Greg Sargent, TPM Cafe, has some interesting inside information about what Democrats on the Hill are thinking about for a post-veto strategy.
The two options being talked about most are:
(1) Sending Bush a short-term funding bill and forcing him to keep asking for more war funding — the option favored by John Murtha.
(2) Sending him a full funding bill without withdrawal timetables but with benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet and with troop readiness standards. This is the option that Dem leadership aides are reportedly beginning to coalesce around, though one Hill staffer I spoke with said he wasn’t sure that there was much momentum behind it just yet.
Watching Hardball just now, I noticed Senator Webb hitting on the troop readiness theme, but also mentioning a two-month funding bill ‘until we get this thing worked out’. Earlier, on CNN, I saw John Edwards advocate sending the same tough bill back to the President again, and as many times as necessary. Sargent’s source discusses the pros and cons of the two main choices.
Here are our Dem House aides’ thoughts on the short-term funding option:
“The pros are that you keep your Democratic caucus more or less where it is. In essence, you’re saying, `Fine, you’re getting your money, but you’re on a short leash.’ You’re not getting a blank check. You’re forcing GOP members to go on record funding the war. You’re forcing the GOP members to stand with the President.”
“One of the cons is that some of the people who will also be taking heat for the vote would be moderate Blue Dog Dems, who would vote for it. Also, it would be pretty close to a `clean’ bill. It certainly wouldn’t have any sort of timeline or limitations on the President.”
This is the approach I favor. We’ve reached an impasse, but events are moving in our direction. We don’t want to create a funding crisis or force the Pentagon to move around troops in an ad hoc and unplanned way. So, rather than compromising, we should kick the can down the road a couple of months, maintain our tough oversight, and keep trying to peel Republicans away from the President.
Meanwhile, here are our source’s thoughts on the pros and cons of the full-funding-with-benchmarks-but-no-timetables approach:
“The pros are that you avoid being perceived as withholding money from the troops. So you deprive the President of that platform to stand on. Because GOP members are now making noise about supporting this benchmarks approach, you’d have the first kind of wedge between the White House and Congressional Republicans.”
“The cons are that you’re gonna alienate liberal members and the antiwar Democratic base. Democratic leaders would also be undermining their own language about giving the President a blank check. And potentially, you’d be giving a fig leaf to vulnerable Republicans who otherwise would be vulnerable in the Fall elections by allowing them to say that they’re doing something to hold the administration and the Iraqi government accountable.”
I don’t see any real ‘pros’ in this proposal that won’t be covered by the first option. But the ‘cons’ are all serious negatives with almost nothing mitigating in return. We definitely will regret giving Republicans a fig-leaf to pretend they are holding the President accountable when they are doing nothing of the kind. This will not end the war. And Speaker Pelosi says we are going to end the war.
“Make no mistake,” she said, signaling a very tough road ahead, “Democrats are committed to ending this war.”
You can’t be committed to ending the war if you go with option two. I know Edwards has it easy in calling for no compromise when he doesn’t have to cast any votes, but his recommendation is far better than a benchmarks-but no timetables bill.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) is WAY off the mark with this one:
Obey has floated a few alternative proposals, including a quick vote on an Iraq funding bill with benchmarks but no withdrawal timeline. He has suggested holding a separate vote on a U.S. pullout after a new funding bill is enacted, a move that would help Pelosi and Reid reassure anti-war lawmakers that their concerns over ongoing military conflict in Iraq are being heard.
I’m sorry but funding the war with no timetables and then winning a vote to end the war in the House will not reassure anyone. The whole point of tying the timetables to an appropriation bill is that the Republicans can’t just filibuster it.
I don’t know what the Dems are going to do, but they are flirting with disaster with some of these proposals.
