An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Not Yet Veto-Proof
AP via MSNBC: House fails to override Bush’s veto of Iraq bill
222-203 vote falls far short of the two-thirds majority Democrats sought
22 Responses to “Not Yet Veto-Proof”
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
What’s next for, and from the Democrats, concessions?
Nah. We’ll be sure to let a few more kids die first, don’t worry. It’s not like they had trust funds. They’re hardly people.
> We’ll be sure to let a
> few more kids die first,
> don’t worry.
As in “don’t be surprised”? I won’t be surprised by the Dems. However, game-playing by the Dems with regard to Iraq may wreck their chances in 2008. Hopefully, though, they’ll become constructive rather than obstructive (and worse) for a change.
Oh, c’mon, guys. This isn’t going to advance the ball of discourse anywhere but out of bounds for both sides.
The veto override vote has hardly been a newsworthy item for the last month. Now maybe a roll call listing would be an interesting page to take a screen shot of.
More constructive might be some guessing as to what type of “benchmark” (or “standards” as the wide-eyed, still-not-calm-at-the-podium Speaker referred to last night) might actually pass.
The Dems have Bush quoting Petraeus at “end of summer” last night. If I were them, I would focus in on that and try to get some Bush concession tied to Sept. 1…….maybe as a first step no more additional troop deployment after that date.
Its true, they knew it wouldn’t fly, but that’s because the GOPer’s don’t want to admit that the surge isn’t working the way its supposed to. Some have safe seats in districts that support Bush, many do not, so I would think some would want a compromise bill. After all, where have 4+ years of blank checks gotten us?
> Oh, c’mon, guys.
What I did was spelled “defense.”
> More constructive might
> be some guessing as to
> what type of “benchmarkâ€
> (or “standards†as the
> wide-eyed, still-not-calm-
> at-the-podium Speaker
> referred to last night)
> might actually pass.
If the Dems wanted to go thermonuclear, they could do what is their right, pass a law ending hostilities with the terrorists in Iraq.
However, I believe that while they won’t call them “concessions,” the Dems, if they have any intelligence, will make concessions in order to get this Iraq issue resolved as soon as they can, so that they, the anti-war party, can then claim victory (if Bush agrees to anything the Democrats want in Iraq, the Dems can claim victory) and say “We got our troops out of Iraq” during the rest of the 2008 campaign.
The latest news is that the Dems will meet with Bush, so hopefully they can reach an agreement as soon as they can. It depends on how willing the Dems as well as Bush is to make concessions.
“Democratic and Republican leaders of Congress met Bush on Wednesday afternoon and Bush said: ‘Yesterday was the day that highlighted differences. Today’s the day where we can work together to find common ground.’
He said his chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and national security adviser Stephen Hadley would lead negotiations with the Democratic-led Congress. ‘I’m confident we can reach an agreement,’ he said.”
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2007-05-02T190948Z_01_N02342978_RTRIDST_0_IRAQ-USA-FUNDING-UPDATE-2.XML
> Its true, they knew it wouldn’t fly
and so they shouldn’t have wasted time with it.
> Its true, they knew it wouldn’t fly
Wait a moment. I have to be fair to the Bush-haters.
Maybe they didn’t know it really wouldn’t fly, because they didn’t believe Bush’s veto threat, because they haven’t believed anything Bush has been saying for a while now.
Alternatively the Dems could just do nothing. Explain to their consituents that they gave the President the funding he wanted and he turned it down.
This might be political suicide, but we’ve got at least 2 1/2 to 3 months for this to play out before the lack of funding really affects the troops.
Another option would be to offer a bill with no dates for withdrawal but with a timeline requiring progress from the Iraqi government with penalties to be enforced should they fail.
But heck, what could possibly be a worse penalty than having your country invaded with no occupation plan resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths?
Still, the Dems could claim they indeed did compromise and Bush wouldn’t budge (which we all know he won’t).
No, the veto was predicted,and they knew they couldn’t override, but Democratic strategy is to compromise on the timetable and leave the benchmarks in (tied to other spending). They have more support for that, and Bush may go for it if he thinks he’ll lose anyway. Anything is better than a rubber stamp.
Anyway, I like Davebo’s strategy- now that’s hardball!
“Wait a moment. I have to be fair to the Bush-haters”
There’s a first time for everything.
Interesting DLS.
I have one question for you. In the 1990′s who shut down the government over budget disputes?
Clinton, or the Gingrich controlled House?
> Alternatively the Dems
> could just do nothing.
(“Social Security will be more valuable later if we leave it alone now.” — an actual Democrat quote during the recent doing NOTHING about Social Security by the Democrats)
> Explain to their consituents
> that they gave the President
> the funding he wanted and
> he turned it down.
There probably are plenty of Democratic constituents who would accept this “explanation,” and even nod their heads in agreement with it when they heard it, too.
> There’s a first time for everything.
This isn’t the first time I’ve been fair.
Err,, DLS..
Have you noticed any changes in the governments projections of Social Security’s long term solvency???
Here’s a hint, according to the SS Administration, that Democrat appears to have been right.
> I have one question for you.
> In the 1990’s who shut down
> the government over budget
> disputes?
Technically, it was Congress who was responsible.
Call it the results of the last 6 years if you want. I doubt that in 1999 folks believed that Democrats only represented other Democrats and Republicans other Republicans.
I think something that would be seen as giving the Maliki govt a laddered series of jolts without being seen as completely abdicating on him would appeal to enough unsafe Republicans in Congress that Bush would likely have to consider going along with.
The Maliki support issue is the most susceptible because that is “political”.
The troop deployment is a “military” issue and therefore it runs up against the “who gets to run the military issue”.
> Have you noticed any
> changes in the
> governments projections
> of Social Security’s long
> term solvency???
I rely on the Trustees’ Reports, the best source.
I am aware of the shift in the “trust fund” or “reserve” exhaustion year for Social Security from 2040 to 2041, which made Democrats in denial ridiculously ecstatic.
I do not rely on Democrats who dishonestly refer to the trust fund exhaustion year as the time when problems with the program begin, and who misleadingly tell the public they can wait for ages before any action is needed.
What matters to us in reality is not the “reserve” exhaustion years, but instead the year(s) when Social Security (and Medicare) begins to run deficits, for the so-called reserves are merely claims on government revenue above and beyond what the federal government already is spending, and this money will have to be raised through increased taxes or borrowing.
The year Social Security will begin to run deficits remains 2017.
There is a demonstrable problem with the program evident to all, even Democrats in denial, once the surpluses peak and then begin to diminish in subsequent years. This may occur before the 2008 elections — the problem is right before all intelligent people’s eyes already.
This should be a 2008 campaign issue, complete with detailed plans by all the Presidential candidates for what they believe is the solution to the problem. This includes how and where to find any additional money; nobody who is intelligent (even some Dem voters qualify as intelligent) will simply accept being told that all funding will be made mandatory out general revenue. Poof! Instant solution! Sorry, no.
“This year’s OASDI report shows little deviation from last year’s in the intermediate projections for Social Security. There has been a slight improvement in the outlook for the combined trust funds throughout the 75-year projection period, due to the positive effects of updates in program data and minor changes in methods and assumptions that more than offset the negative consequences of extending the valuation period by one year. As a result, the date of trust fund exhaustion has moved from 2040 back to 2041, the actuarial deficit for the 75-year projection period has declined from 2.02 to 1.95 percent of taxable payroll, and the end-year (now 2081) annual deficit is lower (5.20 percent of taxable payroll for 2081, compared with last year’s 5.38 percent for 2080). Despite the improvement, the projected costs of scheduled benefits as a percentage of GDP remain the same as described in last year’s report, rising from a 2007 level of 4.3 to 6.2 in 2030 and to 6.3 in 2080. Again, the projected cost of scheduled future benefits is far greater than projected revenues. In consequence, Social Security poses a significant challenge to Federal government finances.”
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html
Additional plans and explanations are owed the voters if anybody plans to extend government-paid health care to more citizens in this country during 2009-2012.
This is hardly news. The veto was inevitable. The Democratic Leadership couldn’t even get the dozen anti-war Democrats who had voted against the measure in the first place to vote to override the veto much less get Republicans to join them.
The Democratic Leadership should take up Republican Ron Paul’s proposal to simply repeal the Iraq War resolution. No more funding to extend the war another six months. No more pork. Simply vote to repeal the war. The Democrats should gain them the support of the dozen anti-war Democrats who originally voted against the funding with benchmarks as well as an additional Republican vote (Ron Paul). Admittedly, they would probably lose the votes of some of the more moderate Democrats who would vote against an immediate pullout, but it would be the principled thing to do.
The language of the bill wouldn’t necessarily even have to mandate an immediate pullout. It could say “The resolution to go to war with Iraq is hereby repealed, effective 30 days from the day the president signs the bill.”
Frankly, the Republican Leadership doesn’t have much credibility on this matter. Republican House Minority Leader said on January 24, 2007 that he would give the to work, and his 90 days are up. A majority of the American people want this war ended, and it’s time to have an up-or-down vote to determine which Democrats and Republicans are voting to extend the war and which ones are voting to end it.
I butchered the link to MvdG’s post, so here is a repost of the final paragraph in my above comment:
Frankly, the Republican Leadership doesn’t have much credibility on this matter. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said on January 24, 2007 that he would give the surge 60 to 90 days to work, and his 90 days are up. A majority of the American people want this war ended, and it’s time to have an up-or-down vote to determine which Democrats and Republicans are voting to extend the war and which ones are voting to end it.
“This isn’t the first time I’ve been fair.”
Yes, the other time I must have been at another site.
I agree Nick, Condi herself said she would give the Iraqi government 90 days to work out their differences. Then it stretched to the beginning of the summer, then the end of the summer, now it will be September, because we have to give Petraeus a chance.
What is so hypocritical is that the Republicans were the ones calling for limiting our involvement when Clinton was in Bosnia and Somalia. They thought he overused the military, leading Bush to pledge a humble foreign policy. Maybe then he didn’t know what Cheney had in mind.
kritter,
Yep. I wrote a post on this over at my blog. Think Progress and The Politico both wrote about this apparent flip-flop of McCain’s, but I haven’t heard anything in the mainstream media about this. A number of Republicans who are criticizing calls for withdrawal made very similar arguments for withdrawal from Somalia and Haiti.
Defenders of the war will say, “Oh, but that was before 9/11. You can’t compare Iraq with Somalia.” I say it’s simple partisan hypocrisy.