Can Democrats count to 67?

[question everything]

From TIME

Wednesday, Apr. 18, 2007
Getting Around Bush
By Joe Klein

(snip)

The President has no interest in debating anything. In fact, the current legislative argument over Iraq is right in his comfort zone. He can stand "with the troops"; he can argue that the Democrats want to leave the U.S. military naked in Babylon. He can do what he has done throughout — politicize the war, use it as a bludgeon against Democrats instead of trying to find common ground and thinking through the consequences of his intransigence. Best of all, he can do this secure in the knowledge that this is one battle he will surely win... even as the war shows many signs of worsening, including hundreds killed in Baghdad bombings this past week.

The Democratic Party, which, despite its incredible erudition, is unable to count to 67, the number of votes needed for a veto-proof majority in the Senate. Right now the Senate Democrats are stuck at 51 in favor of their version of the $100 billion supplemental appropriation to pay for the war through Sept. 30. It's a version that posits March 2008 as a goal—not a deadline, just a goal—for troop withdrawal. The irony here is that Bush could sign this bill because it gives him implicit authority to revise the withdrawal date toward perpetuity. Signing the bill would not only avoid a damaging political confrontation at home but also please the vast majority of Iraqis, who, according to the polls, want an American timeline for withdrawal. He might even be able to bolster the al-Maliki government, which has lost six Cabinet ministers, followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, who quit—nominally, at least—over the absence of a withdrawal timetable. Bush could simply say, "I agree with the goal set by Congress. I hope we can have all our combat troops out of Iraq by sometime next year, though we may not be able to do that."

But this is a President who won re-election by fomenting political confrontations, and he knows the Democrats are in a bind. They won't block funding for the troops. Only 9% of Americans say they are in favor of cutting off funds for the war, according to an April 13 cbs News poll. Unfortunately for the Democrats, that 9% includes the noisier elements of the party's base. Senator Barack Obama found this out the hard way recently, when he said in an Associated Press interview that perhaps the best course of action was to "keep the President on a shorter leash"—that is, approve funding but limit the funds, forcing Bush to keep coming back for money. This unleashed the ire of Markos Moulitsas Z�niga, proprietor of the Daily Kos blog, who wrote with typical restraint, "What a ridiculous thing to say. Not only is it bad policy, not only is it bad politics, it's also a terrible negotiating approach. Instead of threatening Bush with even more restrictions and daring him to veto funding for the troops out of pique, Barack just surrendered to him."


(snip)

Sadly, the left-wing Democrats and Bush are playing the same game—all or nothing—and, even more sadly, the President is destined to win. Congressional Democratic leaders admit privately they'll give Bush his appropriation when the current Kabuki is over. The question is, What, if any, restraints can they put on funding for the troops? Senate Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin says the next version of the bill should tie continued funding to progress on reforms the Iraqi government has promised and failed to meet: "We'll send him a bill with economic consequences for the Iraqis if they don't meet their own benchmarks in 60 to 90 days. The President says he favors those benchmarks. Let's see if he means what he says."

(snip)

* Find this article at:
* http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1612079,00.html

[rwheeler31]

1. we pay these guys

what is the end

[karynnj]

2. If Joe Klein doesn't understand that they should do it

because it is the right thing to do - even if they can't override a veto, he is the one who is stupid.

What he ignores is that last year only 13 Senators were willing to vote for Kerry/Feingold. Now it is nearly the entire Dempcratic party. His view implies there is no point to pass anything that less than 67% of the Senators want. Imagine what that does to the balance of power. Just the fact that we now have the votes to pass something is, in and of itself great.

Also I doubt they are really stuck at a max of 51 - for one thing, when Senator Johnson returns that's likely to be 52. It is better to make it clear that it is Bush's war. I guess Klien's alternative is giving them exactly what they want.

[Capn Sunshine]

3. AMEN to that

This is working anyway--polls show that the Democrats are thought of by a substantial majority as the party who will solve the Iraq quagmire.

[BenDavid]

4. Damn! First thing that ran

across my mind was that someone was saying the Democrats in 08 was going to have 67 senate seats....Now I do believe the Dems can pick up at least 5 to 9 seats......As long as the dems can pick up enough seats so they can turn to Joe Lieberman and tell him that he can now go and vote with the losers. that is what I would like to see happen....

[Clark2008]

7. Where are these five to nine seats you say we can pick up?

Do you have some states in mind?

I need a map. :)

[Greyhound]

5. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it is that the Republiks never HAD to count to 67.

We just caved time after time, and now we think we're going to take a stand?

[cleveramerican]

6. Life is full of disappointment

and for liberal and progressive Democrats, that goes double.
A war funding bill will pass, there will be compromises made.Most likely Democratic members will be doing the compromising.

[Greyhound]

11. When only one side is doing all of the compromising, it ceases to be negotiation

and becomes capitulation. Is that what we worked for? Is that what we voted for?

I find this never ending stream of excuses and understanding for our representatives not doing their jobs quite disheartening.

Apparently you are correct, "our representatives" will indeed keep this war going for the foreseeable future, thousands more of our soldiers will die, tens of thousands will be maimed and crippled, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will suffer the same, and in the end, the results will be no different.

But hey, it's not as important as a few of the elite holding on to their power to do nothing.:eyes:

[ClassWarrior]

8. You give up if you can't handle it.

My nation is too important to me to let a series of setbacks make me cynical and defeatist.

NGU.

[Greyhound]

12. I'm glad you're not in charge of recruitment for the Democratic Party.

Come to think of it, maybe you are.

[cleveramerican]

15. I've been down this road many times

and I can see whats coming, thats not defeatist thats realist.
I absolutely plead guilty to being cynical. I'm a dem after all.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Democrats still have an advantage even though they don't have the votes

Law don't get passed unless both chambers pass the law and President doesn't veto it.

pResident can veto every one of those laws but if the funding he wants is in any of those bills, he won't get the funding. In affect, Bushwad is refusing the funding and he is refusing to support the troops.

[cleveramerican]

13. I wish somebody would make that point

and make it stick.

[gratuitous]

10. Gee, Joe Klein

You've been so right about so much in the last 15 years, we almost regard you as an oracle. Almost.

If doing the right thing isn't going to change anything according to people who don't want you to do the right thing, do the right thing anyway. Joe Klein is a concern troll, and he knows what the upshot of Bush's second veto would be, and he wants to avoid that at all costs, because he really prefers the snacks and the drinks at Republican cocktail parties.

[Vidar]

14. The courage to stand up to evil is reason enough.