What's the alternative? A do-nothing Congress, again?

[question everything]

The reality is that we do not have the votes in the Senate, certainly not enough to over ride a veto. So far, all the good measures that passed in the House are stuck in the Senate, including the one to raise minimum wage that Bush said he was going to sign.

So what should they have done? Just kept at the time line and ended up freezing everything else? The way Newt did in 1995? Would this have helped us in showing that we are doing something?

According to Dave Gregory on the NBC news, the Democrats decided to postpone any talk about time line until September when the results of the "surge" were going to be reported. By then, no doubt, more Republicans would join the Democrats if it appears that there is no progress. After all, they, too, want to remain in office.

And even if we had a time line, it would not be immediate, so more troops will be killed one way or the other..

I don't know. This is why I am asking what would be the alternative, short of being angry and doing nothing until the time line is approved.

Yes, we took over because the voters were tired of Iraq, but I think that they were also tired of the corruption and the hypocrisy of Congress, it being a rubber stamp for the White House. At least we get some hearing going..

[terisan]

1. Is there a case for getting rid of Domenici based on his interference with Justice?

This could give the Senate another Democratic senator and counter Lieberman's support for war.

[mike_c]

2. this has been discussed over and over tonight....

There is no need for a veto override. None. Dems control the house legislative agenda. Here's a link if you're interested:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x943557

[question everything]

4. Thank you, I did not see this

sure, the House has the votes but not the Senate. Don't these bills need to be approved by both houses? Isn't this why some bills, like the minimum wage, are stuck in the Senate because they do not have the votes?

[mike_c]

6. that's right, IF the house sends a bill, but it's proper role in war time...

...is to CONTROL appropriations, not simply dole them out on demand. It is the proper constitutional role of the house to NOT appropriate a supplemental funding measure to cover additional war crimes against Iraq. There is nothing controversial or radical about that-- it is a constitutional check against the authority of the executive.

Dems control the legislative agenda so they need simply send no bill out of committee or to the floor. No votes needed. No veto possible. No override necessary. End of war.

The appropriation ONLY comes from the house, not the senate. If the house approves a bill, then it must go to the senate, but remember that the republicans used exactly the same method-- control of the legislative agenda-- to prevent dem sponsored measures from reaching the house floor for the last six years.

[rucky]

3. Doing nothing is something

Namely forcing their hand so we don't have to hear about it again in September.

There IS doubt the republicans will join the Dems, then. There is nothing in their track records that points to anything but more stunts and more excuses for one more round of funding.

[mmonk]

5. Impeachment.

It would work better. There's no pressure like it. There's nothing like sunshine on dark areas.