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.
I want Bush to veto at least one more bill. I think we should come up with another rational, popular approach to war funding that Bush will veto. Make him sweat. Perhaps we could drop the explicit timetables, but make funding based entirely on treating the troops well.
Require the tours of duty to be reduced back to one year, the troops to have adequate rest, training, and equipment. Establish a fund reserved for bringing the troops home, to ensure that whenever the President decides to ship the troops home money for that is already allocated, even if we have to wait for January 2007.
Perhaps we should require that the President and SecDef publicly certify that we are meeting the benchmarks and that we have sufficient troop recruitment to maintain the force in Iraq without undue stress of the troops who have already sacrificed and served our country.
we can’t make him veto another bill because we do not want to pass the deadline on when we will lack funding. That’s why we should pass the two-month bill and load it up with crap we want and can’t get any other way.
And then in two months we should offer two option: the original bill that was vetoed, or another 2-monther with tons of goodies for Dem constituencies.
What deadline? If there really was a deadline then Bush would be nervous about his veto and we would be able to pass a bill with a slight compromise. Then again that assumes we are negotiating with a rational actor….
The pentagon can function for a while without a supplemental, Bush knows that and we know that. We should hurry another bill to Bush’s desk and let him worry about deadlines. Maybe the slow bureaucratic legislature will have time to pass a one or two month extension after Bush vetoes but maybe the congress with just be too busy reading Rove’s e-mail and wrestling with Rice’s supena to get to that spending bill they already passed twice.
I am not suggesting that they don’t pass an extension in time, but if Bush wants to play Chicken then he is the asshole and the American people know that.
The Pentagon can function without funding for a while but the politics are bad. Most people will think we’re defunding or at least playing games. I think the best long-term approach is to keep sending different bills of about the same stringency. We have many tools to end the war – readiness standards, withdrawal deadlines, benchmarks, and linked tax increases – and can combine them in different ways. That makes us look like a) we’re ready to make a fair deal and b) we’re serious about ending the war. In the meantime, since these negotiations will take time, pass a short-term funding bill – preferably one with readiness standards or deployment limitations, which are wildly popular.
if you are supporting the “short term” funding position and if by that you mean the concept of a two month funding program with the need to return after 2 months in order to get more funding then I am in support of that position.
BUT- I stand by the position that with zero requirements needed to be met then it is all bullshit!
And- what the hell is a “Clean Bill”? Is that a bill with no amendment regarding the health and welfare of returning troops?
Is that refer to a bill that includes no amendment regarding the minimum wage?
Is that refer to a bill that does not address funding for the housing of the families of the troops fighting the “war on terror”?
What the hell does a “clean bill” mean?????????????
well, the next bill needs to pass, which means we should take the minimum wage hike OUT of the bill.
We can pass the hike as a stand alone, and without too many Republican votes. There’s no reason to make all the GOoPers vote for it in a war funding bill…the point was to force them ALL vote against it and then use it as a cudgel in ’08.
why, given the the strong support of the majority of the american populace, is any of this bs posturing even required?
the dems were elected to get us out of Iraq, there’s no question concerning the mandate handed down in Nov 06…they’ve got a bill that addresses all of the concerns that created that mandate….why change it?
they passed it once, they have the votes to pass it again because it’s going to be damned difficult to vote against it after you voted for it for everybody involved. the crossovers who voted against initially and then supported the OR…Waters, Lewis, Watson and Michaud are going to be a a tough spot when the leadership resubmits the same bill…how are they going to rationalize the next vote if they vote against the measure after supporting the over-ride. [l know….it’s all positioning…yeah, yeah, yadda, yadda….so please spare me the litany], still, they’re in a box, they’ve been outmaneuvered. Kucinich and Stark will do what they did the first time.
Edwards is absolutely correct in his reading of the situation. watch the video statements from todays vote, starting with madame speaker.
any change in the bill we be seen, and exploited, as a sign of weakness by BushCo™ and the r’s…..fuck’em….hard and often…sooner, rather than later, they’re going to see the light, and it’s the train of public opinion and impeachment and the demise of the ratpub party for a generation or longer bearing down on their sorry asses.
how goddamned obvious does the solution have to be for these people to GET IT???
call the psycho’s bluff….he’s polling at 28%, the army’s on the verge of collapse or revolt, and the entire country wants his ass outta there!…yesterday.
politics under this administration is a blood sport and it’s time that the ratpubs to bleed.
put the damn bill back on his desk!!!
ITMF’sA
I really don’t think we could keep the Senate together for Edwards’ approach. We’d probably lose Hagel, Levin, G. Smith, Pryor, and a few others.
they’ve already crossed the line, re: BushCo™
Hagel’s gone so far over that he’s talking impeachment, Levin tried to broker a deal w/ Warner and still voted for it, Smith is vulnerable in the extreme in 08, and l don’t think changing his mind is likely to improve his chances, and he knows it, Pryor….who knows…been a loyal Bushie for a long time, but he went over on this once, nothings changed that l’m aware of….and Johnson just might be back for the next one….perhaps in a wheelchair w/ assistance, but there’s precidence for that, eh.
you don’t know if you don’t try, and if they don’t try they’re fools, imo.
ITMF’sA
you make good points, but I think you are missing something…and that is the overall narrative within which such a strategy would have to operate.
I do not think that Levin, for example, would sign on to a strategy that will put funding for the armed services at risk. I base this on prior comments he has made and just the nature of his position as chairman. I don’t think Hagel and Smith would go along with an absolute no compromise approach.
But…
We can take the pressure off by giving the Prez two months and then coming back again to see whether more Republicans are ready to leave the reservation.
Chances are, there will be more.
I think it keeps us on offense, mostly above criticism (except from our own ranks), and offers countless opportunities for mischief.
the narrative is changing, dramatically. to assume that the old narrative, which has been controlled by the admin’s spin, is still operative, is, imo, to ignore the huge paradigm shift that’s occurring daily.
we don’t need mischief, we need offense. the dem leadership has established a very different playing field over the past 4 months and now is no time to capitulate, or even give the appearance of same….it would be a major setback.
reducing the pressure is the absolute worst scenario possible….ratchet it up…Bush is gonna go batshit crazy…to borrow from BoJo…when/if they do it, and the curtain’s going to part even farther.
the r’s are eventually going to have to make a decision, jettison the captain, or go down in flames…many of them have, more will follow. this is no time to be polite, we wouldn’t be receiving any slack were the situation reversed.
we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.
put the same bill on his desk again…let’s see….it’s gone beyond what the people want, it’s now a demand…it’ll be interesting times tho, eh?
ITMF’sA
I agree that the narrative is changing, and that is why I have a lot of faith that we will do a lot better in two months than we did this time.
It’s for that very reason that I support punting right now and giving the GOP the ball, a first down, and two months to make a drive.
Then we will retake possession of the ball and try again with a worn down GOP defense.
I do not support, at all, funding on more than a two month basis.
We’re in the catbird’s seat and there is no reason to put everything at risk by making a huge gamble when staying the course is so promising.
If you read this post at TomDispatch, you will see that there is something very wrong with the current narrative: the bill that Congress sent to Bush is portrayed as calling for a withdrawal, but it doesn’t really do that at all. It just calls for a withdrawal of combat troops, while allowing for operations against al Qaeda in Iraq. Thus, essentially all it calls for is an end to “major combat operations”. All the mega bases and forces stationed there would remain.
Given how little the bill does to actually get the U.S. out of Iraq, to water it down any further would be unconscionable. The only acceptable options are sending the same bill (or something stronger) back to Bush, or just funding for two months.
it’s irrelevant. We knew this bill would be vetoed. So the details were always of secondary importance and more a matter of inflicting the most pain (minimum wage) on those that voted against it.
What we do now is important, however. And since we can’t do more, we must punt and do the two month funding.
You are probably right.
Anyway, that TomDispatch piece covers something almost completely ignored by the media: the 48,000 American mercenaries now in Iraq. That’s a sizable number, about one third of the number of troops there now. Oddly, this number is never included when figures are given for the American military presence in Iraq.
Needless to say, mercenaries are payed considerably more than soldiers, so the use of military contractors, which, being profit, make a profit, adds substantially to the cost of the occupation:
Democrats should give this greater scrutiny: all these firms are of course heavily Republican. This is just another way that the Republicans have found to steal the national treasure.
lose the support of the American people…
A Pew Research Center poll released on April 26 suggests that the American public favors the Edwards approach, with each side standing their ground rather than compromising.
snip
Roughly six-in-ten people in the Pew sample (59 percent) said they want their member of Congress to back an Iraq funding bill that includes a timeline for American troops to begin withdrawing.
Dems can hang the war around bushies and the other GOPeeons that don’t cross the aisle necks by not backing down, or they can share the weight of the failure with the republicans.
Pretty easy choice when you consider how most Americans will look at capitulation as the “same old same old.”
You know they will look at it this way in this political climate.
Compromises were made to get a bill that would pass. They included those who would not support a bill to fund War in Iraq. There is no reason to think the numbers are there to pass an exception to the budget on the basis of the wishful thinking of the President : already an exception to proper procedure.