Differences between the 1995 government shutdown and the 2007 government showdown.
Bill Clinton: great communication skills and decent popularity.
George W. Bush: no communications skills and polling in the crapper. Plus, no one believes a thing he says anymore.
Newt Gingrich: weird looking dude that scared people.
Nancy Pelosi: nice grandmother.
The 1995 shutdown closed our national parks.
The 2007 showdown would close down a very unpopular war.
The Republicans were pushing the envelope with their mandate.
The Democrats are struggling to carry out the bare minimum of their mandate.
Clinton was not yet embroiled in scandal, although the Republicans were doing their best.
The Bush administration is getting killed everyday with damaging revelations of their malfeasance.
I could probably make up a much longer list but I don’t think it is necessary. The differences between today and 1995 are enormous and do not favor the Republicans. Nevertheless, the official line coming from the Republicans is that George W. Bush can use a showdown with Congress to ‘rise like a phoenix’, as Joe Scarborough put it tonight.
People like Pat Buchanan are suggesting that the Dems will have no choice to back down, and that if they do not, it will really benefit Bush and the Republicans. And they are using the 1995 government shutdown as their model. It appears the White House has bought into this rhetoric, although it’s possible that they are just using intimidation and trying to seed some doubt in the Democratic caucus.
The Dems do not have to follow this script. There are things they can do short of defunding the troops in the field. And, ultimately, if they stick to their guns and keep handing the President bills to sign, he will have to sign one eventually. They might compromise once, by passing a very short term bill, but doing that will really strain the unity of the caucus.
The only thing I can really say in favor of funding for a few more months before we insist on withdrawal is that the President’s position is bound to be weaker in three months than it is today. Given a choice of retreating three months and then coming back strong, and capitulating now? I’ll take the President on again from a stronger position over the summer.
But, before we even get to that point, the Dems need to go forth and explain why the President should just grow up and sign the damn bill. He has his money. And let’s see if we can pull away more Republicans on the override attempt.
but is it me or did Kyle Sampson come off looking like a zero. He maintains these list of people to fire but doesn’t do any investigation on his own, doesn’t talk to the attorneys on the list, doesn’t give them their time to ask “WHY?” He doesn’t really understand that being a political appointee isn’t a reason to cloak oneself in blind loyalty. And he doesn’t seem to have the intelligence of a damp sponge! (My projection of course!)
Unfortunately, it really had to be seen to be believed. It’s probable that his only lies were when he said he didn’t remember. And, if he was largely telling the truth it is a wonder that the country hasn’t completely collapsed under the weight of this government’s incompetence. I don’t even know how to describe his testimony. It left me speechless.
If the Dems were really smart, they would send an Iraq funding bill, that increases the captial gains tax, with the monies going to fund the War in Iraq. Put W and Karl in a box they can’t get out of.
And when W vetos that one..another repealing “Paris Hilton, Tax Cut with the monies going to fund the war in Iraq.
And when W vetos that one, another bill repealing his tax cuts for the top 1% percent with the monies going to funder the war in Iraq.
W. can transfer funds from some of the boondoggle missile defense, laser plane etc. to keep the war going.
True, but that money would be gone in a week.
true. Plus, most Pentagon money can’t just be shifted without Congress authorizing it. Remember when they diverted funds allocated for Afghanistan to Iraq? That was only legal because the Republicans decided to look the other way.
Just keep sending up spending bills. So long as we can maintain a majority in the House of Representatives we win by giving the President supplemental bills to sign and him vetoing them. He tells us the troops need the money, but he refuses take the money we send him.
The worst case scenario from my point of view is that Bush never signs a supplemental spending bill to fund the war and has to bring the troops home. The problem with that scenario is that Bush will keep the troops in the field and try to blame us for not paying their paychecks or providing them with supplies. I don’t think he’ll be able to blame us if we repeatedly send him funding bills that include timetables which the public supports.
If Bush wants a funding bill, he will have to compromise or cave.
Then again he might think that the House Dems will cave first, I don’t think they will and I certainly hope that they won’t.
I don’t think the House Democrats will. Look at how many new scandals have come to light since January…the GOP has zero political capital. Any more votes that cling to Bush will just make them sink faster.
And if we have the right candidate at the topic of the ticket in 2008 (namely, not Clinton), 2006 could be shits and giggles compared to what happens at this rate.
Well, there are too different things. One is what the Dems should do in an ideal world.
The more important thing is what Pelosi and Reid can get them to do in the real world.
In the ideal world, they would have had much stronger timetables and a much more targeted and restricted funding.
In the real world, we got this.
We can give all kinds of advice that won’t be taken, but the Dems are going to be under a lot of pressure to get this money to the troops and not play games. Holding the caucus together in opposition to a rubber stamp is ‘hard work’ and cannot be done any old way.
This is why I walked around Buck’s County and Philadelphia for Patrick Murphy. This is the kind of fight that he and his fellow fighting Dems can really shine on. Get right out there and tell Bush and the nation that we did our job and approved money for the troops. If Bush is too good to spend the taxpayer’s dime that is his problem.
I think that its the votes in the House that are critical. All funding bills have to start there. Pelosi, et al just need to stand firm. As I said Tuesday if we pass a short term measure I think it should be explicitly to fund the withdrawal of troops, and we should tell the Nation and the World that it is the last money we will approve for the war.
In fact I would approve enough money for a withdrawal now, so that when and if the troops run out of money or overstay the deadline the generals in the field have enough money approved for an orderly withdrawal.
BTW if we can get away with it, I would suggest a supplemental bill with no non-security items on it. That isn’t helping us much. Send those items up to the president in a separate supplemental so the other side can’t complain that they won’t pass the bill because there is too much pork (or not enough for them at least) in what is being called the Iraq War Supplemental.
Some of those fighting Dems are the ones I am most worried about.
thank you, boo.
I read an editorial in the WSJ (I know…I know…) and thought the same thing.
There is absolutely no comparison here, except that the R’s will look the damn fools yet again.
Full funding for what he asked for tied to rescinding authorization on expenditures on all but 150 of the 3000 “non-career employees” (read political appointees). Or maybe fewer than 150. Or maybe revoke the authority for the staff of the Vice President. Put the pain on the deciders, not the troops.
Or peel off the so-called “pork” from this bill one item at a time. First goes the $165,000 for the widow of a former member of Congress. Then the $25 million for relief of spinach farmers who lost crops because other spinach farmers had crops with e. coli. Then rural school aid. On down through minimum wage and Katrina relief. And then discard the phoney timeline. And stop.
But what’s left you say.
The prohibition of permanent military bases in Iraq. That will be the killing provision, not the timeline.
In 1995 the corporate media spun everything in favor of Newt and the Republicans and the Contract With America, and against the Clinton administration. Now the corporate media is spinning everything in favor of Bush and the Republican minority in Congress, and against the Democratic majority in Congress and the clearly expressed will of the American people.
In a world in which a mere handful of corporations control virtually all media outlets, the very concept of a free press is an oxymoron.