Graham: GOP will always have enough votes to block veto override

Republican leaders in both the House and Senate have put their feet down and will make sure the Democrats never have enough votes to override a Bush veto of an Iraq troop withdrawal legislation.  Let's use the Senate as an example.  The Democrats need 60 votes just to force a vote on an Iraq bill.  Even if it passes, President Bush will veto it.  The Senate must have 67 votes in order to override the veto.  Although there is no filibuster in the House, it is the same as the Senate in that Democrats need a two-thirds majority to override a Bush veto.

According to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is spearheading the effort to oppose troop reductions, the GOP will always have at least 33 hardcore Bush-supporting senators:

And a loyal group of GOP senators are prepared to back a Bush veto ifDemocrats ever succeed in limiting or ending the U.S. mission in Iraq.

"At the end of the day, all of this hand-wringing needs to beunderstood (in the context) of how Congress works: There will always be33 of us, as long as there is not a complete meltdown, to support amilitary strategy that is aggressive and is not based on needs of thenext election," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Lindsey underestimates how elections can impact votes.  There are 15 Republican senators up for reelection in 2008.  Even in places such as Alabama, where incumbent Senate candidate Jeff Sessions is from, voters only give Bush a 42% approval rating, mostly because of the war.  Democrats need to step up their opposition against all the GOP Senators running for reelection, such as Sessions -- and maybe then we will get our 67 votes.

Comments

[granny]

EXCELLENT story. Excellent post. That is exactly where our political energy needs to be going: into getting control of Congress.

[George]

good. but what about AFTER the next election.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

If we get Richardson, Kucinich, Obama or Edwards in there, the war will be over immediately after they take office. In that case, Congress wouldn't have to do anything....just sit there while the Democratic president brings troops home.

[granny]

Devil's advocate:

WHAT election?

Are we honestly going to get to choose and elect a President?

We better be working damned hard to get those Congressional seats filled appropriately and not be depending on a presidential "election" going our way.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

How about winning both?

Granny, I understand what you are getting at about not truly picking a president. I wish it wasn't always Iowa and New Hampshire deciding everything. I want my say too -- even though I am still undecided.

[granny]

Me, too. Undecided. :)