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.
