Redstate

But Try Telling The House Of Representatives That

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Democrats | Featured Stories — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

We are in the midst of a momentous debate in Congress concerning policy in Iraq. The House is currently considering a resolution that will express its sense regarding President Bush's decision to employ a troop surge and his acceptance of General David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy. One might think it natural that the House will express its strong disapproval of the surge, given the fact that the Democrats are now in charge of the chamber and that House rules allow the majority to steamroll the minority with impunity. And one would likely be right.

But one should certainly look beneath the surface to examine the fissures and fault lines that exist within the House Democratic Caucus. When that examination is conducted, it will likely come as little surprise if we learn that Democrats thank their lucky stars for the nature of House rules. You see, if the Democrats were forced to give any consideration to resolutions crafted by their Republican colleagues, they might be placed in quite the uncomfortable position (read on):

Rep. Joe Donnelly is one of a clutch of freshmen Democrats who snagged victories over Republican incumbents last fall amid public discontent over the war in Iraq. Now, as his party prepares to register its opposition to President Bush's plan to boost troop levels, Donnelly is on the fence.

"The most important part of this to me is standing up for the troops and making sure we have full funding for them," Donnelly said Tuesday, after a weekend meeting with veterans' groups and constituents back home in his conservative north-central Indiana district. "I haven't made up my mind yet."

The concerns of members like Donnelly are behind Democrats' strategy for this week's Iraq debate, which was carefully calibrated to bar votes on a GOP alternative that could expose a potentially messy divide within Democratic ranks over whether to cut off or restrict funding for troops on the ground.

Determined to send an unambiguous and bipartisan message of disapproval for the troop buildup, Democrats moved Monday night to block Republicans from proposing any alternative, including one that would have guaranteed funding for U.S. forces in Iraq.

The approach reflects the dilemma facing Democrats on the war, which figured prominently in their rise to power. There is broad support for the Democratic-written resolution opposing Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops. But many rank-and-file members particularly moderate newcomers who rode to Congress on a wave of public discontent about Iraq are wary of casting any vote that could be construed as ending funding for the mission.

Army Lt. "General (David) Petraeus is over there, and I want to give him every opportunity to succeed and all the funding and resources that would make that possible," Donnelly said, but he added that he was concerned that a troop increase could amount to "simply providing 21,000 more targets to the Iraqis."

So now we see the reason why the Republicans' proposed alternative resolutions were blocked--promises that they would not be blocked notwithstanding. Even after winning control of Congress thanks in no small part to their campaign against the continuing reconstruction effort in Iraq, Democrats still feel that they are on shaky ground in addressing the issue of our presence in Iraq:

Rep. David Dreier of California, the senior Rules Committee Republican, said the constraints rendered the 36-hour debate that opened Tuesday morning "really little more than a joke."

Democratic leaders had said earlier that Republicans would have a chance to offer their own measure, but quickly reversed course, and the leadership-controlled Rules Committee voted Monday night to deny the minority the option.

"It became clear to us that the only way we could give to the American people a very clear indication of where the Congress stood as it related to the president's proposal was this process," Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said.

The tightly controlled approach to running the House is becoming a habit with Democrats, who complained bitterly during their dozen years in the minority about similar Republican tactics. When Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, groused about it on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, Hoyer shot back sarcastically, "Poor John."

Uh-huh. I have said in the past that the party that controls the House has every right to run roughshod over the opposition to the extent that House rules permit. Republicans did that to Democrats, and now the worm has turned. Of course, having said that, I will also note that Democrats ran in part on the promise that they would not do to Republicans what Republicans did to them. As I noted here, once upon a time, Democrats complained of being "the oppressed minority." They have it within their power to practice the parliamentary procedure of vengeance and there is nothing that Republicans can do about it. But if the Democrats were going to practice the parliamentary procedure of vengeance, maybe they should simply have been upfront about it. And on a momentous issue like Iraq, one would think that both sides would get fair play. After all, we are still at least nominally of the view, as a country that politics should stop at the water's edge. Listen to the House debate and you will hear Representatives swear up and down that politics do indeed stop on this issue at the very last points of the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards. The reality is something far different and far more disingenuous, of course.

Back to the story:

On Iraq, the new House leaders' strategy is particularly important to holding together a newly shaped Democratic Caucus that includes several moderate newcomers who unseated Republicans amid public dissatisfaction with the war, but whose conservative constituents might balk at the notion of setting deadlines or spending constraints on troops in harm's way.

It also echoes the tack Senate Democrats took earlier this month, when they sought to head off a Republican-written measure declaring that Congress should not cut off funding for troops in the field.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., a first-termer who said he plans to back his party's measure rejecting the troop increase, said he would be inclined to support a resolution committing Congress to funding U.S. troops.

"I don't want to cut off funding. Our troops are performing magnificently," Perlmutter said. But he added that a funding debate was premature, and said Republicans were trying to "trip us up" by proposing such a measure now, realizing there is "no consensus on funding" among Democrats.

"Poor Ed," one might reply.

"What we are trying to achieve as a caucus is unanimity. We're pretty spread out in terms of where we are," said another freshman Democrat, Rep. Michael Arcuri of New York. "We feel that we want to do what is best for the troops, but we have some differences in terms of how you do that."

Will Marshall of the center-left Democratic Leadership Council has consulted with freshman Democrats on Iraq. He said there is "broad unity on the fact that we have to start winding the occupation down, not doubling down on it, but after that, I think it's harder to find consensus."

The dilemma is especially profound for newer members.

"They're in marginal districts, competitive districts, almost by definition, so most of them would be leery of voting to cut off funding for the troops. It would be too easy to be caricatured by the Republicans as turning against the troops in the middle of a mission," Marshall said.

"Poor newer members." One cannot help but wonder when this debate will indeed be transformed into a genuine national conversation as opposed to an exercise in seat-saving in advance of the 2008 elections.

Democrats concede that by flexing their muscles to constrain the minority, they risk becoming what they criticized during last year's elections.

"We're going to run a fair House, but we're not going to be naive about it." said Stacey Farnen Bernards, Hoyer's spokeswoman. "We're just trying to give the American people a clear debate and a clear answer" on Iraq.

With a "my way or the highway" approach. In "clear debates," both sides are heard. But this is the House of Representatives, where Orwellian language increasingly reigns supreme.