The Yglesias Plan

What to do if Bush vetos the supplemental that includes a withdrawal deadline? I don't think it'll be viable for the Democrats to just get into a game of chicken with the White House over this issue at this time. So I'd say congress should pass a "clean" supplemental that Bush'll feel compelled to sign, but one designed to last a lot less than a full year. Three months, as proposed by Reps. Cardoza and Ross, seems like a good choice to me. That way in three months time, with public opinion even more against Bush and against the war, he needs to come back and ask for more money. Then Democrats pass another supplemental with a withdrawal provision. If Bush vetos again, then give him another three months eventually.

The point is to try to generate as many votes on this as possible. Either at some point we'll start seeing significant GOP defections (which is the best hope for ending the war while Bush is still president) or else at a minimum GOP incumbents will need to keep casting votes for perpetual war and set themselves up for defeat in 2008.

Comments

Sounds like a decent plan. Might even be able to pass Congress without vote buying.

Of course, many in the leadership might regard that fact as a bug, not a feature...

Posted by Brett Bellmore | March 29, 2007 9:07 AM

That's a damn smart plan.

Posted by Mr. Noah | March 29, 2007 9:07 AM

Not to knock you Matt but that has been the talked about (and I think agreed upon by the Leadership) fall back position for some little time now. In the debates over the current bill it was put forward as an alternative strategy.
Unlike you I think the Congress should press Bush with basically the same bill if he vetoes this one. The important point and the American people clearly get it is that the Congress is trying to force an end to the war and Bush will have none of that.
Sorry for Bush but the people are on the side of the Congress. And I don't think that Bush has the credibility to sell his spin outside his 30%.
I know some like to cite the Gingrich Clinton showdown but the reason Gingrich lost was because the public liked and supported Clinton so much better. Bush lacks that advantage, irretrievably.

Posted by keffiyeh | March 29, 2007 9:26 AM

As a political matter, this plan works as long as it looks like things are not getting better. If the surge begins to look like it is working (a possibility, however unlikely), then it will make the Democrats look bad. I am a GOP apostate, so if you want to call me a concern troll for making this observation, go ahead.

As a matter of Democracy, however, this is an excellent plan that forces Bush and the GOP to continue thinking about the war on an ongoing basis, and, yes, putting their money where their mouth is. It does the same thing for the Democrats. I like the idea that everybody will have a nice long trail of accountability.

The danger, of course, is that these continuing war resolutions will simply crowd out other Congresssional business.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | March 29, 2007 9:31 AM

How about tying the clean bill to a CBO estimate of what it would take to pay for it by increasing the top marginal rate, along with balancing Bush's budget honestly by his own projections of when the budget should be balanced?

Posted by theCoach | March 29, 2007 9:35 AM

Partisans on both sides often propose these "make 'em vote on it over and over" plans, when something they like is on the table. The Republicans back in their self-confident days liked to demand constant votes on tax cuts or whatever. I don't think this strategy works. First, most non-Washington-insiders don't care about repeat votes. One vote or maybe two on a single issue makes the point; more votes look like procedural silliness. Second, as Appalled Moderate says above, the practicalities of the Congressional schedule just don't allow repeated consideration of the same issue. At some point you've got to move on. And third, while this first vote may be exciting, the fact is the Dem leadership was able to get its bare majority for the pullout language only by bribing plenty of conservative Democrats with pork in the bill. The leadership would have to keep doing that and the stench of pork (and the press's gleeful reporting of it) would overwhelm whatever benefits came from the votes.

So not a good strategy, Matt.

Posted by Richard Riley | March 29, 2007 9:42 AM

As a political matter, this plan works as long as it looks like things are not getting better. If the surge begins to look like it is working (a possibility, however unlikely), then it will make the Democrats look bad.

I'm not so sure. People are sick of the war. If things are improving (or "improving") that should give the Democrats more freedom to push for a light at the end of the tunnel.

If things are supposedly improving, but not enough to even think about leaving a year from now, it sounds more like BS.

Posted by BrianA | March 29, 2007 9:47 AM

It's a good plan. You don't have to keep bribing people because a) by making funding roll over every three months you can spin it as demanding accountability, and b) Republicans, especially in the House, will start peeling off, as they don't want to have to run for reelection with a half-dozen votes for a hated war hung around their necks.

Posted by guy | March 29, 2007 10:00 AM

This prescription is infuriatingly antiseptic. I'd like some acknowledgment, please, that while we're playing these brilliant games of political strategy to benefit the Democratic Party, more Americans will die needlessly. (More Iraqis will also die needlessly, but I'm not sure that can be prevented now no matter what we do.) All this really does is figure out how to shift the blame to Bush and congressional Republicans--and if we're lucky, a year from now, we'll get language past Bush setting a nonbinding date for partial withdrawal eighteen months from then, if a certain number of Iraqis dance on the head of a pin. It is depressing as hell.

Posted by Antid Oto | March 29, 2007 10:05 AM

1) I think that at least one Democratic member of Congress needs to start knocking Bush's teeth out in the public forum.

This is why Democrats have lost so much in the past 6 years -- our national leaders are pathetic, mealy-mouthed cowards.

2) WHY can't a single Democrat stand up and point out that
a) Bush has NO right to speak of "supporting the troops" --
he has sent 3000+ of those young troops to their deaths in search of non-existent nuclear weapons.
b) Bush has NO right to speak of "supporting the troops" --
his orders to fight an unnecessary war has resulted in 12,000+
soldiers being crippled by wounds --some for life.
c) Bush has NO right to speak of "supporting the troops" --
the Iraqi veterans will need an estimated $1 TRILLION in future healthcare -- but the money won't be there because Bush and Republican Congressmen stole $2 TRILLION from the Trust Funds for Social Security, Medicare ,and Military Retirement
and gave the money to their superrich campaign donors.

3) Bush has NO right to ask us to sacrifice more of our children -- while his two daughters continue their father's proud military tradition of never getting within 1000 miles of an active battlefield. A tradition also followed by VP Dick Cheney.

4) Unfortunately, I know why Democratic leaders aren't doing any of the above. Many of them are whores to the Israel Lobby -- they want to get us out of Iraq so that they can invade the next threat to Israel: Iran.

In a recent interview with Haaretz, Haim Saban -- the Israeli billionaire who was the largest campaign donor to the Democrats in the 2000-2002 cycle ($15+ Million) --
explained what he wants after he makes Hillary Clinton President:
See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html

Posted by Don Williams | March 29, 2007 10:09 AM

explained what he wants after he makes Hillary Clinton President:

He says he thinks she'll be good for Israel because she'll restart negotiations with Arab nations and pursue direct diplomacy with Iran rather than conducting it through European intermediaries like Bush. His opinions on Hillary Clinton appear to be the sanest views he has, as far as I can tell.

Posted by Antid Oto | March 29, 2007 10:18 AM

How about throwing in some linkage of the war to the defense budget? Something that would force them to fund the troops at the expense of all those bloated weapons systems? I would love to see a Congressperson stand up and say "I would have voted to fund the troops, but I think buying more Stars Wars crap is more important."

Posted by Col Bat Guano | March 29, 2007 11:04 AM

Interesting thoughts about the politics of the supplemental, but what about events overtaking politics? Maybe we should try to withdraw from the next war before it starts.

And a little barking poodle shall lead them? U.S. Navy war games in Persian Gulf. Captured British sailors. Blair nipping at Iran's heels. Is this the long-awaited incident that escalates into war? Shouldn't politicians, media and bloggers alike be paying more attention?

Posted by Madison Guy | March 29, 2007 11:27 AM

What I like about this is that it doesn't *actually* move the withdrawal date any further back--in three months from now, just propose exactly the same withdrawal date. Ditto six months from now. Nine months from now, just fund the last three months and warn Bush that it's the last three months he's gonna get.

Regarding "vote fatigue", I think all voters, whatever their stance on the war, kind of expect Congress to be obsessed with Iraq as long as we're in Iraq. We can't move on until either we've won or our people stop dying over there.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 29, 2007 11:31 AM

The point is to try to generate as many votes on this as possible.

I disagree with Matt's plan. We're going to have many votes on Iraq anyway. This is a supplemental bill, after that passes, they need to start work on next year's numbers for Iraq - with a probable request of $150 billion.

This was a huge win for the Democrats. No one expected the Senate to include withdrawal language. There's no guarantee that they'll pull it off again and its far easier for Senators to vote for 4 "emergency" bills of $50 billion each than a single bill for $150 billion.

Posted by Mikef | March 29, 2007 11:32 AM

Re the above comment "His [Haim Saban's] opinions on Hillary Clinton appear to be the sanest views he has
-----------

Israeli billionaire Haim Saban has dual US citizenship -- which allows him to spend his enormous fortune to influence US politics. As I noted, he was the biggest Democratic donor in 2000-2002 and he is a major Hillary Clinton backer.

So it's worth noting that Saban seems to feel an enormous obligation to protecting Israel whereas he seems to feel little to no obligation to the US national interest.

Look at a few of Saban's comments in the Haaretz interview:
-------------
[Saban]""The Iranians are serious. They mean business. Ahmadinejad is not a madman. And every Jew who feels himself to be a Jew lives under the shadow of the Holocaust. That is something that does not leave us. The Holocaust never leaves us. So we are treating Ahmadinejad's declarations like those of Hitler in the 1930s."
---------
[Haaretz] "Will she [Hillary Clinton] be good for Israel?

[Saban] "I think so. Look, President Bush is very one-sidedly pro-Israel. But look at the results of his policy. They were not beneficial for Israel. We are in a major mess. Look at the facts on the ground. Bush is a massive failure. Hillary will be more balanced than Bush. She will try to create credibility among the Arabs in order to mediate between them and us. We will get nowhere with them in direct negotiations. Only with billions, with pressure."

[Haaretz] Will President Hillary Clinton be capable of making tough decisions on Iran?

[Saban] "Her policy will be different. She believes, and I agree, that it's a mistake to conduct negotiations through the European envoys. As I told you about Hamas, we have to talk with everyone, including Ahmadinejad. Hillary Clinton intends to engage with Iran in order to try to find a political solution that will ensure a non-nuclear Iran."

[Haaretz] And if she can't reach a political solution?

[Saban] "I don't think she knows, and I certainly don't know, and even if I knew I wouldn't tell you, with all due respect."

[Haaretz] Do you still feel, as you once did, that America's attitude toward Israel is liable to deteriorate?

[Saban] "At the moment there is no sign of a crisis. But we must not be complacent. The two pillars of the state are the Israel Defense Forces and the U.S., Dimona [the site of Israel's nuclear reactor] and Washington. We must do all we can to maintain the alliance with America. A major crisis at the wrong time could be a disaster, a disaster."

[Haaretz] Do you feel that as an Israeli-American of influence your mission is to prevent that crisis?

[Saban] "You said it."

[Haaretz] Do the Jews have a future in America?

[Saban] "Yes, certainly. It's a strong community, Hillel is active on college campuses. But there is also assimilation. Take me. Even though my wife is not Jewish, I did not assimilate. But my son will not have the same affinity for Israel that I have. I would like to see him in uniform. I think it is the duty of every Jew to serve in the IDF. He wanted to enlist in the past, but he's not talking about that anymore."

[Haaretz] Are you sure your son will live as a Jew in the long term?

"Look, I don't believe in religious coercion. That's why I never told my wife to convert. But when we were married I told her there would be no children. What do you mean, no children? Exactly that: no children. You believe in Jesus Christ - he came once and will come again. I don't care if he has come or has already gone. That's not my problem. But one thing I do know. In my soul, my spirit, my blood and my mind I am a Jew. It is unacceptable to me for my children not to be Jews in every respect. She told me: So it will be. I told her that this is my line in the sand. Every night before eating we say the motzi, the blessing over bread. And kiddush over the wine on Shabbat. And Bar Mitzvah, the whole thing. When my mother-in-law tells my son that he is half-Christian and half-Jewish, he answers her, 'I am not only Jewish, I am Israeli.'"

***********
I personally don't understand why a US citizen should think that it is the duty of every Jew --include every American Jew -- to serve in Israel's Defense Force.

I think its worth considering that our Iraqi dead probably include some Jewish kids from blue collar families in Brooklyn.

And if George Bush lied us into the Iraq War, he certainly got a lot of help in promoting that lie. The "Director of Research" at Haim Saban's pet "Saban Center for Middle East Policy" at Brookings -- Kenneth Pollack -- assured us repeatedly in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was working feverishly on developing nuclear bombs and that he was close to attaining that goal. Go and look at Pollack's statements in the LA Times Op-Ed and his bestselling book "The Threatening Storm".

Posted by Don Williams | March 29, 2007 11:37 AM

Matt, to put it bluntly, this is a candyass strategy of appeasement which just delays the inevitable. Why keep backing up a step and expecting it to amount to forward direction in the end? Deferring the fight to another day will probably not pick up support, but will only erode the will of moderates who will not want to waste time on this dance again if it is only going to lead to another veto and another step back.

Why not simply make the big play right now, with a position like this:

Congress has sent the President a bill which provides all the funding that he asked for to support our troops, and provide them with everything they need to fight the enemy in Iraq while we here in Washington make deliberate progress towards ending this conflict and bringing them home. In fact, the bill provides even more funding than the president asked for, and provides for urgent troop needs that the White House has neglected to address.

Yet the White House has chosen to put our troops well-being at hazard in order to play political games, and to defend its radical doctrine of no accountability, no oversight and no end in sight. Well, we know the American people sent us here to hold the White House accountable and to exercise oversight, even as we continue to support our troops. And that's what we are doing.

We ask our Republican colleagues - even those who did not vote for this appropriation - to vote now to override the President's veto and get our soldiers the funding they need. For the troops, this is a matter of life and death, and we can't leave them twisting in the wind because of White House obstructionism and partisan Beltway politics.

Whether its appointing US Attorneys, lying to Congress and the public, or deepening the war, this White House is showing it is all about politics, unaccountable power and defying the clear will of the American people. Enough is eneough. It is time for the Congress to act, and to assert its constitutionally mandated rights, and its duty, to insure that the executive branch executes the will of the American people, not the will of a handful of rogue ideologues.

The American people know that this is a White House that has utterly lost its way, and they are looking to us put our country back on a sane path.

Go with this strong message for at least few days. If after a decent period of time, they congress is forced to enact some emergency appropriation anyway, then at least Republicans who publicly refuse to participate in a veto override will pay a price, and align themselves with the same obstructionism that the majority of the public attributes to the White House.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 29, 2007 11:49 AM

How on Earth does this square with the previous post? What looks "strong" about giving in now, but for three months instead of a year, and then giving in again in three months? The public wants out, and a veto puts the "not supporting the troops" burden on Bush. People will understand this, just as they've understood for the past year and a half what a clusterfuck this war has become, despite the fact that Important Democrats don't want to lead them there.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | March 29, 2007 1:03 PM

I don't see how this plan works. Look at the arm-twisting and pork-bribing needed to get Democrats to sign on. Multiply by three or four votes and it won't be moderate GOP's that decide to defect.

Posted by kwo | March 29, 2007 4:00 PM

If three more months leads to Democrats defecting, rather than Republicans, maybe it would be because leaving Iraq right away was bad policy?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | March 29, 2007 6:51 PM

There's no reason to think that Bush would be any less likely to veto Matt's Plan than the current Democratic plan. If Congress passed a three-month appropriation bill, Bush would say that the Democrats were just "playing politics" by funding the troops for such a short time and veto the bill. Even worse, Bush would be correct because the primary logic of using three month appropriations would be to build up political pressure on Republicans.

It looks like the Democrats are faced with a fundamental choice when Bush vetoes the Iraq funding bill. On the one hand, Pelosi and Reid can cave and send Bush a bill that he wants. In that case, however, the Democratic leadership will have proven Bush right about the original funding bill just being "political theater." I don't know what would be worse, caving in to a weak President or making Bush look like he knows what he's talking about.

On the other hand, the Democrats can stick to their guns one way or the other. The moderate version of the confrontation option would be for the Democratic leadership could use their majority position to push Bush to negotiate. From yesterday's comments, that sounds like what Pelosi has in mind. The Dems also could take the "more confrontational" route of telling Bush to either accept the deadline bill or shut down the war. That would be my favorite.

The obvious risk with any kind of confrontational strategy is that the Democrats could lose public support and be forced to give Bush what he wants. And it's a real risk because presidents usually do win these kinds of showdowns. However, there are several reasons to think that the risk might be worth taking. Most importantly, the public approves the idea of a troop withdrawal deadline by at least a 25% margin (59%-34%). That's a lot of ground for Bush to make up at a time that the surge doesn't look to be particularly successful and the administration is hamstrung by scandals. The Dems would have to really blow it to lose that much popular support in a short period of time. Moreover, the Pelosi Democrats are different from the Gingrich Republicans in that they're not thought of as being over-aggressive bullies. Indeed, Peter Beinart is right that the public probably would respect the Dems more not less if they stood up to Bush. Finally, the Pelosi strategy of inducing negotiations sounds moderate in comparison to Bush's "my way or the highway" way of approaching the issue. She'll get credit for sounding more like an adult than the President. One of the things that did in Newt Gingrich was the broad and accurate perception that he was a jerk. That's also how people perceive President Bush at this point. Unlike Gingrich, Pelosi can look good while she pursues a confrontational strategy.

Ultimately, it looks to me like Pelosi and Reid have set up a fight they can win even if it does entail significant risk. I think they should go for it. As Margaret Thatcher once said, "this is no time to go wobbly."

Posted by Ric Caric | March 29, 2007 9:23 PM

1) I concur. The public appreciates people who fight over clear, simple principles. Bush has no right to send more of our children to their deaths -- especially since he is focused more on creating a puppet government for the Oil companies rather than dealing with a threat to national security.

2) As for the "terrorists following us home" line --please.
Bush's vicious stupidity is creating far more terrorists than it has defeated -- and is arousing the fear and anger of nations who are far more powerful than terrorists could ever be. Some of those nations -like Russia -- are armed with real --vice fictional --nukes.

Posted by Don Williams | March 30, 2007 9:23 AM

Another point. The Democrats lose badly when they engage in complex, tortuous posturing over murky points and muddy distinction that no one understands.

Such behavior rightly leads US voters to think they are being conned and to distrust the politician doing it.

Think of John Kerry's Presidential campaign and of his inability to tell us the time of day without 20 or 30 caveats and qualifications. ("I voted for the bill before I voted against it")

Posted by Don Williams | March 30, 2007 9:27 AM