The Democrats' war proposals
The press [see here for example] is emphasizing that there is no way the Democrats' new anti-war proposal will get through the Senate because the Republicans will fillibuster it. Somebody please explain this to me. The proposal carries with it the money to continue the war (and get the troops out). Without it, the Prez doesn't get his money. So, if the Republicans block it -- or if the Prez vetos it -- they're voting against the very funds they need. Somehow, I don't see them doing that. More likely, it seems to me, is a signing statement where the President says he believes the cut-off dates are only advisory, not mandatory. That way, he gets the funds, flashes the bird to Congress, and ignores the pull out mandate. Even Hillary has taken this latter view, saying the cut-off dates are only advisory. [Note, as an aside for the record, that in my view this is because Hillary wants to perpetuate the powers Bush has already grabbed so she can use them once she becomes president.]
Am I missing something?
Am I missing something?
posted by walldon | 9:23 AM
2 Comments:
From now until every one of them is out, the Democrats should be saying, "We cannot keep demanding that our soldiers solve a civil war in Iraq -- and we cannot keep letting them get killed because the President and Vice President are afraid to own up to their tragic error."
Do you remember last year what a terrible thing it would have been for Democratic senators to have mounted a filibuster, say against Scalito (and/or Roberts)?
But these days, one routinely hears that about anything in the Senate will take 60 votes: I think that translates into filibuster as GOP SOP, no?
Not sure which is worse: Dems (for kowtowing) or GOPs (for sheer partisanship) or MSMa (for utter cluelessness and lack of perspective).
Post a Comment
<< Home