Arianna Huffington: Democrats have all the votes they need to stop the war

Ending the War: Time for the Dems to Play Hardball

Posted October 25, 2007 | 06:34 PM (EST)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/ending-the-war-time-for-_b_69923.html

And some Democrats just seem resigned to the notion that their options are limited. As Henry Waxman told Politico: "If you don't have the votes, you don't have the votes." It's what David Sirota calls the "Innocent Bystander Fable" -- the idea that since Democrats don't have the 60 votes needed to end Senate debate or the 66 votes needed to override a Bush veto, the war in Iraq is out of their hands.

But the truth is, Democrats have all the votes they need to stop the war -- if they are willing to use the power given them by the Constitution to block the supplemental funding bill unless it includes a deadline for bringing the troops home. As Norm Ornstein told me: "Whatever the White House sends to the House is constitutionally merely a suggestion." The prerogative to bring a funding bill to the floor rests entirely with the majority -- which, in case Democrats have forgotten, is theirs. As for the Senate, Democrats there would only have to find 41 votes to block the supplemental funding bill.

I'm sorry for this refresher in Congressional Power 101, but Democratic leaders seem to need it. The White House cannot force Congress to spend money. Period. The end. The imperial presidency has not gone that far. At least not yet. So Democrats, who have the public behind them, need to be unequivocal that they are simply not going to continue to fund the war unless and until the president agrees to change course and set a date certain for ending it.

They need to make it clear that they are not pulling the plug on the troops -- indeed, they will be authorizing bridge funding for armored vehicles and veterans' health benefits, among other essential expenses, when they take up the annual defense appropriations bill in December. And they can make it clear that they will give the president and the Pentagon all the money they need to safely and responsibly bring the troops home. It's a battle of wills. A test of leadership. And a contest to frame the debate in the public's mind.

of anything except play the enternal victim.

to stop the funding.

they don't, there's something wrong with them.

he made all kinds of excuses

them. Ask them to be brave and just DO IT.

NO excuses----(like it is worthless, etc etc). They need to know we are behind them on this.

and I fear it's all political. They're afraid of suffering political damage in next year's elections. That's inexcusable.

And how do people with as much moxie as anyone suddenly become craven cowards when they get into office? It's a very strange phenomenon.

Here's information about political will:
"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

Don't let the media rhetoric fool you. The Democrats have acquitted themselves quite well--especially given their bare majority in both houses, and a relentlessly obstructionist Republican minority.

this 110th Congress has had more roll call votes this year than any
other Congress in history, almost doubling the number under the previous Congress overseen by Boehner
and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL):
The House last week held its 943rd roll call vote of the year, breaking the previous
record of 942 votes, a mark set in 1978. The vote was on a procedural motion related to a
mortgage foreclosure bill. When the House adjourned on Oct. 4 for the long weekend, the
chamber had reached 948 roll call votes, putting Democrats on pace to easily eclipse 1,000
votes on the House floor in 2007.

Last year, the Republican controlled House held 543 votes, and for historical comparison,
the last time there was a shift in power in Congress, Republicans held 885 roll call votes in
1995. The Senate, which has held 363 votes this year, isn’t on pace to break any
records, but has already surpassed the 2006 Senate mark of 279 votes.

Much of the lack of progress can be traced back to obstructionism by conservatives. Approximately “1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes,” noted a JulyMcClatchy report. “If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes.”

It’s interesting that Boehner is criticizing the 110th Congress as doing nothing. After all, the House, under his leadership, met for just 101 days during the second session of the 109th Congress, setting the record “for the fewest days in session in one year since the end ofWorld War II.”

When did Ms. Huffington become a "True Progressive?" Secondly, having been one, and traveling among, the elites of the radical right why does she not convince some of her former elites to vote with her present and former targets for ridicule...the Democrats? It was not so long ago that some of us used to address Ms. Huffington as "Arianna Puffington" and it appears the she is still huffing and puffing against OUR Democrats. Come on Arianna, help us get some much needed votes...and quit whining.

when she couldn't get him elected as a rightwing Republican Senator.

It's amazing how some people find enlightenment in a divorce settlement.

The blame the Democrats game is getting old fast isn't it? Especially with upcoming national elections. Guess some get great satisfaction at shooting their toes off for whatever damn reason. I'm still of the opinion that Arianna does not have our best interests at heart.

it only "gets old" to those who wish to bury their heads in the sand.

and the truth is that blaming Democrats for the Bushreich agenda is getting old..of course those with their heads up their rears cannot see the forest for the trees...

they're enabling. They're also responsible.

their minds are made up?

Everything, from Iraq to the federal budget to Atlanta's water problem and the California fires is clearly the Democrats' fault. The Republican White House and obstructionist Republican congresscritters have absolutely nothing to do with it. Past Republican majorities, of course have had nothing to do with it either, as it was the Democratic minority thet caused all the problems.

Don't ever let Democratic and left-wing bloggers, pundits, and their more mindless followers stray from the proper course of blaming our own.

It was in a memo a few months ago-- I guess you didn't get it.

No one could call Pelosi and Reid on their BS. If only ...

:kick:

Paul Wellstone refused. They all know what happened to him.

Join the despised ranks of Nader, Kucinich and Sheehan. At least at this forum. Sad, really...

Too bad it was the wrong party

In the Democratic party.

The PPI publishes reports and press releases that bolster DLC positions, including support for the invasion of Iraq and a more confrontational approach to relations with North Korea and Iran. Although the PPI largely reflects neoconservative positions on foreign and military policy
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534

And there will be enough centrist Dems to help it pass. It amazes me how these so-called "Great Pundits" fail to understand how Congress works. There is a liberal faction in both the House and Senate that don't want a funding bill passed without a timetable. They are with Arianna and Sirota, and are not prepared to vote for a funding bill UNLESS it has a timetable in it. There is a second Democratic group who would PREFER to have a funding bill with a timeline, but want a funding bill, and are willing to sacrifice the timeline if need be. Finally, there is a yet smaller group of Democrats (mostly from red states, and only includes about 1 or 2 senators but more Congressmen/women) who don't even want the timetable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the Republicans coupled with the two groups I mentioned constitute a majority and even a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The funding bill is going to pass for these reasons. Now maybe the Dem leadership can tweak a little, think of a way to not make it a total victory for the president, but Arianna's post is simply erroneous and blames the leadership for something that is largely out of their control. Unless, we want a return to the corrupt era of Tom Delay, we are going to have to accept that our Dems are free thinking, and will NOT be persuaded from voting for a funding bill no matter what.

And let's not forget that American casualties in Iraq have gone down, thereby relieving pressure on moderate Republicans to break from the president.

I have seen tons of headlines about bills being introduced, but never payed attention to if and how the minority party submits a bill for a vote.

Look at how many of them voted for Kyl-Lieberman to give Bush a green light to attack Iran.

Have you wondered why Hillary said she will keep troops in Iraq through her first term? Did it occur to you why Hillary, and others like her, always limit their criticism of the war to Bush's management of it, not to its legality and morality?

nt

:sarcasm:, extra drippy