In case a certain person is unaware of how bills proceed and are passed, the number of sponsors and co-sponsors is largely irrelevant to “guaranteeing” passage UNLESS the bill has a majority in EACH HOUSE.
Currently, H.R. 2702 (the House version of the bill) has 91 guaranteed supporters* (the original sponsor, Robert Scott [D-VA] and 90 co-sponsors, only 7 of whom are Republicans) while the full House has 435 members.
The Senate version (S.22) has only 32 guaranteed supporters** (the original sponsor, Jim Webb [D-VA] and 31 co-sponsors, only 3 of whom are Republicans) while the full Senate has 100 members.
Now, just in case you flunked your American government class (presuming you actually took such a course), there have to be 218 people in the House to pass a bill (290 are required to guarantee enough support to override a potential veto) and 51 in the Senate (67 are required to guarantee the support to override a veto). At present, the Democrats do have enough members in the House to bring the measure up for a vote but, due to Senate rules, do not have enough to guarantee the bill could be brought up for a full vote. Generally, in the House, as long as debate is brought to a close by “ordering the previous question”, the bill can come to a vote. As a simple majority is enough to end debate, the Democrats, with 233 seats, could do that. The Senate, however, is bound by the formal need for “cloture” which requires a firm 60 votes. The Democrats only have 49 seats but two independents, Sanders and Lieberman, align with the Democrats for organizational purposes, bringing the number to 51. That number, however, is far short of the number needed to end all debate, and possible filibusters, and bring the bill to a floor vote.
As a bill which could be passed by the House has no effect without Senate passage, it wouldn’t do much good for the Democrats to bring it to a vote in the House if there’s not enough support to pass it in the Senate. And as long as these chickenhawk RepubliCONs refuse to support the bill (while continuing to spend money to send these GIs to fight their fruitless AND POINTLESS war), there’s little to be gained by pushing for a vote.

*As of 1/27/08 per http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2702 .
**As of 1/28/08 per http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-22 .

Maybe Linsey Graham is saying crazy things because the Bush-Rove gang has got the goods on him and his boyfriend and could end his career as the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
What did you think all that domestic surveilance was going to be used for?
Why do you think Lindsey is such a willing mouthpiece to spew any kind of nonsense no matter how ridiculous?
Rove is an “unofficial advisor” to the McStain campaign, isn’t he?

Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Webb’s most germaine point today was that the Repubs refuse to allow this bill to see the light of day because it would affect re-enlistment.

What do you think of barfly’s suggestion at post 7..seems plausable at least..

Well, I’m one of those who accepts Obama’s desire for bipartisanship is a good thing and it is not “blindly”, it is a well thought out position on my part. Unless the Democrats get a veto proof majority in the next election, something that is not likely to happen, Obama is going to need to find a way to bring bipartisanship back into play. And I think he can do it for two reasons. The first is that he inspires trust and can reason with people. The second is that I believe some Republicans are going to be going back to Washington by the skin of their teeth and they are going to realize that if the continue to be an obstructionist, they will probably lose their jobs the next time around. This is particularly true for Congresspeople since they are reelected every two years.

If Graham and.or McCain can’t sign Webb’s bill, or even discuss it in public now given the public mood and desire, then what can one expect from the rest of the GOP post election?

They can be shamed into getting behind the bill and that is the reason for the offensive Webb and others are making against McCain.

Any talk of bipartisanship, or “healing” or “unity” from anyone is complete bollocks and shouldn’t even be entertained. This is a prime example of why.

So, when we win you want us to act like Republicans….

That’s what I got from it Bilbo. Just an opinion on how they thought Web was going to swing.

So how can the Republicans keep the bill from being introduced. I thought that power was now in the hands of the Democrats. Are they pulling one of their dirty tricks again?

Exactly what is this supposed to mean? Are you saying that you think that Corporate Hillary, who was for NAFTA before she was against it, would be better for our economy. I DON’T THINK SO!

PEACE

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/10/iava-support-troops-rankings-for-senate.html

Careful scrutiny by the Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) shows that by a ludicrous margin, it is Senate Democrats, not Republicans, who truly support active troops, Veterans and military families.

No republican gets better than a D or F (5 repubs get a c)
No democrat gets worse than a B-

I was in DC just recently talking with Web, Hagel, and Kerry about this bill. They have said that they need 60 votes minimum because several republicans have already indicated that they will block the vote with a legislative procedure. Therefore they need at least 60 votes just to bring this to the floor for an up or down vote. Hagel and Warner have joined a few other republicans in co-sponsoring this bill, but they are only up to 55 the last I checked.

If this New GI bill doesn’t pass unanimously people are going to want to know who voted against it and who didn’t bother to show up to vote.

The democrats that turned into jellyfishs better beware also. The one’s that voted for Blackwater Contract Renewal, More Money for the War in Iraq, and Not to help the Homeowners Bail Out for SubPrime lending. (Lets help Large Financial Institutions insteading)

There are always better Democrats to vote for. But a bad voting democrat is no better than a (deceptive lying) Republican with an agenda. Neither was our best interest in mind.

This clearly illustrates the invetibale fate of any attempt at “bipartisanship”–something I’m sorry to say Obama has allowed to enter the political conversation and that many of his fans blindly accept as a ‘good thing’. (Though of course Clinton given points to McCain for his “experience” compared to Obama, which was an f-ing insane thing to say on so many levels). If Graham and.or McCain can’t sign Webb’s bill, or even discuss it in public now given the public mood and desire, then what can one expect from the rest of the GOP post election?

Any talk of bipartisanship, or “healing” or “unity” from anyone is complete bollocks and shouldn’t even be entertained. This is a prime example of why.