will just take a bit more time for some in congress to realize it. The end will be bad, a slow burn, a shameful exit, but it will start happening in the next year.

b_asinbeer 7 years, 11 months ago

It's a shame I voted for her...then again, I would rather have her than Ryun. What if I don't want both???

drewdun 7 years, 11 months ago

"Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

I should be remembered that the ONLY reason that Boyda is doing this is that she knows leaving our people stranded in Iraq would most likely result in her public lynching"

Marion: the Dems sent war funding to Bush with timelines. He vetoed it, therefore if the Dems had kept sending the same bill back and he would have kept vetoing it, wouldn't it have been him leaving the troops stranded in Iraq?

dagopman 7 years, 11 months ago

Like I've said all along, there MUST be a better alternative than Boyda or Ryun.

Michael Capra 7 years, 11 months ago

boyda went up there with a I will show you and the screwed the whole state of kansas get her out fast

jasonc_22 7 years, 11 months ago

I'm not pleased with Nancy's vote...and I wish we would end the war today...but if she did vote to defund, she'd get devestated in 2008, not a chance in hell she could beat back the onslaught of "you left the troops hanging." Remember folks, Yates Center and Osage City are nothing like Lawrence. Her message of "we've got to end the war, but in the right way" works in the rest of the district.

She's better than Ryun...and a Democratic in Kansas that would vote for cutting the funding would only be there until the next election (notice, also, Dennis Moore voted with Nancy....).

Godot 7 years, 11 months ago

She did hear me after all. Thank you, Representative Boyda!

bytheway 7 years, 11 months ago

Sucks to be her. Then again, I am glad I am not her. To have that kind of pressure and a stupid president who won't listen to the American people, she has no choice but to vote for it. We need to bring our ladies and gentleman home!!!
If that prick wasn't voted in by the American people 6 or so years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess. I further don't understand why people are so supportive of a lying pig of a president. I am sorry, but his lie was way worse than Clinton. At least Clinton got a blow job, GWB has killed our sons and daughters.
Now you tell me who has made the worse moral judgement. And don't go Newt Gingrich on me. Gingrich was having an affair the same time as the Clinton "scandal." Now go ahead and tell me who has better morals. We live in a sick and twisted world. Too many people are leading there judgement by who humps the bible the most. People get your facts together and look for the truth. Quit electing these presidents who like war and blow jobs if you are so worried about your f*cking morals. Get a clue!!!

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

Regardless of which party you belong to, you have to ask yourself two questions:

  1. Without the funding, will our soldiers get the necessary money to protect themselves? Don't make that decision too political. It's the lives of our dear soldiers on the frontline. I will give them anything to survive so that I can bring them back to witness the downfall of the Bush troops.

  2. Does one vote matter? It takes a lot of time to think about one's vote. It's the ultimate performance that matters.... guess so many democrats voted for the war in Iraq, do we have a choice not to fund the troops?

We really have to ask, sometimes, instead of putting the blame on Nancy... who put us into this deep sh....t..., and yet he isn't being punished! Rumsfeld got fired, so what? He got a higher paid job elsewhere, while our dear young men died for NOTHING! Or died so that that guy got a higher pay!

temperance 7 years, 11 months ago

Boyda supporters, I think I understand where you're coming from and I know that there's only so much the Democratic majority can do in this situation. But I think that the Democrats who supported the funding bill made a big mistake. They were frightened by Republicans' bogus equation between defunding the war and "not supporting the troops in the field" -- as if there is any other way we're going to wind down the war without cutting off the funds for it. I just can't understand how they (Reid, Boyda, etc.) can live with themselves when they know (and you know and I know) that nothing will have happened this September that will have made it worth it. It's enabling a failed policy.

Boyda, by the way, supported the Surge, and did so in a nauseatingly obsequious way:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/05/congress-escalation/ I read a magazine profile of her that made me want to like her I agree she's better than a host of alternatives but I don't think she's being smart about Iraq.

jmadison 7 years, 11 months ago

If the war is immoral and wrong, those that continue to vote funding for it based on political calculations are immoral and wrong.

Fatty_McButterpants 7 years, 11 months ago

You people forget that Lawrence is just a small part of the population that Nancy Boyda represents. She isn't the "Lawrence, Kansas representative".

akuna 7 years, 11 months ago

The problem with politicians is they see that the future holds hope and the present only tough decisions. The future holds the hope of making bigger decisions with more impact. It is better to be part of the game than not, right?. Current decisions are an inconvenience that may alienate a segment of the voting population and thus lead to not getting reelected. In reality the only decision that matter are the current ones. You can either follow your heart and make the tough decision now or play politics and hope one day that you will follow your heart. Boyda, being a freshman representative, is just playing politics in hopes of getting reelected.

Godot 7 years, 11 months ago

Akuna, I believe that Boyda made the tough decision, not the convenient choice, when she did what was right for our military in the field.

karmaxs3 7 years, 11 months ago

Just one clarification for "bytheway", who stated "If that prick wasn't voted in by the American people 6 or so years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess."

While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, it should be noted that "prick" was NOT voted in by the American people....the majority voted for Gore. It was the majority of electoral votes that GAVE Bush the title he paid for with his dad's previous staff. The people spoke then, and they are speaking much louder now. Too bad they didn't wise up in '04.

bunnyhawk 7 years, 11 months ago

Nancy, you better switch back to your true party affiliation.

Your democratic supporters are abandoning you in droves. You deceived us. You should be ashamed. I wish I could stop payment on my generous campaign contribution checks.

temperance 7 years, 11 months ago

TR & GWB -- both bullies & imperialists at heart -- it seems like a fair comparison on some levels, yes.

temperance 7 years, 11 months ago

Oh -- and they both liked to dress up and play-act masculinity. TR had his macho, yet adorable, "must kill the rhinos!" safari thing. And GWB shouts "air assault!" as he descends the hill on his mountain bike. (http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/08/17/bush/print.html @ end)

On the other hand, TR actually cared for the environment . . .

jasonc_22 7 years, 11 months ago

While Democrats should be disappointed...there wasn't anything else she could do in a cold, hard political sense. If she had defunded the war, she would have been beaten by a Republican (either Ryun or Jenkins) who would paint her as soft on defense. Do you really think a Republican will be better than a Democrat? I mean, honestly, folks. D's won't "leave her in droves" when the alternative is a Republican

white_mountain 7 years, 11 months ago

Is it possible that Boyda and the Democrats are supporting funding purely for political reasons?

I used to think they had the courage of their convictions?

drewdun 7 years, 11 months ago

"Marion writes:

No.

GWB will not strand the troops and it is only the likes of the nearly sub-human DemonRats who would."

Should have known better than to expect a reasonable reply from you. Won't make that mistake twice.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

jmadison,

Though it is immoral and wrong.... but don't forget our soldiers there who need the money to get on with life in Iraq. If you turn down that bill, you will need a few more months to draft out the new bill... then that will be a disaster for our dear troops. I think we should support our troops but bring those who are responsible for bringing those kids out there to justice.

drewdun 7 years, 11 months ago

"white_mountain (Anonymous) says:

Is it possible that Boyda and the Democrats are supporting funding purely for political reasons?"

Once again, they voted to fund the troops AND begin bringing them home, which is what the vast majority of this nation desires. Bush vetoed that bill for 'purely political reasons.' The Dems know that Bush would have let the troops rot in the hellhole with no money rather than sign the timeline-included bill, all to prove/win a political point.

By the way, May has been the deadliest month for US troops in Iraq since November of 2004. Dying in droves for a completely undefined goal. Here's a simple 'equation' to remember: Dems = bring troops home from patrolling civil war in hellhole; Bush/GOP = leave troops stranded with no plan for success, dying while acting as police officers in a strife-riven, anarchic, third-world nation, using troops as pawns in a tawdry political game.

preebo 7 years, 11 months ago

Boyda and the rest of Dems do not have the intestinal fortitude to put an end to this war. It's as simple as that.

Why is Bush not held to the same standard as Congress? Why is it that Congress, who is enacting the will of the majority, is being blamed for not supporting the troops, while Bush who is leaving them entrenched in the middle of a civil conflict is left as the "decider."

auturgy 7 years, 11 months ago

Guess what happens when you cut funding? The troops LEAVE! They don't have funding! With that being said, I'm probably the only Democrat in the country who thinks that pulling out right now is a bad idea, so I'm alright with the funding.

JohnBrown 7 years, 11 months ago

What would have happened if the dems had re-affirmed the vetoed bill and sent it back to Bush? I don't understand why the Dems didn't do this. It takes an overt act to "de-fund" the troops, and the overt act would have been Bush's veto, not the Dems voting funds (with strings).

Can someone explain the dems logic?

Godot 7 years, 11 months ago

Why do people call on the US to end the war? Where are the demands upon Iran, Syria and Al Qaeda to end the war?

drewdun 7 years, 11 months ago

"Godot (Anonymous) says:

Why do people call on the US to end the war? Where are the demands upon Iran, Syria and Al Qaeda to end the war?"

Red herring.

Do you really think that those that want to bring our troops home are not also against the terrorists blowing themselves up to kill innocent people?

Also, it should be remembered that before the invasion there had not been a single suicide bombing in Iraq. Now that this is happening on a near-daily basis, what do you want our soldiers to do? Continue to police the Iraqis' civil war? Continue to die, with no demonstrable plan other than bringing some sort of hard-to-define 'stability' to Baghdad?

You also mention Syria and Iran. How would you have our government deal with them, Godot? Bomb them, thus giving the radical Islamic terrorists exactly what they want?

My main question to Godot, and all of the other war supporters, is: what and where is the 'out' to this war? None of them ever can answer this question. Shall the United States have soldiers in Iraq for five more years? Ten more? Twenty-five? Fifty? A permanent presence in Iraq?

As you answer, keep in mind the enormous unpopularity of this war with the vast majority of the American people, who just want our soldiers home. The Bush administration may have dreams of a never-ending US military presence in Iraq, however in a democratic republic such as the United States, with popular control of the government and civilian control of the military, that is not a feasible option. The American public simply will not allow that. So again, what's the answer, war supporters? You have to know that whenever our soldiers leave there will be chaos; however, what should one call the reality of Iraq now, if not chaos?

jasonc_22 7 years, 11 months ago

why will nancy be looking for a new job? this action helps her keep her job without a doubt. i wish the Dems could just "de-fund" the war, but, honestly, the average joe in kansas would have her head after ryun and jenkins and the NRCC got done making her out to be in bed the the terrorists. She CAN'T do it if we want her there, and I sure as hell want her there more than the idiot we had before her.

i'm not saying anything about nancy's personal views...this is just my analysis of the situation.

white_mountain 7 years, 11 months ago

I just wish Nancy and the rest of the Dems had the courage to tell us BEFORE the election that they planned to continue funding this war..

Emily Hadley 7 years, 11 months ago

Remember, she has only been a democrat since 2003.

beatrice 7 years, 11 months ago

white-mountain: "I used to think they [Democrats] had the courage of their convictions?"

Sadly, not all do. The massive, conservative spin machine that is heavily backed by the conservative media in this country is hard at work to paint everyone wanting to end the war as "against the troops." I'm afraid such labeling (like constantly using "liberal" as a bad thing) makes the weak stray from their basic beliefs. What is needed is something more than just the slimmest of majorities in Congress before people will truly stand up for what they believe. We saw that happen when the Republicans had a strong majority, and what they believed in was George Bush. Bad choice, if you ask me -- and the rest of the country.

Gore / Obama '08!

Godot 7 years, 11 months ago

Beatrice wrote: "(like constantly using "liberal" as a bad thing) "

It is only a bad thing if you are ashamed of what you are doing.

Richard Heckler 7 years, 11 months ago

Fire 99% of all elected officials!

Want ANY JOB, green collar jobs,alternative energy, jobs back to america and healthcare for all? Fire 99% of all elected officials!

Why is it Americans cannot elect a representative instead of a name from corporate america? What is the romance? Why do americans fall over themselves for political media stars and fat cats? Have we not learned that these people NEVER make things better they just continue the corporate welfare and watch american jobs go abroad. It really stinks!

The news media and corporate america do NOT need to decide who OUR candidates should be for local,state or federal level representation.

The media takes in a ton of cash during our election periods and play a huge role in selecting candidates for all sides of the aisle. Then THEY decide who should participate in televised debates as if no one else matters to the voters. Yes they also seem to decide which issues are important to voters and many times miss the mark. The media has become a large part of the special interest takeover of our process as if they know what is best for all of us. Voters support this takeover by voting for those candidates who also spend the most money and the question is why?

Campaigns go too long,spend way too much money and do not necessarily provide the best available. It is up to us to stop the nonsense at the voting booths on the 2008 ballot. Not voting sends the wrong message and changes nothing.

Lets's demand a new system and vote in Fair Vote America : http://www.fairvote.org/irv/ Demand a change on the 2008 ballot.

The big money candidates are more beholden than ever to corporate special interests due to the very long nature of campaigns. How do they have time to do the job they were elected to do? We need public financing of campaigns. Citizens cannot afford special interest money campaigns for it is the citizens that get left out.

http://www.publicampaign.org/

Who would be against Public Funding? The special interest money providers and their bought and paid for politicians! Back to top

Who would be against Public Funding? The special interest money providers and their bought and paid for politicians

As was stated above these are the ones who will put out negative reasons why voters should not have more fair access to deciding how our country should be governed. Scare tactics have brainwashed many thus far for a system that would allow more individuals to run for office. I vote for public financing.

What's at stake? Special interest financiers might find themselves with less control and no corporate welfare.

Richard Heckler 7 years, 11 months ago

Legislators have become more concerned with fear of being labeled unpatriotic by the most prominent,insensitive, anti american and unpatriotic human being on planet earth today aka George W. Bush.

Time to cut funding,stop spending trillions and remove the USA Military from the mideast and cease these war for oil campaigns. Instead spend billions on mass producing alternative energy that is sitting on the back burner. This is patriotic...war for oil is not.

Richard Heckler 7 years, 11 months ago

An example of how the Iraq war reflects on the USA:

"People think Zoellick is highly intelligent and has a pragmatic mind-set," said a senior World Bank official who spoke on condition that he not be named for fear of alienating his new boss. "But he's still from the same people who brought you the Iraq war, the same people who brought you Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld. There's immediate jaundice about his country of origin. Any American appointed by this president would carry that stigma."

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

Hey all dudes.... this is democracy at play, demand and supply of political favors.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.