With regard to this morning's snark against Steny Hoyer, I should say I've gotten some pushback from Hill folks who say the media is straining to find intra-caucus divisions ("Democrats in disarray," don'tcha know) rather than legislative leaders simply doing the job correctly by keeping the lines of communication open with the other side. We'll see; Hoyer's record makes me skeptical, but it's true that one shouldn't leap to conclusions.
« The Good Edwards | Main | Keep it in the Family »
More Hoyer
02 May 2007 06:24 pm
Comments (8)
I think someone ought to introduce a bill that pays for the ongoing costs of the war by raising taxes. Let's put it to a vote and see who thinks that the apocalyptic battle against Islamofascism is important enough to actually pay for.
I called Hoyer's office this afternoon to give him my opinion - don't back down, of course. He's my Congresscritter, which occasionally has its uses.
Matt,
Don't back down. There's no need to compromise with the president on funding at all. The dems should just not pass any funding bills and let the war be defunded in June. Force the war lobby to bring the president back to the table, if they want to keep it going past June.
"I think someone ought to introduce a bill that pays for the ongoing costs of the war by raising taxes..."
Excellent idea!
Congress should pass a Bring Home the Troops appropriation bill, not an Iraq War appropriation bill
Instead of sending Bush any form of Iraq War appropriation bill, Congress should send him a nice fat "Bring Home the Troops" appropriation bill. Give him no money at all for the war, and as much money as is needed to protect the troops and get them out of there.
The "abandoning our troops on the battlefield" accusation is lying bullshit, and appropriating money to get them off the battlefield would show that
Instead of sending Bush any form of Iraq War appropriation bill, Congress should send him a nice fat "Bring Home the Troops" appropriation bill.
I'm sorry, but this is a bad idea on stilts. First of all, Democrats don't have the votes. Secondly, it's easily caricatured in the short term political debate ("Democrats to Pay for Retreat"). Finally, it puts way too much power in the hands of Congress. What's to stop a future Republican Congress from flipping the script around entirely, appropriating money conditioned on specific offensive military maneuvers?
Congress is a very blunt instrument. Trying to use it for microsurgery will only end in tears.
"the media is straining to find intra-caucus divisions ("Democrats in disarray," don'tcha know) rather than legislative leaders simply doing the job correctly by keeping the lines of communication open with the other side."
This would be the other side that slammed the door in the Dems' faces when they were in the majority? The ones who shut them out of the legislative process entirely? The ones who have spent years accusing Democrats of treason? Yeah, let's crawl over to them and lick their asses clean, Steny. 'Cause it's doing your job correctly as a responsible asswipe.
And the media isn't straining to find anything. "Democrats back down." "Dem Caucus capitulates to White House." "Congress abandons timetable." Those headlines are easy to write without straining. Just wait for Democrats to roll over for the Nth time. After all, it's not like a majority of the American people want a timeline for withdrawal or anything. Oh, they do? Well, Democratic legislative leaders are simply doing the job correctly by ignoring the wishes of those who put them in power.
Comments closed May 16, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Well, Hoyer did vote for the just-veto'd bill, right? And it's pretty clear they're not going to make the bill more strident in order to pick up Kucinich/Woolsey/Lee/etc., they'll have to peel off a few more Republicans and lose a few liberals.
Personally I'm all for the 90 day, $40B appropriation with no strings and then go another round.
Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | May 2, 2007 7:02 PM