Editorial: Vetoed bills can have great importance

The House of Representatives narrowly passed a military spending bill last night that would set benchmarks for the Iraqi government, and force the President to come back to Congress every two months for more funding.  According to our constitution, all spending bills must originate in the House and then go to the Senate before reaching the President's desk.  Being that Bush is threatening to veto the legislation anyway, Senate Democrats are reluctant to even bother introducing the bill in their chamber of Congress.

Should the Senate take up legislation even though it will not become law?

I am not here to make an ideological argument.  You all have your own opinions about what is right or wrong about funding the war.  I am simply making a strategic argument that passing a bill like this one through the Senate, even though it is doomed to fail once it reaches the President's desk, is a smart idea if you want the war to end soon.  It will create an even larger division within the Republican Party, and decentralize their power as an organizing body.  Often, when partisan power is decentralized, lawmakers vote more freely because party leaders are not in a position to penalize their members for stepping out of line.

Let's step back a bit.  Politically speaking, President Bush would rather go down with this war than admit he was wrong and pull troops out himself.  The only way we can get our troops out before 2009 is if we override the President's veto.  So the pressure is no longer on Bush, it is on the Republican members of Congress to break with Bush or else risk losing in 2008. 

We need 67 votes in the Senate, and 283 in the House to override the veto.  It will not happen this month or the next.  But each time Bush vetoes a war spending bill, Republican lawmakers hear it from their constituents.  11 Republican members of the House met with Bush a few days ago and told him that.  In Republican Congressman Tom Davis' district, Bush has a 5% approval rating.  Again, this is a Republican district that is fed up with Republican leadership.

So ultimately what we are looking at is the reality that moderate Republicans will eventually need to cave in.  Each time that Bush vetoes an Iraq spending bill, these moderate Republicans grow more fearful that they will be out of a job in January of 2009.

As we learned with John Kerry in 2004, voting records mean a lot to the public.  If anti-war independents learn that the Republican in their district is continuously voting to give Bush a blank check for war, then it reflects poorly on that lawmaker.

My advice to Harry Reid is to please hold a vote on the Iraq bill that just passed the House, even though it will get vetoed.  Hold as many votes as possible on similar Iraq funding bills between now and July.  Force moderate Republicans into a tricky political situation where each of them is forced to take a stand against the President.

Remember, politics is about power and incentives.  If Republicans have every incentive to abandon the President, they will -- or else they will be out of power.  So be bold, Harry Reid.  The more you vote on matters such as this, the sooner this war will be over with.

Comments

[George]

"The only way we can get our troops out before 2009 is if we override the President's veto."

What about not funding anything? The troops dont need funding if they are not in a war. They aren't starving children.

[granny]

No need to add a thing to that, Todd.
Super editorial!

It's precisely this kind of thoughtful strategizing and persistence that brought the conservatives to power. A yea from me

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Thanks Granny.

George, that's a good point about cutting the funding. I just don't think that would ever be considered.