We already know that Bush has said he will veto any such bill that passes both houses of Congress, and the Democratic leadership has announced that if he does, then they will not bring the bill up for action again this fiscal year. The Pentagon will then be required to get needed funds from other sources already funded. That's a good move for the Democrats to begin with. All it requires is passing a bill out of Congress.
The problem with passing the bill is the Senate. Democrats can get a majority of votes for the bill, but not the 60 votes required to override a Republican filibuster, and the Republicans have promised to filibuster if the "Date certain" language is in the bill. That's where the interesting politics comes in.
Senate Democrats might force Republicans to wage a filibuster if the GOP wants to block the latest Iraq withdrawal bill, aides and senators said Tuesday.Both the President and the Senate Republicans can be expected to ratchet up the attacks on the Democrats for not passing enough legislation and for failure to work with the Republicans to get stuff in the Congress done.
That could set the stage for a dramatic end-of-the-year partisan showdown, which Democrats hope will help them turn voter frustration with Congress and the stalemate over Iraq into anger with the Republican Party. [Snip]
Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the co-author of the bill that failed after last summer’s all-night Iraq session, said Tuesday that allowing Republicans to carry out a threatened filibuster is a strategy that Democratic leaders have discussed with him. [Snip]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week suggested the Senate filibuster fight as an incentive for reluctant liberal House members to vote for her Iraq plan. Her offer came after she attended a meeting of the Progressive Caucus last Thursday to woo votes on the Iraq plan.
Some of the members complained that setting a goal for complete withdrawal, instead of a “date certain,” is too timid. Pelosi told them the endgame was the Senate, according to one meeting participant. A date certain would have a hard time winning a majority support in the Senate, while a goal could attract additional wayward Republicans, she reportedly said. Neither option, however, would attract the necessary 60 votes in the Senate, setting the stage for a filibuster.
“Some light bulbs went off over some heads,” the meeting attendee said.
When a senator threatens a filibuster, the Senate can attempt to invoke cloture to end debate on a bill, which requires 60 votes. And if the cloture vote fails, the bill is usually pulled from the floor.
On their latest Iraq plan, Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to cut off debate. Instead, they are considering making Republicans carry out a filibuster to highlight that it is the GOP preventing an unpopular president from changing course in Iraq.
House leaders have been pressing Reid to intensify the fight with Republicans by forcing them to filibuster major bills rather than holding failed cloture votes and criticizing the GOP after bills are pulled from the floor.
That fissure broke into the open last week when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) acknowledged asking Reid to stage more filibusters.
“That is the only way you can give Americans a clear view of who is obstructing change,” Hoyer said.
Reid said Tuesday that if the bridge fund does not pass, the Pentagon can start paying for the war out of its regular appropriation. That $459 billion spending bill passed last week and was signed into law Tuesday. If that’s seen as not supporting the troops, voters should blame Republicans and President Bush, not congressional Democrats, he said.
“If they don’t [agree to restrictions], it’s not us taking away the bridge fund, it’s them taking away the bridge fund,” said Reid, who met with Hoyer Tuesday morning and spoke with Pelosi last Friday.
A filibuster on the floor would help the Democrats highlight Reid’s argument, supporters of the strategy say.
That makes such a plan by the Senate Democratic Leadership into a high-stakes game of chicken. It will either highlight the Republican obstructionism in the Senate and their use of the filibuster threat to prevent the majority from passing legislation the public wants, or it will open the Democrats to the Republican political message machine and cause the public to blame the Democrats for the problems.
Democrats will look better if they are seen as fighting for what the public wants instead of cravenly hunkering down and letting the Republicans stop all controversial bills, then blame the Democrats for running a do-nothing Congress. My bet is that the Republicans will lose.
It's high time Sen. Reid took some kind of aggressive public action against the Republican obstructionists. This looks like a really great opportunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment