Non-Binding War Resolution Non-Materializes In Senate
The new political realitiy — the Democrats are dominant in Congress but not completely in control — was underscored by the fate of the highly-touted non-partisan nonbinding resolution debate on Iraq.
Because in the end The Big Debate became The Nonexistant Debate.
Questions:
(1)Does this mean back to the drawing board for some kind of resolution that can bring together Senators from both parties who are uneasy about the administration’s surge/escalation/augmentation policy in Iraq? And, if it emerges, will it have the kind of “teeth” war critics seek — or be as gentle as war supporters (and the White House) want?
(2)Does the use of the filibuster by Republicans put the GOP more at risk in 2008 or do GOPers sense something that Democrats don’t? Does the top GOP leadership feel that the Democrats are overreaching? If they didn’t, it’s unlikely the vote would have come out this way with so many GOPers who have criticized the war siding with the Republican party leadership.
(3)Will Republicans who sided with their party leadership on preventing debate (no matter what their stance is on the war) face political consquences or are those who are suggesting they will not taking into account other political realities?
No matter what the answers, the bottom line is that it was a defeat for those who wanted to get something on the record opposing the administration’s policies and a victory for those who felt any kind of a resolution (nonbinding or otherwise) expressing official no-confidence in the administration would be detrimental to the war effort. There could (and will) be spin on it — but the numbers count and those who wanted the debate didn’t have the numbers. The New York Times:
Republicans on Monday blocked Senate debate on a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq, leaving in doubt whether the Senate would render a judgment on what lawmakers of both parties described as the paramount issue of the day.The decision short-circuited what had been building as the first major Congressional challenge to President Bush over his handling of the war since Democrats took control of Congress last month, and left each party blaming the other for frustrating debate on a topic that is likely to influence the 2008 presidential and Congressional races.
At issue is a compromise resolution drawn up chiefly by Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, that says the Senate disagrees with President Bush’s plan to build up troops and calls for American forces to be kept out of sectarian violence in Iraq.
The deadlock came after Democrats refused a proposal by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, that would have cleared the way for a floor fight on the Warner resolution in return for votes on two competing Republican alternatives that were more supportive of the president.
One of those alternatives, by Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, would declare that Congress should not cut off any funds for forces in the field. That vote was seen as problematic for Democrats because many of them opposed any move to curtail spending, raising the prospect that it could have attracted the broadest support in the Senate.
The vote was 49-47, or 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate, and left the fate of the measure uncertain.Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky described the test vote as merely a “bump in the road” and added that GOP lawmakers “welcome the debate and are happy to have it.”
So the GOP blocked the debate but wants debate. Will that explanation be accepted by most Americans? (Polling data on the Democrats and Republicans will be fascinating in coming weeks).
It sounds like the Democrats lost in the political skills department:
Democrats hoped to gain enough Republican votes to pass the measure expressing disagreement with Bush’s decision, and to send the commander in chief an extraordinary wartime rebuke on a bipartisan vote.It was an outcome that the White House and Senate Republican leadership hoped to avoid. They concentrated on a relatively small number of swing votes, many of them belonging to GOP senators expected to be on the ballot in 2008.
Bloomberg underscores this point even more:
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell used a legislative maneuver to delay a debate on Iraq war policies that promised to embarrass President George W. Bush and force some Republican lawmakers to cast politically unpopular votes.The Senate postponed the start of debate, stalling consideration of nonbinding resolutions on the war, after Republicans and Democrats failed to agree yesterday on which measures would be considered and how many votes would be required to pass them.
“People in the White House, in the West Wing, are all giving high fives right now,” Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters last night.
The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank:
Those waiting for the much-anticipated Iraq debate in the Senate will have to wait a while longer. Republican leaders, eager to avoid a public airing of views on the unpopular war, raised procedural objections. Democratic leaders, figuring that public pressure would force Republicans to capitulate, refused to meet their demand that all resolutions on the Iraq war get 60 votes to pass. And each side got tangled up in talking points as it tried to blame the other for preventing a discussion.“We are, in effect, being denied a fair process here for this extremely important debate,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared at a news conference in his office.
But this assertion of importance was quickly contradicted by McConnell’s deputy, Lott, who was sitting next to him. “We’re going to produce, if anything, a nonbinding resolution that has no force in fact,” he said.
Meanwhile, it’s said “it’s not over till it’s over” — and there are indications it is not totally over. The Washington Post:
Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who helped to rally his colleagues against moving ahead, said the vote was partly symbolic. “This is more of the principle that we’re going to be a relevant minority and assert our rights to a fair process,” he said. “They were either going to establish that they could roll us or that we’d be relevant in the process.”But Democrats believe Republicans may be losing politically, by defying what they perceive as a growing public desire for a robust war debate. Some Democratic senators were surprised that two Republican allies of Warner — Collins and Coleman — parted ways with their caucus and with Warner himself on the procedural vote.
After the vote, Collins issued a statement saying: “Since I returned from my third visit to Iraq in December, I have been convinced that it would be a mistake to send additional troops to Iraq. I believe that this is one of the most important issues facing our nation and that it is important for the Senate to go on record in opposition to the president’s plan.”
Collins continued: “It is my hope that the leadership will soon work out an agreement that will allow us to have a vote as soon as possible.”
According to one senior Democratic aide, Reid left the Capitol last night confident that he is holding a winning hand. Negotiations between party leaders are expected to continue today, and Reid promised that the Senate will return to Iraq over and over until Democrats get a clean vote.
The question now is: if the debate goes foward and a resolution passes, will it be one that accentuate’s the Senate’s role as providing oversight and asserting a semblance over the executive branch?
Or will what emerges be a resolution that once again leads to high fives at the White House? And, if so, what will that mean for Republicans — and Democrats — if poll numbers continue to show a growing loss of support for the war?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
30 Responses to “Non-Binding War Resolution Non-Materializes In Senate”
[...] Other Bloggers Weigh In: The Moderate Voice; Daily Kos; AMERICAblog; Hot Air; The Left Coaster; The Reaction; PoliBlog ™; Black Five; Bob Geiger; Blue Crab Boulevard; The Heretik; The Democratic Daily; Talk Left; The BRAD BLOG Technorati Tags:Â Bush, Civil War, Current Events, Democrats, Headline News, Headlines, Iraq, Military, News, News and Politics, Politics, Rants, Republicans, Senate [...]
My headline for all of this:
Big Bang in Baghdad, Big Whimper in Washington
“It sounds like the Democrats lost in the political skills department:
”
Well, I’m not so sure that Dems lost. Not in the long (two year) run. You said just a paragraph before:
“So the GOP blocked the debate but wants debate. Will that explanation be accepted by most Americans?”
Well, exactly. I think this is a pyrrhic victory for the GOP, and the Dems know this will put a bad light on the naysayers in 2008, when the surge ‘strategy’ failed (which is inevitable imho, others mileage may differ). Then this short term ‘victory’ will turn out to be a corpse in the cellar, resurrected by Dem candidates to haunt incumbent Senators. And I guess republican Senators know this all too well, hence the curbed enthusiasm about this ‘triumph’.
“People in the White House, in the West Wing, are all giving high fives right now”
Sure. They won, sacrificing their Senator’s credibility for a small propaganda boost for the surge project. But those in the WH will leave the job in 2008, while most of their Senators have the strange desire to stay in their positions. I don’t think the WH can afford to try this stunt to often. When it comes down to a sheer fight for survival, GOP Senators may soon chose to save their own hide instead of the egos of WH officials.
Btw, don’t forget the hypocrisy exposed when republicans, who last year stomped for “fair up or down votes”, now brag about obstructing the Senate process. I guess they don’t want to be reminded of the “nuclear option” today. This sure doesn’t look good in the eyes of the voting public.
OK, after reading the passage above, please tell me why we shouldn’t accept the characterization that “the GOP blocked the debate but wants debate”? They blocked the narrow debate because the Dems refused to allow further debate on an alternate resolution that they didn’t like.
OK, after reading the passage above, I think we should google what McConnell exactly proposed first, CS.
As reported by Bloomberg.come:
“Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell used a legislative maneuver to delay a debate on Iraq war policies that promised to embarrass President George W. Bush and force some Republican lawmakers to cast politically unpopular votes.”
” McConnell demanded that three nonbinding resolutions that were to be considered measures on the war receive at least 60 votes to pass.
Reid, whose party controls the chamber 51-49, offered to consider all three resolutions under rules that would allow them to be approved with a simple majority of senators.”
“In addition to the Warner measure, McConnell wanted consideration of a resolution by Republican John McCain of Arizona that would express support for Bush’s new strategy while calling on the Iraq government to meet certain benchmarks.
A third proposal, introduced by New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg, says Congress wouldn’t take action to “endanger” U.S. forces in the field, including by eliminating or reducing funds.”
Imho it’s obvious that the additional two measures could never get Democratic support. The Dems don’t support Bush’s surge, voting for McCain’s resolution would effectively be a lie. And the Gregg measure is loaded with the factually false statement that cutting funds is equal to endangering the troops. Quite to the contrary, troops who won’t be deployed in Iraq when funds were withdrawn are oviously in significantly lower danger.
The leading statement, that this was a procedural manouever by McCornell (and a quite thinly disguised one imho), is to the point. Just look at his ridiculous insistance on those proposals being passed with at least 60 votes: This means including eleven votes from the Dems. Totally delusional. This whole manoeuver can only convince someone who isn’t looking at the details.
“McConnell said Democrats didn’t agree to his debate proposal because they didn’t want to vote on Gregg’s resolution, which he said he was “optimistic” would pass with the support of many Democrats.”
Spin isn’t dead, but sometimes it’s so amateurishly presented that it smells funny!
In my humble opinion, Non-Binding Resolutions don’t mean much to me. Binding Resolutions do.
Its an important first step for cowards, CP. You have to crawl before you can walk. Because everything in DC is so politically charged— they can’t even manage a debate on this— even the first small step counts. Otherwise the war proceeds without much input from Congress.
“In my humble opinion, Non-Binding Resolutions don’t mean much to me. Binding Resolutions do.”
Right. This whole thing is a PR stunt in the first place, but GOP leaders don’t want to allow Dems this measly small victory. But, ok, they’re shooting their Senators into the knees by doing this, so let’s wait and see how this looks in 2008.
“Its an important first step for cowards, CP. You have to crawl before you can walk.”
Ok, you may have a point with this, too, Kim.
:-/
CS,
It’s the insistence on 60 votes that gives the lie to Republican claims to welcome debate.
LOL The Democrats should lauch a Nukelier attack. Nicriveria, our resident Libertarian, will point out that Ron Paul, Walter Jones and a group of Democrats wanted an open debate Iraq over a year ago. The Republican blocked the debate and sent a resolution to the floor sayting the US and the West will prevail against the Islamo-Stooges.
Look, obviously both sides are looking at these resolutions as political gamemanship. Since they’re nonbinding resolutions, that’s really the only point of them anyway, to try to trap the Senators from the opposition party into going on record with an actual position on the war and funding. I fully acknowledge that this is what McConnell wants to do, but it’s also Reid’s game that he wants the Dems to be on record as saying they oppose the surge but he wants soft language about cutting funding.
So yes, the GOP is unwilling to give up its right to filibuster because they don’t want Reid to win that game. But don’t give me the “up or down vote” nonsense. There’s no such thing as a nuclear option here because that was only in reference to the Senate voting on judicial nominees (because of the Constitutional issue that Congress can’t obstruct the president’s need to fill appointments.)
But look at it this way, as far as which side wants to “allow” debate. The Dems want debate on one particular resolution, but are putting conditions (which aren’t acceptable to the GOP) on allowing alternate resolutions to come to debate. So, BOTH sides only want debate for their own partisan purposes, not to actually sincerely discuss the issues.
“I fully acknowledge that this is what McConnell wants to do, but it’s also Reid’s game that he wants the Dems to be on record as saying they oppose the surge but he wants soft language about cutting funding.”
Yup, that’s what going on behind the stage.
“But don’t give me the “up or down voteâ€? nonsense. There’s no such thing as a nuclear option here because that was only in reference to the Senate voting on judicial nominees (because of the Constitutional issue that Congress can’t obstruct the president’s need to fill appointments.)”
Hmm. CS, isn’t it also correct that there’s absolutely no mention of something like a filibuster in the constituion? And that Senate rules can essentially be changed by a simple majority? I’m not exactly sure, but I seem to remember that the Dems not only filibustered nominees, but some bills, too, and that these arguments came up on the republican side when it happened.
“conditions (which aren’t acceptable to the GOP) on allowing alternate resolutions to come to debate.”
Yeah, life’s a bitch when you have to swallow your own medicine!
If they did, Gray, then I’d say they shouldn’t have. But I do know that the idea of the nuclear option was specifically in the context of the votes on nominees.
I don’t think either side should try to change the rules for a particular situation just because of how it affects them politically. But you initially characterized this as a demand by McConnell for the 60 vote criteria. That’s a mischaracterization IMO because what he was doing was rejecting the idea that his party should agree to a rule change; your way of stating it sounds as though HE was trying to change the rules.
“But you initially characterized this as a demand by McConnell for the 60 vote criteria. That’s a mischaracterization IMO because what he was doing was rejecting the idea that his party should agree to a rule change; your way of stating it sounds as though HE was trying to change the rules.”
Sry, CS, I don’t understand this at all. Could you pls explain with a bit more detail?
And, btw, what I wanted to say about McConnel’s arbitrarily demand for a 60 vote approval is that he just created an impossible hurdle for the measure to pass, as an alibi. This shows he never intended to let the bill pass. This is entirely unrelated with the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. Afaik noone threatend to filibuster McConnel’s pipe dream, it would have gone done in normal vote.
Gray,
Sorry, now I don’t understand you, so I don’t know how to respond. The 60 vote hurdle is always there because of the possibility of filibuster. Reid apparently offered McConnell a deal, saying he’d allow debate on all three resolutions (including the Gregg one, which was mainly the one he was concerned about because it forced debate on the issue of whether or not the pursestring option should be used at all- and most of the Democrats don’t want to go on record either way on that right now) but the deal was that the GOP would have to agree to an “up or down vote” which basically means agreeing not to filibuster.
Summary: Here’s what Reid wanted- primarily he’d have preferred debate/vote strictly on the Warner version. He wasn’t too concerned about the McCain version but he was concerned about making the Dems vote on the Gregg version. He offered a compromise that he knew McConnell wouldn’t accept so that he could politically maneuver McConnell into the position of appearing to want to avoid debate.
What McConnell wanted: for all three resolutions to be debated according to the normal rules of the Senate (which allow for filibusters, thus must have 60 votes for cloture). Senate rules can be changed and agreements can be made by the two sides (like the compromise that prevented the nuclear option on judicial nominees), so I’m not saying there’s anything particularly wrong with what Reid did, but I’m calling it what it is: a political maneuver.
Both sides were practicing political maneuvering. In the end I think it’s a wash because a) most Americans are paying no attention to this anyway, b) partisan Democrats will think that Reid came out ahead, c)partisan Republicans will think that McConnell came out ahead.
Damn those politicians who are willing to debate then vote on everything and see what passes. They’re always trying to scam us.
I am heartened by McConnell’s loyalty to the fillibuster, without which our government could hardly function.
“What McConnell wanted: for all three resolutions to be debated according to the normal rules of the Senate (which allow for filibusters, thus must have 60 votes for cloture).”
Thx, CS, know I see more clearly what you want to say. But, come on, there wasn’t a 60 votes hurdle fo McConnell. Why should anyone want to filibuster him, it was alread questionable if he would get 51 votes. And generally, the Dems filibustering a bill while they have the majority sounds a bit ridiculous.
“In the end I think it’s a wash because a) most Americans are paying no attention to this anyway”
Sryx, I disagree. Tactically, this may look good for the GOP, but strategically, it was a victory for the Dems. Almost all GOP Senators are now on record supporting the surge. The public is flaggergasted about the use of the filibuster in a vote that wouldn’t have been binding anyhow. This makes the republicans look incredible partisan and mean spirited. At the very same time, it dampens public expectations that the Dems will be able to make an decisive impact on the course of Bush’s presidency. Thi will make any Dem achievement look even more noteworthy.And what has the Bush gang gained, on the other hand? Nothing but a passing propaganda victory, showing that there are still some reopublicans in Senate. Nobody will care for this in 2008.
Well I agree, but still, the point is he wouldn’t agree to that compromise because he’d be giving up the right to filibuster the Warner resolution. I think Reid probably knew this and saw it as a way to prevent the other two resolutions from coming to the floor while also portraying it as though the GOP was blocking the debate.
The GOP isn’t blocking debate?
The will fillibuster. 100%. The Warner resolution.
The GOP isn’t blocking debate?
“he point is he wouldn’t agree to that compromise because he’d be giving up the right to filibuster the Warner resolution.”
Isn’t that what I said all the time, CS? McConnell never seriously wanted to allow the Warner bill to come to the vote.
At this time it seems to me that while the Senate Republicans may be justified in seeking to make and vote on several alternate proposals they are also likely to lose with the public opinion.
It comes across as the GOP obstructing votes on several broadly supported Resolutions as a maneuver to thwart a vote that could reflect badly on the President.
This may pander to the conservative base but the majority of voters will not appreciate it.
Paul,
Do you REALLY think the majority of voters are paying attention, or that they understand the procedural rules?
[...] Other view: The Moderate Voice Tags: Bush, Iraq, Surge, escalation, senate, , Warner, republican [...]