The Blue State

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.

Reid questions timing of oil refinery maintenance

The average gallon of gasoline in the United States is now up to $3.07 -- a 20 cent increase in just the last two weeks.  Just last month, Exxon reported that profits were up 10% in the first quarter of 2007.

So what is going on?  Harry Reid has his own opinion:

"It's outrageous ...Isn't it interesting every year about this time,a refinery goes down for repairs," said Senate Democratic Leader HarryReid of Nevada.

Actually, it is quite puzzling.  Why would oil companies conduct refinery maintenance at this time of the year, just weeks before Memorial Day weekend, when millions of families across the country will take to the roads?

This kind of maintenance limits supply and helps drive up prices.  Could that be why the Bush Administration ordered oil companies last September, just two months before the election, to delay all refinery maintenance?  It really makes you think.

(Video) Reid: Republicans will eventually support withdrawal date idea

Earlier today on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed out the inevitable: Republicans are running from the President, and will eventually be on-board with the Iraq withdrawal date idea by this fall.

But if Republicans know they will eventually part with the President, then why aren't they doing it now?  Lives of U.S. soldiers are at stake:

HARRY REID: There are signs that Republican leadership in Congress are beginning to think that a timeline is necessary as well.  According to the LA Times, House Republican Leader John Boehner said, and I quote, "Mr. Bush risks defections in the fall if the war situation hasn't improved.  By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working.  And if it isn't, what's plan-B?" 

The House Majority Leader now seems to be saying that he and his colleagues agree that there must be a time limit on the President's current course in Iraq.  What's also revealing, and almost somewhat disturbing, is that the Republican Leader is willing to allow our troops to stay in Iraq with a failing strategy until he and his colleagues decide it's time to part with the president.

Though, it is sad the Republicans are only doing this because they have every political incentive not to support the President.  Think about all those troops that will die between now and this fall -- just because it is not politically convenient for the Republicans to stand firm at this very moment.

Will Republicans call this soldier defeatist?

A lot of fuss has been made over the last week about Harry Reid's opinion that the Iraq war is unwinnable from a military standpoint.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell blasted Reid for saying that:

"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear   that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Actually, let's put this question to a soldier now serving in Iraq: is the war winnable?  According to this soldier, who was interviewed by CNN International, the war is a lost cause:

MATT PIERRE: ..this is our generation's Vietnam.  I don't think this can be won.  We're caught in the middle of a civil war.

Yes, sometimes the truth hurts.  Truth is also reality.  Are we better off living in the real world of facts and logical analysis, or should ideology trump all of that?  Over the last six years, we've grown accustomed to an Administration that embraces the latter, and discards the former.  Look at where we are now.

Although he might have been rather slow in developing a firm stance on the war, maybe Harry Reid is doing a service to the country by taking the 'non' out of 'sense', and speaking the truth about the war even though it might offend some people.

Harry Reid Responds to Bush

Harry Reid responded to President Bush's invite to a White House sit down.

Transcript from Crooks & Liars

The president is inviting us down to the White House withpreconditions," Reid said. "Things are not OK in Iraq.  As thePope said on Easter Sunday, a slaughter is taking place in Iraq.  The Popefurther said nothing good is coming from Iraq. The president must realize that. He has to deal with Congress. We are an independent branch of this government,and by our Constitution we have equal say that he has.  And he's got tolisten to us.  Because we are speaking for the American people; heisn't." (Transcript below the fold)

Reid: "He wants to go down there and say, 'I want a clean bill.' That's not negotiating. I mean, I am — prided myself on being a pretty goodlawyer, trial lawyer.  I've settled lots and lots of cases.  But younever settle a case going in saying, 'You can come and meet with me, but here'swhat the result's going to be before we meet.'  That doesn't work. And thepresident has to realize it doesn't work in the practice of law, it doesn't workin the business world and it doesn't work in government."

Bush probably wants to brow beat, tongue lash and remind them he's the decider.

Reid making Senate come to work Saturday for Iraq cloture vote

This is the kind of leadership we have been waiting for!  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said during a press conference this afternoon that he is fed up with all the delays on this Iraq issue, and wants to hold a cloture vote on the non-binding Iraq resolution this Saturday -- a time when many lawmakers had planned Presidents Day weekend vacations. 

With the cloture vote scheduled for a weekend, there will be much more viewers tuning into C-Span during the daytime, and all cable news networks will cover it as well.  Every Senator will have the spotlight on them, and be forced to take a clear stand.  Flip-floppers will be exposed on national television.  That especially goes for Hagel and Warner.

The blog Think Progress has the video of Reid's press conference.  Below is a partial transcript:

Now, we know that time is of the essence. That’s why the Senate willhave another Iraq vote on Saturday. Cloture will be filed on the Houseversion of the non-escalation policy today, for a Saturday cloture vote.

The Republicans then will have an opportunity to determine ifthey’re going to allow the Senate to vote up or down on thisresolution, and to allow the American people to see how United Statessenators feel about the president’s policy in Iraq.

This comes immediately after Republican Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) sent a letter to Reid that asked for more negotiations on the non-binding resolution.  It's safe to say that Reid is calling their bluff.  This is the first bold move for Reid as Senate Majority Leader.  Let's hope we see more of this in the weeks to come.

Morning in Washington: Democrats take Congress

Just a few hours from now, the gavel will be in their hands.  Ethics rules will be voted on today.  "First 100 Hours" agenda to begin Tuesday.

This entry is being posted right before history will be made in our nation's capital.  At noon eastern time, Democrats, led by their leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, are putting an end to 12 years of Republican reign on Capitol Hill.  Pelosi will become the first female Speaker of the House in United States history. 

Freshmen Senators and House members will be sworn in as well.  Montana Senator Jon Tester, one of the most well-known Democratic challengers to win in November, flew to the capital on Tuesday so he could beat the bad weather.  One day before getting on the plane, he felt ecstatic about the opportunity before him:

"We're really looking forward to getting back there and getting ourfeet on the ground," the freshman Democrat said in a telephoneinterview. "We've been working for this for over a year and a half now,and now it's time we can put all our hard work to use to help benefitMontanans and the rest of the country."

Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill felt the same way.  Last night she held a rally in D.C. with about 500 supporters, and thanked many of them for their hard work during the campaign:

“I will work hard and try hard never to disappoint you,” the MissouriDemocrat told the crowd at the posh Willard Continental Hotel, just afew blocks from the White House.

“There are so many of you fromMissouri,” she said. "It’s been a long time since we filled so manyplanes to come to Washington, D.C."

Technically, even though Democrats take the gavel today, they will not begin their anticipated "First 100 Hours" until Tuesday.  H.R. 1, the first bill of the 110th Congress, will be submitted then.  Word has it that H.R. 1 will be the legislation that enacts the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which until now President Bush has refused to implement.  It is still unknown who will sponsor the bill.  Once H.R. 1 is submitted, the first 100 hours will begin.  Pelosi has promised that during the first 100 hours, the House will follow strict protocol and force through the following bills:

• Implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
• Making it legal for Americans to buy cheaper prescription drugs from other countries, and forcing the government to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices.
• Raising the national minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.
• Cutting the interest on college loans in half.
• Repealing the tax breaks for oil companies.
• Expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

After the House passes these bills, it is almost for certain that Senate Republicans will choose not to block them via filibuster.  The only uncertainty is whether the President will choose to veto them.

Bottom line: all that hard work from online activists throughout the 2006 campaign paid off.  We deserve a pat on the back.  Only, the true test is beginning.  Now that the Republicans are out of power, expect them to throw everything they have at the Democrats.  If you think Hannity and Limbaugh are too partisan now, just wait to see how they will act when their guys are not in power.  Publicly, every lawmaker and Bush Administration official is asking for bipartisanship.  In reality, it will be a slug-fest.  The wild ride to 2008 begins now, and we are all part of it.

Reid knows he messed up -- but has he learned anything?

Harry Reid is doing damage control.

Last week, new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced his support for the McCain plan to increase the U.S. occupation in Iraq by sending in more troops.  Since then, the lawmaker has been hit hard by the blogosphere and the rest of the activist community for helping further the open-ended Republican policy in Iraq.

Realizing that he needed to do damage control fast, Reid strategically wrote a short op-ed piece that appeared on the Huffington Post web site.  In the column, he took the exact opposite position as the one he took last week:

Frankly, I don't believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq.  It's acivil war and America should not be policing a Sunni-Shia conflict. Inaddition, we don't have the additional forces to put in there. We obviouslywant to support what commanders in the field say they need, but apparentlyeven the Joint Chiefs do not support increased combat forces for Baghdad. Myposition on Iraq is simple:

1. I believe we should start redeploying troops in 4 to 6 months (TheLevin-Reed Plan) and complete the withdrawal of combat forces by the firstquarter of 2008. (As laid out by the Iraq Study Group)

2. The President must understand that there can only be a political solutionin Iraq, and he must end our nation's open-ended military commitment to thatcountry.

3. These priorities need to be coupled with a renewed diplomatic effort andregional strategy.

I do not support an escalation of the conflict. I support finding a way tobring our troops home and would look at any plan that gave a roadmap to thisgoal.

It's been two weeks since the Iraq Study Group released its plan to changethe course and bring our troops home.   Since then, the President has beenon a fact finding tour of his own administration -- apparently ignoring thefacts presented by those in the military who know best.   The Presidentneeds to put forth a plan as soon as possible, one that reflects the realityon the ground in Iraq and that withdraws our troops from the middle of thisdeadly civil war.

On the surface, Harry Reid looks like a flip-flopper.  However, he did say last week that if, and only if, the generals wanted more troops, then he would support it.  On Monday, General Abizaid continued to voice skepticism for the idea of sending in more troops.  On Sunday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell also said he opposed sending in more young men and women.  Now that the military consensus is in, Reid is going along with it.

Then again, what if Abizaid and Powell had requested the exact opposite?  Would Reid would have gone along with that?

Sooner or later, when you are a leader, you have to stop going along with what is popular, and start leading.  That means making bold decisions on your own.  Certainly it sounds good to follow the advice of others.  But if you have been watching this war for three years, as we all have, it is difficult for most rational people to conclude that sending in more troops will solve an internal political trouble in that country.  Ultimately, it will be up to the Iraqis themselves.  Therefore, it isn't a surprise that only 11% of the country wants to increase the number of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Latest reason why the Democrats need new leadership

Dennis Hastert couldn't get his bill passed.  So he bribed Harry Reid, and look what happened.

What Harry Reid did was practical, pragmatic and reasonable for the state he represents.  However, from an ethical standpoint, it shows how far we still have to go in order to have open and honest leadership in Washington.  Bloggers need to call this sort of thing out if it keeps happening under Reid's watch.  WP:

In the wee hours of the morning Dec. 7, Senate negotiators rejected a Medicare measure pushed by outgoing House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) that would have meant big revenues for an insurance company inHastert's home state. But a day later, the $100 million proposal wasalive and well, paired with a plan for a major Nevada land swap backedby Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the incoming Senate majority leader.

See how this works?  If you submit a bill that people don't like, then start bribing other lawmakers -- which was what Hastert did.  Ultimately, a similar bill with even more pork gets passed.  And Harry Reid even had the audacity to make the National Debt a campaign issue last fall?

This is why we need people like Jon Tester or Claire McCaskill in charge of things in the Senate.  And don't even get me started on term limits!

Why the Republicans are running from town

The Republican House and Senate are quickly leaving town without passing nine significant spending bills to keep the government running.  This tactic has been implemented for two obvious reasons:

1. Putting this burden on the Democrats would mean that Pelosi and Reid would have to spend less time on their own agenda and more time dealing with these left-over spending bills.
2. It would add to the total amount of money spent under the Democrats' watch, creating a nice talking point for the Republicans in 2008.

New Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is beside himself.  He told the AP today that the Republicans are giving up on the job:

"They're just leaving town, it appears," Reid said from his officein the Capitol. "We hope that's not the case, but it appears that'swhat they are going to do. And so we're going to have to find a way tofund the government for the next year."

The must-pass legislation totals more than $460 billion and promisesto divert time and energy from other items on the Democratic agenda.

Unlike the mere 93 days that the Republican Congress showed up to work in 2006, Reid said that the Democrats will make sure the Democratic Congress is up and running:

"We're going to put in some hours here that haven't been put in in along time," Reid said. That means "being here more days in the week andwe start off this year with seven weeks without a break. That hasn'tbeen done in many, many years here."

I am counting down the days until January 4th -- the day when the Democrats will take the gavel and begin immediately with the nation's business.