Redstate

What To Do? What To Do?

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Democrats | Featured Stories — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Yesterday, Congressional Democrats blinked in their confrontation with the Bush Administration over the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill. Today, the fallout has begun. And that fallout is presenting Republicans with some rather rich options in terms of political tactics to follow.

Consider:

Media analysts are casting the Democrats' decision to pass an Iraq spending bill without a pullout provision as a win for the White House. MSNBC's Hardball, for example, said "after weeks of refusing to back down to the White House, today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did just that." NBC Nightly News reported, "The Democrats will argue they took a tough stand here, but the reality is that facing a veto threat, they backed off." USA Today describes the Democrats as "flinching," the New York Times calls "the decision to back down" a "wrenching reversal for leading Democrats," and the Washington Times titles its front-page story "Democrats Capitulate On War Funds."

In what could be bad news for the Democrats, their concession to the White House has angered anti-war activists and lawmakers, who are now expected to oppose the legislation. In a bizarre turn, the Washington Post notes even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she "was so disappointed" that she might actually vote against the bill. In fact, it's becoming apparent that GOP votes will be needed to pass it at least in the House. The Los Angeles Times recounts that when House Democratic leaders "presented the plan at their weekly caucus meeting, freshmen and members of the Out of Iraq Caucus complained vociferously." And "antiwar groups that stood behind the Democrats as they pressed for a withdrawal also expressed disappointment. 'It is remarkable that they can't stand up to President Bush and his war,' said Susan Shaer, Win Without War National co-chairman." The Washington Times quotes Rep. Lynn Woolsey, California Democrat and co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, saying, "It's the president's legislation, not the Democrats." Sen. Russ Feingold, "one of the chamber's loudest antiwar voices, called the benchmarks 'toothless.'" Said Feingold, "There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action."

Will the plan pass the House without the full support of the Democratic caucus? The Hill reports that if Democrats "are looking for Republican votes, Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) thinks they can find them. He says he would be surprised if the proposal cannot garner 10 to 15 GOP votes. 'If the bill is without timelines, there would be a few Republicans who have bases and military retirees in their districts who feel the need to support the troops,' Jones said."

(See the article for links embedded in the text of the excerpt above and below.) There is, however, the following to contemplate as well.

Read on . . .

Largely unmentioned in this morning's media is the fact that in vetoing the first bill, the President cited not one but two key objections: the pullout timetable (that's now out of the equation) and the unrelated domestic spending included in what was supposed to be a war funding measure. As Congress prepares to send a new version of the bill to the White House, what some have termed "pork" will still be there. As the Washington Post noted, the measure "will be split into two parts when it comes before the House," one dealing with war spending and the other with the unrelated domestic items. Once in the Senate, both parts will be put together and once approved will be sent to Bush as one bill. In addition, the Washington Times reports the Iraq legislation will include a hike in the minimum wage. Unless the President has now accepted the "pork" in exchange for the Democratic concession on the pullout issue, a new clash between Congress and the White House could be right around the corner.

You know, I frankly would not blame the White House if they wanted to veto this version of the supplemental. I mean, I wouldn't mind having this version vetoed as well. The pork is abominable and the attachment of the minimum wage bill is especially risible.

At the same time, it cannot be denied that the troops need the money. And it cannot be denied--as the story points out--that there are Republican members who need to vote for a supplemental without timelines. Since there are no timelines in the supplemental that will soon be before Congress, Republicans will likely feel the need to vote for it irrespective of the pork and the attachment of a minimum wage bill.

If that cannot be avoided, the supplemental will probably pass. And if it does, the passage of the supplemental will hand Nancy Pelosi a serious defeat, given that she is primed to vote against it. The Speaker's political apparatus will take a serious hit. The Democratic caucus will be severely split over the war. And the reverberations of all of this will be long-lasting.

Does this make the pork-laden supplemental the perfect bill? Clearly not; the substantive objections to it remain immensely strong. But given the political advantage that Republicans can gain by (a) passing a supplemental without timelines and (b) passing it over a Speaker and a portion of the Democratic caucus opposed to it, Republicans may find themselves unable to resist endorsing the supplemental, pork-laden warts and all.