The late, great Molly Ivins called politics “the finest form of free entertainment ever invented.” Sweeps week is coming to Washington, DC very soon.
Last week, the House of Representatives passed a bill to fund the troops in Iraq – on the condition that they’re brought home by the end of August 2008. This week, the Senate passed a version of the same bill, but sets its withdrawal deadline for the end of March 2008. Some compromise date will be hashed out in a conference committee, but whatever that date is, George W. Bush has promised to veto the bill. The Democratic-controlled Congress doesn’t have enough votes to override Mr. Bush’s veto and force the withdrawal on him. Speaking to a meeting of cattlemen Wednesday, Mr. Bush said unless he and Congress can come to an agreement, funds for the troops will begin to run out in mid-April.
All this reminds Washington watchers of the 1995 government shutdown that resulted when Bill Clinton’s White House and the Republican Congress, led by Newt Gingrich (R-GA), couldn’t agree on spending priorities. Mr. Clinton vetoed the Republican spending plan, Mr. Gingrich and company couldn’t override and soon government workers began to be laid off. Bill Clinton won that fight; the public sided with him and he was re-elected the following year. Mr. Gingrich slowly lost power and was ousted by his own people in 1998.
Republican operatives are gleeful at the prospect that this showdown will do to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) what the 1995 standoff did to Mr. Gingrich. Perhaps it will, but that’s not clear. For one thing, the public agreed with Mr. Clinton on the substance of the 1995 funding dispute. In this instance, the public agrees with Ms. Pelosi – they want the troops out of Iraq.
Here in Vermont, the public really wants the troops out of Iraq. Prior to the House and Senate votes, anti-war protesters held sit-ins at the offices of our Democratic congressman and our independent socialist senator. Both men oppose the war and support troop withdrawal; the protesters were angry that the politicians were not calling for an immediate end to all Iraq war funding. Police had to be called and arrests made to clear the offices; all charges were later dropped. On town meeting day, 38 towns voted to impeach Mr. Bush for the lies he’s told about Iraq.
Most Americans support immediate withdrawal of troops and immediate cessation of funds for the war, but as is so often the case; our legislature is not up to speed with public sentiment. Ms. Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Democratic leadership set the troop pull-out for a year from now because it’s the only way they could get enough votes to get any pull-out passed. The Democratic majority depends on the votes of a number of conservative “blue dog” Democrats who refused to vote for immediate withdrawal.
It’s unlikely the Democrats will be so foolish as to walk into the same trap Newt Gingrich did or let George Bush have the opportunity to accuse them of not supporting the troops. Instead, they will probably let the funding crisis run down to the wire and use the tension that builds up as a platform to criticize Mr. Bush’s witless war and then give him some funds – about 90 days’ worth – at the last minute, with no withdrawal language attached.
Then they’ll send another withdrawal bill over to the White House, which Mr. Bush will veto again. And then it will happen again. Each one of these bills Mr. Bush vetoes will also have funds for veterans, for rebuilding the gulf coast, for drought relief and family farm relief. Republicans in Congress know that every time they support the White House and vote against these bills, the Democrats will be gaining ammunition for the 2008 congressional races. (“Did you know Senator X voted against veterans’ benefits? Against aid for hurricane victims? Against support for family farms?” the ads will say.) The Republicans know this. They perfected this tactic when they controlled Congress.
Meanwhile violence in Iraq will get worse; support for troop withdrawal will grow from majority to overwhelming among the public. Eventually, Mr. Bush will give in or – more likely – enough Republicans in Congress will join Democrats in voting for withdrawal and Mr. Bush’s veto will be overridden. American troops will finally come home. How many will have died for the sake of a war of words?
War of Words
The late, great Molly Ivins called politics “the finest form of free entertainment ever invented.” Sweeps week is coming to Washington, DC very soon.
Last week, the House of Representatives passed a bill to fund the troops in Iraq – on the condition that they’re brought home by the end of August 2008. This week, the Senate passed a version of the same bill, but sets its withdrawal deadline for the end of March 2008. Some compromise date will be hashed out in a conference committee, but whatever that date is, George W. Bush has promised to veto the bill. The Democratic-controlled Congress doesn’t have enough votes to override Mr. Bush’s veto and force the withdrawal on him. Speaking to a meeting of cattlemen Wednesday, Mr. Bush said unless he and Congress can come to an agreement, funds for the troops will begin to run out in mid-April.
All this reminds Washington watchers of the 1995 government shutdown that resulted when Bill Clinton’s White House and the Republican Congress, led by Newt Gingrich (R-GA), couldn’t agree on spending priorities. Mr. Clinton vetoed the Republican spending plan, Mr. Gingrich and company couldn’t override and soon government workers began to be laid off. Bill Clinton won that fight; the public sided with him and he was re-elected the following year. Mr. Gingrich slowly lost power and was ousted by his own people in 1998.
Republican operatives are gleeful at the prospect that this showdown will do to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) what the 1995 standoff did to Mr. Gingrich. Perhaps it will, but that’s not clear. For one thing, the public agreed with Mr. Clinton on the substance of the 1995 funding dispute. In this instance, the public agrees with Ms. Pelosi – they want the troops out of Iraq.
Here in Vermont, the public really wants the troops out of Iraq. Prior to the House and Senate votes, anti-war protesters held sit-ins at the offices of our Democratic congressman and our independent socialist senator. Both men oppose the war and support troop withdrawal; the protesters were angry that the politicians were not calling for an immediate end to all Iraq war funding. Police had to be called and arrests made to clear the offices; all charges were later dropped. On town meeting day, 38 towns voted to impeach Mr. Bush for the lies he’s told about Iraq.
Most Americans support immediate withdrawal of troops and immediate cessation of funds for the war, but as is so often the case; our legislature is not up to speed with public sentiment. Ms. Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Democratic leadership set the troop pull-out for a year from now because it’s the only way they could get enough votes to get any pull-out passed. The Democratic majority depends on the votes of a number of conservative “blue dog” Democrats who refused to vote for immediate withdrawal.
It’s unlikely the Democrats will be so foolish as to walk into the same trap Newt Gingrich did or let George Bush have the opportunity to accuse them of not supporting the troops. Instead, they will probably let the funding crisis run down to the wire and use the tension that builds up as a platform to criticize Mr. Bush’s witless war and then give him some funds – about 90 days’ worth – at the last minute, with no withdrawal language attached.
Then they’ll send another withdrawal bill over to the White House, which Mr. Bush will veto again. And then it will happen again. Each one of these bills Mr. Bush vetoes will also have funds for veterans, for rebuilding the gulf coast, for drought relief and family farm relief. Republicans in Congress know that every time they support the White House and vote against these bills, the Democrats will be gaining ammunition for the 2008 congressional races. (“Did you know Senator X voted against veterans’ benefits? Against aid for hurricane victims? Against support for family farms?” the ads will say.) The Republicans know this. They perfected this tactic when they controlled Congress.
Meanwhile violence in Iraq will get worse; support for troop withdrawal will grow from majority to overwhelming among the public. Eventually, Mr. Bush will give in or – more likely – enough Republicans in Congress will join Democrats in voting for withdrawal and Mr. Bush’s veto will be overridden. American troops will finally come home. How many will have died for the sake of a war of words?
© Mark Floegel, 2007