Republicans a Democratic measure that would give funding to Bush for the war only if he redeploys troops from Iraq. The Democrats blocked a Republican measure to fund the war without any timetables for troop withdrawal.
Democrats are now showing some spine -- at least at the moment:
Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.,said this week that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties warmoney to troop withdrawals, they would not send Bush a bill this year.
Instead,they would revisit the issue upon returning in January, pushing thePentagon to the brink of an accounting nightmare and deepeningDemocrats' conflict with the White House on the war.
Inthe meantime, Democrats say, the Pentagon can eat into its $471 billionannual budget without being forced to take drastic steps.
"The days of a free lunch are over," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
Either we just took a dramatic step towards ending the war, or we are being set up by Pelosi and Reid for a huge let-down when they cave in early next year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is assuring the public that the Democrats' plan to end the war will involve a that the President must follow:
The Democratic leader said he will call for avote this month on several anti-war proposals, including one by Sen.Carl Levin that would insist President Bush end U.S. combat nextsummer. The proposals would be mandatory and not leave Bush wiggleroom, said Reid, D-Nev.
"There (are) no goals. It's all definite timelines," he told reporters of the planned legislation.
The Republicans will filibuster this legislation no matter what. And this comes from the same party that when the Democrats blocked judicial nominees when they were in the minority.
I have been monitoring the Iraq debate throughout the night. It's past five o'clock on the east coast, and they are once again voting to end the filibuster. As I watch now, a flurry of GOP lawmakers are fast-walking to the floor as the role is being called. At the moment, it looks like the filibuster will hold. I will continue to keep tabs on it.
On a less enchanting note, according to the , a number of lawmakers, including Hillary Clinton, convinced Harry Reid to postpone a few of the votes so they could get some sleep. Apparently Reid was going to be very aggressive tonight, calling for votes every few hours. But a few Democrats wanted sleep instead:
It was shortly before midnight when the senators arrived back onthe floor of the Senate to cast their second vote of the marathon Iraqwar debate. The Democrats circled Senator Harry Reid, the majorityleader, with a purposeful plea: Won’t you please delay the next voteuntil a little closer to sunrise?
“Harry, sweetheart,†said Senator Barbara Boxer of California, leading the group of Democrats. “5:30 or 6?â€
From our vantage point in the press gallery overlooking the Senatefloor, Ms. Boxer was leading the lobbying effort on behalf of severalsenators in her party. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York andDebbie Stabenow of Michigan joined in, too.
The Democratic Party used its radio address to help set the stage for the ultimate battle after the 4th of July recess. Understanding that a majority of the country is , as they are dissatisfied with , Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to push for a to end the war.
This is the real deal. No non-binding resolutions. No wimpy efforts to bring it to a cloture vote. This is it. After the 4th of July, Democrats will force GOP senators such as Richard Lugar, John Warner, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Norma Coleman -- including other Republicans on the fence -- to take a stand.
Reid hinted at this plan in the :
"Voting against a bill on a matter of principleis one thing," the Nevada senator said during the weekly Democraticradio address. "To go forward, we will need far more Republicans to putpartisan politics aside and work with us for the American people."
While seeking their votes on defense legislationnext week, Reid accused GOP lawmakers of blocking ethics reform andenactment of the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
"Republican obstruction has gotten so bad that now they're blocking bills that they actually support," Reid said.
Will Reid really put his foot down, or is this another effort to excite people for nothing? One thing is for sure: the Democrats have not pressed hard enough to end the war in Iraq. Yes, the need 67 votes. But you won't be able to pressure Republicans to change their mind if it is debated only once each month. Multiple bills to end the war should be submitted each week. If the Democrats tried that strategy, Senate Republicans would buckle. Imagine being a Republican and running for reelection with the following line appearing in your opponent's campaign ad: "This Repoublican Senator voted against troop redeployment 15 times."
So keep bringing the Iraq bills to the floor. Dare them to vote against it. Once each month is not going to cut it.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might be getting the message after all. Or, maybe he only wants us to think he gets it. Either way, the Democrats are planning to renew the Iraq debate by submitting that will hopefully tie Bush's hands and end the war:
Legislation #1: Cutting off funding for the war in 2008.
Legislation #2: Troop withdrawal starting in four months.
Legislation #3: Imposing stricter standards on the lengths of combat tours.
Legislation #4: Rescinding President Bush's Iraq war authorization power.
All of these items will be voted on separately, therefore giving some of them a possible chance of passing with enough votes to override a veto. If Republicans vote against all four measures, then that is four more votes for staying the course -- which will not play well for many Republicans up for reelection in 2008. The last two measures probably have the best shots of passing, as many Democrats are wary about completely cutting off all funds.
Each of the votes will take place before the July 4th recess.
Last week, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow -- the kind that actor Michael J. Fox candidates to take a stand on last campaign cycle. President Bush is promising a if it passes the Senate. In order to override the Bush veto, it will need to pass the House and Senate by a two-thirds majority.
Congressional sources have indicated to me that Senate Democrats need just one vote to override the veto and pass the stem cell legislation.
The Democrats also have another option. With the temporary vacancy of the Wyoming Senate seat, following the unfortunate , the Democrats are now in a position to pass it by two-thirds majority. Senator Thomas was a strong opponent of stem cell research, which means Republicans might raise a fuss if Harry Reid tries to force a vote.
We can debate the ethics of using stem cells that will be until we are blue in the face. Though, strategically speaking, as political analyst points out, Democrats only gain from bills like this. So they may ultimately try to push this through:
In particular, the Democrats have a chance to peel away a critical blocof independents and moderate Republicans who are growing more and moreuncomfortable with the anti-science, anti-tolerance, borderlineantediluvian agenda of today's conservative movement.
Look for this to be a hot topic in the coming weeks.
This comes from the Senate Majority Leader, who spoke at the Center for American Progress today. When asked about 2008, he about the interesting variety of candidates in the Republican presidential field:
I’ve learned one thing in listening to all the debates and readingabout all these people running for office, and the one fact I’velearned, I can’t get out of my mind, is that Rudy Giuliani has beenmarried more times than Mitt Romney’s been hunting. …â€
And his point is not off-base. One in three Republican voters are with the list of Republican candidates already in the race. The remedy? In marches Fred Thompson. According to a new AP/Ipsos poll, are leaning in his direction, even though the former Tennessee Senator has yet to officially announce his presidential bid. And maybe most important, Fred Thompson has more than any GOP candidate other than Ron Paul.
Forget Rudy McRomney. Once Thompson officially gets in, he will be the GOP front-runner.
Joe Lieberman paid a surprise visit to Baghdad this week and mimicked there just one month prior -- patrolling the streets with heavy force and sniper cover. And like McCain, he that the situation in Iraq is getting better:
Overall, I'd say what I see here today is progress -- significant progress from the last time I was here in December.
But the soldiers there strongly disagree. While waiting for Lieberman to arrive, a few soldiers with the media:
"We're not making any progress," Hedin said, as he recalled a comradewho was shot by a sniper last week. "It just seems like we drive aroundand wait to get shot at."
But as he waited two chairs down from where Lieberman would sit, Hedin said he'd never voice his true feelings to the senator.
"I think I'd be a private if I did," he joked. "It's just more troops, more targets."
Spc. Kevin Krasco, 20, of Medford, Mass., and Spc. Kevin Adams, 20, ofMoosup, Conn., chimed in with their dismay before turning theconversation to baseball.
"It's like everything else in this war," Adams said, referring to Baghdad. "It hasn't changed."
During the trip, Lieberman even said he would war with Iran.
Even though the Senate is 51-49, if we explode at people like Joe Biden for supporting the President's Iraq funding bill, then why are there not calls for Democrats to abandon Joe Lieberman? This Connecticut Senator is pulling the party in the wrong direction on the most important issue since Vietnam. Yes, we will lose control of the Senate. But this is a matter of principle. It is how this Congress will be remembered 50 years from now. Voters demanded boldness last November. Instead, we have Senate Majority Leader who awarded pro-war Joe Lieberman the gavel as . Something is wrong with that. Even if it means losing the Senate, I would gain a great deal of respect for Harry Reid if he abandoned Mr. Lieberman.
Remember the authority that the President used to install as UN Ambassador in 2005? In the coming months, a fight will erupt between Bush and the Democratic Congress over a power that the President can use when the Legislative Branch is not in session.
Later this summer, George W. Bush intends to use the congressional vacation as the perfect opportunity to confirm a number of his controversial political nominees without Senate approval. You might recall that in early January of this year, just days before Nancy Pelosi's Democrats , the President used his power to install a number of right-wing officials.
With the President's political capital dwindling fast, Senate Majority Leader is planning to use procedural maneuvers this August to prevent Bush from appointing anyone without Senate approval:
We hear that over the long August vacation, when those types of summerhires are made, Reid will call the Senate into session just long enoughto force the prez to send his nominees who need confirmation to thechamber. The talk is he will hold a quickie "pro forma" session every10 days, tapping a local senator to run the hall. Senate workers andRepublicans are miffed, but Reid is proving that he's the new sheriffin town.
In other words, if you put a member of the majority party in the Senate chambers, then the Senate is technically not in recess!
However, expect the President to fight Harry Reid on this. Also, according to , there is some question as to what qualifies as a "vacancy":
The wording of the constitutional provision allowing recess appointments leads to a question about which positions could actually be filled that way. The question revolves around the phrase “Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.†Does “happen†mean “happen to exist†or “happen to occur�
The first meaning would allow the President to make recess appointments to an position that becomes vacant prior to the recess and continues to be vacant during the recess, as well as positions that become vacant during the recess. The second meaning would allow recess appointments only to positions that become vacant during the recess.
If Bush wants to fight it, even if he risks more political scandal, this could turn into a constitutional battle that ends up in court. If the judiciary does intervene, it could drag out in for an extended period of time -- meanwhile, Bush's officials would be in office at least until the court reached a decision.
Even though there is a chance Bush could win this battle, it is worth the fight. No more presidential strong-arming now that the Democrats have majority. The public is fed up with the White House, whose main strategy these last six years has been to use various political issues -- most notably, the threat of terrorism -- to increase Executive power as a means to purge our government of political dissent.
These Cheney-style executive shadow games are getting old. What ever happened to tackling the issues of jobs, education and health care? -- you know, the stuff taxpayers actually want addressed. If Bush cared more about those issues than installing his own right-wing cronies at all cost, then his approval rating would not be at . My generation is exhausted of this, and we want change. I hope Reid draws a line in the sand and fights this next wave of recess appointments.
Today, the U.S. Senate is preparing to vote on four Iraq measures. Here is a run-down of each bill:
: A bill that cuts off almost all funding for the Iraq war on March 31, 2008 -- with the exception of funds that go towards protecting military personnel, training and arming Iraqi forces, and conducting limited counter-terrorism operations in trouble spots such as Al Anbar and Diyala.
: A bill that links reconstruction aide to specific benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet in order to continue to get funding. This is along the lines of the House bill that was passed last week.
: A bill that calls for the withdrawal of U.S. forces to begin this September unless the Iraqi government can meet specific benchmarks. The bill also gives Bush the power to waive the withdrawal requirement.
: A bill that gives the funding that the President wanted, and does not set benchmarks.
There is also talk about a fifth bill that, according to the , Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell agreed would be considered on Thursday. That bill would simply give Bush the funds he wants, without benchmarks or timetables.
Recent Comments