Fresh Thinking
We've probably all been stunned and disappointed more than a few times lately (especially, say, in the last nine months or so?) by how little Congress has been able to do in curbing the criminal cabal in the white house. There has been an admirable amount of outrage expressed, at least if you include the InterNet in your news sources (the other "sources" give signs of being increasingly irrelevant - Couric? Russert - you must be joking!!) over the spinelessness of our elected officials. The flimsy pushback all seems to involve this whiny tone about how it might involve fighting over votes.
Give me a break.
Even impeachment, improbable a course as that might seem, strikes me as absolutely essential and appropriate, especially given that we seem to be faced with some of the most clearly impeachable crimes by the executive branch in American history. An impeachment proceeding might not proceed to what the alert populace knows is the appropriate outcome of imprisoning a multitude of obvious criminals, given all the invested interests and corruption inherent in the now-fully-enshrined military-industrial-complex Dwight D warned us about, but it is necessary even so. Beyond the obvious, it is essential that the process be pursued imho to preserve the whole validity of the impeachment apparatus as a critical part of our government.
But for the moment, I find this another very appealing and clear-headed statement of principle and approach that our elected officials need to be forced to grapple with. Otherwise, I believe there will be numerous Democratic candidates that I know I will not be alone in actively opposing for re-election when their turn comes around (remember Leiber-schwein?).
This is from Mark Kleiman, at The Reality-Based Community, with appealing byline "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" (posting in full):
There's been lots of hand-wringing about what Senate Democrats should do about Iraq, all of it premised on the idea that they need either a filibuster-proof (60-vote) majority or a veto-proof (67-vote) majority. To which I can only say, "Huh? Howzzat again?"
Anything that can be ridden on the Defense Appropriations bill (or on a continuing resolution) doesn't need 60 votes in the Senate. It needs 51 votes in the Senate, or 218 in the House, that will stand firm.
Take, for example, the Webb Amendment, forbidding troops from being required to serve tours in Iraq longer than the spells between tours. If passed, it would force a troop drawdown by spring.
The Democrats should offer the Webb Amendment when the Defense Appropriation comes up. If the Republicans want to filibuster, fine. Don't pull the amendment. Just let them keep filibustering. As long as the amendment is on the floor, there can be no vote on the bill itself. Keep calling cloture votes, one per day. After a few days, start asking how long the Republicans intend to withhold money to fund troops in the field in order to pursue their petty partisan agenda.
If the Republicans in the Senate hold firm, it's their stubbornness that's holding up the bill. If they fold, and the bill gets to the President's desk and he vetoes it, then pass the same damned bill again. And start asking how long the President intends to block funding for troops in the field in order to pursue his petty partisan agenda.
As of October 1, there's no money to fund the war. So the usual move is to pass a continuing resolution, which keeps the money flowing until the appropriation passes. Fine. Pass a continuing resolution with the Webb Amendment attached. If the CR runs into a filibuster or a veto, ask how long ...
Really, this isn't very hard. With the voters overwhelmingly interested in getting us the hell out of Iraq, the Democrats can make full use of the power of the purse without worrying about a backlash, especially with Webb as the public face of the campaign.
Footnote Plan B is to pass the amendment in the House and let the Senate conferees accept the House version. Then it goes back to the Senate for a straight up-or-down vote, with the Republican dead-enders in the position of directly voting against money to fund the troops in the field. Not a vote I'd care to defend, especially if I were up for re-election next year.
Pretty straightforward, really, if you are willing to play it straight-up as an electee. If not, it is hard not to suspect your motives - corporate ownership as one obvious example. Too many K-Street lobbyist obligations that take priority over the American people? Cowardice seems another strong possibility - although there seems possibility of also recruiting some of the numerous cowards on the R side right now who are regretting and running from their sleazy cheerleading for Bush in the past.
Give me a break.
Even impeachment, improbable a course as that might seem, strikes me as absolutely essential and appropriate, especially given that we seem to be faced with some of the most clearly impeachable crimes by the executive branch in American history. An impeachment proceeding might not proceed to what the alert populace knows is the appropriate outcome of imprisoning a multitude of obvious criminals, given all the invested interests and corruption inherent in the now-fully-enshrined military-industrial-complex Dwight D warned us about, but it is necessary even so. Beyond the obvious, it is essential that the process be pursued imho to preserve the whole validity of the impeachment apparatus as a critical part of our government.
But for the moment, I find this another very appealing and clear-headed statement of principle and approach that our elected officials need to be forced to grapple with. Otherwise, I believe there will be numerous Democratic candidates that I know I will not be alone in actively opposing for re-election when their turn comes around (remember Leiber-schwein?).
This is from Mark Kleiman, at The Reality-Based Community, with appealing byline "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" (posting in full):
There's been lots of hand-wringing about what Senate Democrats should do about Iraq, all of it premised on the idea that they need either a filibuster-proof (60-vote) majority or a veto-proof (67-vote) majority. To which I can only say, "Huh? Howzzat again?"
Anything that can be ridden on the Defense Appropriations bill (or on a continuing resolution) doesn't need 60 votes in the Senate. It needs 51 votes in the Senate, or 218 in the House, that will stand firm.
Take, for example, the Webb Amendment, forbidding troops from being required to serve tours in Iraq longer than the spells between tours. If passed, it would force a troop drawdown by spring.
The Democrats should offer the Webb Amendment when the Defense Appropriation comes up. If the Republicans want to filibuster, fine. Don't pull the amendment. Just let them keep filibustering. As long as the amendment is on the floor, there can be no vote on the bill itself. Keep calling cloture votes, one per day. After a few days, start asking how long the Republicans intend to withhold money to fund troops in the field in order to pursue their petty partisan agenda.
If the Republicans in the Senate hold firm, it's their stubbornness that's holding up the bill. If they fold, and the bill gets to the President's desk and he vetoes it, then pass the same damned bill again. And start asking how long the President intends to block funding for troops in the field in order to pursue his petty partisan agenda.
As of October 1, there's no money to fund the war. So the usual move is to pass a continuing resolution, which keeps the money flowing until the appropriation passes. Fine. Pass a continuing resolution with the Webb Amendment attached. If the CR runs into a filibuster or a veto, ask how long ...
Really, this isn't very hard. With the voters overwhelmingly interested in getting us the hell out of Iraq, the Democrats can make full use of the power of the purse without worrying about a backlash, especially with Webb as the public face of the campaign.
Footnote Plan B is to pass the amendment in the House and let the Senate conferees accept the House version. Then it goes back to the Senate for a straight up-or-down vote, with the Republican dead-enders in the position of directly voting against money to fund the troops in the field. Not a vote I'd care to defend, especially if I were up for re-election next year.
Pretty straightforward, really, if you are willing to play it straight-up as an electee. If not, it is hard not to suspect your motives - corporate ownership as one obvious example. Too many K-Street lobbyist obligations that take priority over the American people? Cowardice seems another strong possibility - although there seems possibility of also recruiting some of the numerous cowards on the R side right now who are regretting and running from their sleazy cheerleading for Bush in the past.
posted by Sir Gumbo at 10:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home