And there's the blink?
Well, isn't *this* exciting.
By Moe Lane Posted in Breaking News — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Let's establish the scenario. We start off with this interesting little WaPo article
Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable
Compromise Bill in Works After Veto Override FailsBy Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 3, 2007; Page A01President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.
Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military role and show "a reasonable way to end this war."
The fact that the same party members made it clear that the last bill had to include language that influences war policy is passed over without comment. Which is probably for the best, since the most obvious one would be "So, when will the Democrats cave again?" But, wait! There's more...
...under the fold. Read on.
From out of the West comes Greg Sargent, The Horse's Mouth, thundering to the netroots' rescue!
Check this out -- the offices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are denying a Washington Post story today saying that Congressional Democrats have backed down to the White House by offering to remove Iraq withdrawal language from the now-vetoed Iraq bill.
Pelosi just went before the Democratic caucus and informed them that the story's false, a Pelosi aide tells me. WaPo is standing by the story, and the lead writer of the Post piece, Jonathan Weisman, told me that leadership aides told him that the withdrawal language had to go. But the WaPo story goes further than that, saying explicitly that Dems have already "backed down" and offered the concession of removing the withdrawal language. Those aren't the same thing.
Why report that Dems have already caved in the negotiations if they haven't yet?
Well, let's count the reasons. One, it indeed might be a bad story; I note this because that's a fair question to ask, and one easy to answer. All Speaker Pelosi or Senator Reid have to do is announce that timetables are not and will not be negotiable and that'll be that. I'm sure that Pelosi will be updating this press release on the subject any second now; I'm also certain that Reid will be actually making some sort of formal statement...
In the meantime, well, there's other possibilities, of course. They may not have formally caved yet, the aides in question may have lied to Sargent, Democratic policy makers instinctively endorse the views of the last person to yell at them*, the chicken entrails weren't giving good haruspices... take your pick; you'd probably find empirical evidence to support any of these, not excluding the last one.
But let me note this, also from the WaPo article:
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq.
Benchmarks have emerged as the most likely foundation for bipartisan consensus and were part of yesterday's White House meeting, participants said. "I believe the president is open to a discussion on benchmarks," said Senate Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), who attended the session. He added that no terms were discussed. "We didn't go into any kind of detail," Durbin said.
[snip of stuff about moderate Republicans supporting benchmarks, yadda yadda]
White House officials are also looking to benchmarks as an area of compromise, but they want them to be tied to rewards for achievement, not penalties for failure.
Translation: "Steny Hoyer wants to make nonmilitary aid dependent on Iraqi benchmarks, and the administration is willing to fig-leaf Congress by calling tangible signs of progress in Iraq 'benchmarks'." Now, if I was both a paranoid and a Democrat, I'd be deeply suspicious that my legislators were planning to talk up benchmarks, then declare that whatever the President offered were really benchmarks - and thus a victory for the Democratic Party. Being neither, let's check: hey, a statement from Harry Reid in an AP article!
"There is nothing off the table — including timetables" to end the war, reported Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record). "Nothing."
Well, that's promising for the progressives. Let's skip a bit ahead...
Democrats said they were acting on a mandate from voters to end the war. But they did not have the necessary two-thirds majority to override Bush's veto, so now they're having to rethink their approach.
In a closed-door meeting Thursday with members, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., echoed Reid's remark that Democrats have not agreed to drop language on troop withdrawals. Pelosi and Reid are trying to reassure more liberal members of their caucus that Democrats were not backing down. But privately, several Democrats have signaled they intend to do so to avoid a second veto and plan to focus their attention instead on upcoming spending bills.
Ooh, that's not so good for the progressives, given that the President has no intention of backing down on timetables. So I guess that you can add one more answer to Sargent's question above: Reid and Pelosi are going to take the fall for the rest of their Party. Hey, they tried: but those dratted moderate Democrats! But if you give them more money, the Party can increase its majority, etc, etc, etc, you know the drill.
Which works as well as any of the other scenarios, really.
Moe
*I like this one.
« Toward an Understanding of the Obamian Language — Comments (4) | Well, *he* didn't waste any time. — Comments (10) »
And there's the blink? 26 Comments (0 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
If you'll recall, they weren't even sure they'd be able to get enough votes to pass the DOA supplemental -- which is pretty incredible. Imagine...not being able to squirrel up the votes to pass a bill that's going to be vetoed anyway.
They, obviously, had to kiss goodbye to the Kucinich/Lee/Waters wing of the party...who aren't going to vote for a single dollar for the war. They were able to convince a handful of the hard-lefters to vote for the first supplemental (by adding pork and various other things).
And they managed to keep the Blue Dogs on board despite their best efforts to remove the timetable language from the start.
It's hard to say how things will progress in the Senate. But, in the House, I don't think it's beyond the realm of imagination that the Democrats will have to rely on Republican support to get a "clean" bill to the president's desk.
Without the pork and timetable, they can kiss goodbye to the votes they were able to buy from the left wing that was contemplating opposing the bill along with Kucinich etal. And, without those votes or any Republican votes, they don't have enough to pass anything.
So I seriously doubt that Murtha's going to be successful getting his "2 month" funding through. They just don't have the votes and David Obey still hasn't found his magic wand.
In the earlier debate, Pelosi reportedly threatened her caucus members with just bypassing this charade and passing a "clean" bill with the Republicans if they didn't come along.
She may find, this go around, that it's her only option.
This is all delicious. I think the country is far better off seeing what poseurs the Democrats really are before making a decision in '08 to complete their sweep to power.
If at the same time, the Republicans get their house in order and come back stronger in '08 -- even better. My fear had been a Democratic three-way sweep in '08, with an virtual abandonment of the terror war. This seems unlikely to me now....
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
Looking at the Senate landscape, I think it would require a '94/'06 type of landslide to get the Republicans back in the majority there -- which is odd considering that they're only 1 seat away now.
George Will wrote recently not to count out the less-discussed possibility that the GOP might win back the House in '08.
And, of course, everybody's saying that "the Democrats" are all but certain to win back the White House. The problem for them is that it isn't "the Democrats" who run against "the Republicans" -- they actually have to name candidates. And that's where things get tricky for them, IMO.
All told, the conventional wisdom now is that the Democrats will keep the House and Senate and take the White House. I wouldn't put much stock in that.
And, even if they do, I wouldn't expect them to just pull the plug on Iraq or the rest of the WoT.
He can tacitly let congress know pork is acceptable but timetables are not. I believe we all appreciate where the Democratic caucus's real loyalties are. It would also make the "Democratic Party Leaders" look very silly indeed.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The Dems find themselves today in the same situation the new GOP majority found themselves in December 1995; in a fight with a president that they cannot and ultimately will not win.
The difference is this time the president has nothing politically to lose and the new majority has everything to lose. In addition, the new GOP majority in 1995 was fighting to make America stronger economically, internationally, and strategically. This time, the Dems are trying to win a debate where their position is that America is a failure in the middle east. Not an argument that a majority will want to concede to.
In the final analysis, the Dems cannot afford to carry this out and have their freshman blamed back home for playing games with the success and safety of our troops for an extended period of time. As much as it will totally piss off their netroots/progressive base, the Dems have to end this conflict with the White House as quickly as possible and give into the president in almost every meaningful way because the president is committed to his position, just like in 1995, and will not move on it. He knows there are 230 people in the Democrat caucus and he only needs 15 of them to have a weaker backbone than he himself has. It's a no-brainer for him.
you get what you negotiate.
We won Round 2 (the first round was the "non-binding" vote)
Put some pressure on Bush for performance measurement indicators and when you get them, why then it's time to stick it the Dems if they pull any monkey business. Raise Holy Hell if they refuse to meet with Petraeus again.
That is a good way to lose.
Stand firm, do not accept any timetables or binding performance measurements. When this thing drags out, it's time for the NRCC, NRSC, and RNC to start negative ads against the Democrat Freshmen and vulnerable Dems back in their districts saying that they are endangering the mission and saftey of the troops by playing political games with the president. The Dems - to protect their majority - will either cave, or they'll lose the whole damn thing and have a 1 term majority. As long as the Dems withhold funding for our troops, they lose. End of story.
I do want the Admin to tell us what's going on, so as to foster accountability for the commanders and to preclude the Dems "rubber stamp Congress" charge that they used so effectively last year.
I'm good with that. Nothing meaningful should be binding on the Admin.
If the Admin stands firm, the Dems can't win. As a matter of fact, they could lose everything. The Admin should stand firm, not only because of the politics involved, but it is the right thing to do.
> He knows there are 230 people in the Democrat caucus and he only needs 15 of them to have a weaker backbone than he himself has.
True, but Reid only needs 16 spineless Republican Senators and then Bush's veto doesn't matter any more because it gets overridden.
For example:
Some Republicans, including Collins, are already talking about tougher standards.
Among the most influential is Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who led a bipartisan effort to oppose the troop buildup. He said he was working on a compromise measure that would include some benchmarks.
"I'm optimistic that something can be worked out … that we can achieve a document that will get 70 votes," Warner said, citing a Senate vote tally that would make the war spending bill veto-proof.
Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) has introduced legislation that would require the U.S. military commander in Iraq to begin planning a withdrawal unless the Iraqi government met the benchmarks.
15% of the Republican Congress is all that the enemy needs to win. That is way, way too thin a line. President Bush has turned things around in the last two weeks by finally paying attention to politics and talking about the war. I hope he realizes that he needs to keep it up, or the Democrats could get their override by the end of the year.
Congress includes both Senate and House.
Hair splitting aside, the war is in great danger when it depends on a few Republicans in Congress.
The House could never overide the veto. The votes aren't there. You don't know what you are talking about.
Two years ago if someone had said that a majority of both Houses of Congress would someday vote to pull out of Iraq, everyone would have said they were out of their minds.
Not if you thought that Nancy Pelosi would be Speaker and if Harry Reid were to be the Majority Leader. I have seen the Republicans in Congress snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory more times than I can count, however, not this time. It won't happen and if you think it might, good luck to you in life.
you've been here 14 weeks and you're telling people to delete stuff, using the term "us", and now telling others they don't know what they are talking about..you a little on edge?...
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
made for walking. And if they do The Full Hegel, we can make their next election very ugly by walking all over them in both primaries and the general.
Are we game of lame?!
Tough primaries would be great, but the establishment doesn't want them. President Bush endorsed Senator Specter for reelection, refusing to consider a more conservative rival, and now Specter might turn out to be a vote against the war someday (and has been nothing but problems for conservatives).
Some people on this forum said would vote for Hegel regardless.
If they cave here, they give up any goodwill they earned with their crazy base by putting a surrender deadline in there in the first place. The moonbats are going to want to know why a funding bill is getting through the Democrat controlled Congress at all, now that the surrender deadline has been rejected. They aren't going to be satisfied with non-binding performance clauses.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
doing the flying elliptical by now.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
for them to keep singing "illegal war" when their leadership in Congress votes to fund it.
Oh, what am I saying.
--
See the Academy
Defiant Democratic leaders in the House are considering a proposal that would pay for the Iraq war at least through July but could cut off funding after that if the Iraqi government does not meet certain political and security goals, congressional officials said Thursday...
In a closed-door leadership meeting Thursday, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., suggested that the House guarantee funding of the war only through July. The bill would provide additional money for operations after that point but give Congress a chance to deny those funds be used if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks.
Under Obey's proposal, members would vote separately on whether to fund some of the domestic spending in the Iraq bill that Bush opposed, such as agricultural assistance.
Frankly, I'm open to tying some non-military aide to benchmarks as long as its not related to funding our troops or setting time limits on our troops.
Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07