This is just my preliminary thinking on what the Democrats should do now that they have passed the supplemental with benchmarks and timelines for withdrawal. The first thing they need to do is get their talking points straight.
The President was for funding the troops before he was against it.
The people and the Congress voted to end this war. The President is vetoing the will of the people.
We’re willing to negotiate over some of the language but not the benchmarks and not the principle of withdrawal, etc.
I’ve been waffling over whether to waste time with a doomed override attempt. At the moment I think we should try it. We’ve been doing better than anticipated so far, and we might do better than anticipated on an override. If we decide to attempt an override, though, it affects the language that we should adopt. Essentially, we need to argue forcefully for the bill and suggest the Republicans need to come to their senses and not risk a delay of funding. Then we need to go up with advertising in Minnesota, Maine, Tennessee, New Mexico, etc., targeting Senators for both voting against money for the troops, and voting to endlessly continue the war.
We might be able to peel away a few more Republicans and weaken them up a bit more before we go back to work on another bill.
When we do another bill, it should either be tougher than the original, or it should make minimal concessions, (on time, for example). If we cannot build a veto-proof bill, then we should do funding for a mere three months and include tough language on reporting benchmarks. Then, after three months and a report on progress, we will try again. But, under no circumstances should we back down and fund the war (beyond those three months) without withdrawal language.
If anyone has better ideas, let me know. I’m just brainstorming here.
Hmmm. Good question. On the one hand a veto override attempt is almost certainly going to fail and could be seen as a waste of time. On the other, it’s another chance to show states represented by Republicans just how out of touch their representatives are (“The people of our state want to bring fully fund the troops in Iraq and bring them home, but Whipsnade Pettifogger voted
1415 times against blah blah blah . . . “)If they go that route though, in addition to billboards and the like they should do the old “Call Congressman Pettifogger at (202) 224-3121 and tell him to support the troops by funding them and bringing them home” dodge. I hate it, but it seems to work.
Firm but fair. Vaguely condescending but perfectly pitched. He’s the hysteric, not her. In private, I think some knee busting needs to start happening, because the “fight them over there” BS is dead. If my 9 and 10-year-old are asking me “Why does anyone believe the president?” how much more lying are we going to tolerate?
Talking points? Keep them simple: We’re occupiers. We were lied to. We gain nothing from staying. We’re not spreading democracy. Our generals are telling us to get out. And for the craven, we’re not seeing those oil profits, and this mess isn’t paying for itself.
Good grief, even King Abdullah is calling us out. How much lower do we go? We need to push back firmly, keep it simple and frankly, start leaning on Dems who aren’t playing ball. They can fall in line or join the Lieberman party and lose their committee seats. It’s time to go to the mat on this.
Why fight it? Let the dumbshit veto, refuse to offer another, War Defunded.
Since the republicans like the talking points about the various non-military pork in this bill, get rid of the pork and send it through again.
Then the republican senators can’t say that they are voting against the pork, they will be voting against the troops and against ending the war.
back in. Things are getting so bad for Bush that his pulling a wag the dog is becoming increasingly likely.
Every week, the perception of Bush as a lunatic increases. So, maybe the second time around, Congressmen will be worried enough to keep the provision in, despite AIPACs interference. Remember, in Nixon’s final days, Secretary of Defense Al Haig issued an order that any orders from Nixon for military action need to be countersigned by him. This provision involves the same kind of reasoning.