Question: How Come the Democrats Can't Just Vote for the Same War Spending Bill?

[SteppingRazor]

I realize they don't have enough to override a veto, but why can't they just change a couple words in the spending bill, and then vote for it again? Then Bush would have to veto it again. And then they vote for it again. Bush vetoes. And on and on and on, effectively defunding the war.

Why is that not an option? I haven't heard anyone even suggest it. :shrug:

[endarkenment]

1. Why change anything at all?

Just pass the same damn bill and put it back on Dumbfuck's desk.

[SteppingRazor]

5. Sure, fine, change nothing. The question remains, why not do it?

Is there some impediment to doing this, legally/constitutionally speaking? Has it ever been done before with a bill that's time sensitive?

[endarkenment]

19. No there is no reason other than political.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I think this is exactly what should be done. That or make the next bill even more restrictive. The politics are clear: Bush is making unilateral demands and refusing to accept any role at all for Congress. Congress needs to assert its co-authority here. The bill, containing sufficient funds for, unfortunately, another year of occupation, should keep arriving on Dumbfuck's desk as is (or as I said more restrictive) until he figures out we are not going to give in.

[Kagemusha]

2. Uh I've heard A LOT of people suggest it.. on the net.

Ask not why they can't. They can - they just won't.

[enough already]

3. Better yet, don't do ANYTHING!

Bush just vetoed money for the troops. It's over unless we blink.

[AndyA]

8. That's exactly right.

The Dems need to say no further funding bills will be forthcoming. Period.

The war is over, the troops come home. End of war.

[enough already]

10. "We tried....Bush vetoed the money....what else can we do?"

It's over. Do NOTHING! Bush will have to bring them home or let them die. He's the decider. His war...his call.

Unless we blink...

[liberalnurse]

4. That just may feed into *bush's spin-claim that the

Democrats are making this political....Unless we get more republicans on our side of the vote, we are powerless.

[SaveElmer]

6. They could...but

Republicans didn't filibuster it last time cause they knew it would be vetoed...this time I suspect they would filibuster it...

[ieoeja]

12. So then it would be Republicans in congress denying funding to the troops. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

7. The Dem strategy is to attempt to embarrass bush, not to end the war. They

could end the war by just refusing to bring an occupation funding bill to the floor. No funds, no occupation.

They want to appeal to voters as being against the occupation, while doing nothing to actually end the occupation.

[SteppingRazor]

9. Yeah, but the difference here is...

they're offering something for Bush to sign, but he doesn't do it. Tht's different in the eyes of many voters than not doing anything at all. It puts the onus on Bush instead of Congress.

[Virginia Dare]

11. It's actually putting the onus on the Republicans in Congress..

Bush is never running for anything again. He's a delusional fool who is never going to back down. What they need to do is come up with a Bill that enough Republicans will vote for so as to override any veto by the monkey-ass.

There is now going to be heavy political pressure put on the Repubs who will have to go back and explain to their consituents why they voted to continue the war.

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Yes, instead of offering leadership the Dems are putting the onus on bush.

Perhaps they see something there I don't. I think he has failed at leadership.

and I think the Dems are in danger of failing at leadership.

As long as their stratedgy is to put the onus on the minority Repos in Congress and on bush, one has to wonder just where the buck really stops.

While each side positions itself to best blame the other side for the US failure in Iraq, people are dying. The occupation continues.

[hippiechick]

13. My same thought. Change 2 or 3 'and/or' s & send 'er back to him ...

:shrug:

They're trying really hard to get the troops - and the VA's - funded, but mean old Mr. Bush doesn't want to ... why does he hate our troops?

[AlGore-08.com]

14. Well, if they vote on the exact same bill Smirk vetoed they'd need 2/3 majority in each House

To override Smirk's veto and make the bill a law. They didn't have the 2/3 when the bill was passed and they don't have the 2/3 in each House now, or they would just go ahead and vote on the exact same bill.

If they did vote on the exact same bill and got less than 2/3 in each House, politically it would look like a "loss" and they would risk loosing the support of (at least some) Republicans and conservative Democrats. Loosing even a few supporters - - especially in the Senate - - would make it harder to pass a different, similar bill.

[SteppingRazor]

But as I said in my OP, I'm not talking about overriding the veto.

I'm talking about sending the same bill to Bush's desk for him to veto again, over and over, effectively defunding the war.

[kimmylavin]

16. Here's the letter I sent to Pelosi earlier this morning...

Dear Madam Speaker,

I am writing to urge you NOT to compromise on a new war spending bill. Send President Bush a dozen of them, if you have to, and let him go on record. His first veto is causing harm daily, with his religiously ideological refusal to allow stem cell research contributing to pain and suffering that could be stopped. And his second (and third, fourth, fifth - however many it takes) just shows that he is a child stamping his foot in a playground, now that he will no longer get his way.

The American people have spoken, Madam Speaker. We want this war ended! Clearly, across party lines, across ideologies, across the board. The only people who want to continue this war have shown their true colors: they either worry about losing money or losing face. Well, Ms. Pelosi, the money's gone, and they have no CHANCE of saving face on this one.

We have destroyed another country, we have torn apart the very fabric of this one. The standing of the United States in the rest of the world is in tatters. We have revealed ourselves to be imperialist bullies. The first step in the DECADES of repair work that we have ahead of us is to end this war. Not when the Democrats take over in 2008, not when we've come to a "compromise" with the mini-dictator holed up in his office, squeaking that its his way or the highway, NOW.

Again, Madam Speaker, DO NOT BACK DOWN. The American people are behind you on this.

Sincerely,
Kimberly Ruane
Lake Elizabeth, CA

[Igel]

20. Typically rules of order prevent such things.

Usually you can't even move a bill that's identically or not sufficiently different from a previous bill that failed or was rejected per the bylaws. For good reason.

If you can move the same bill a second time, why not a third? And a fourth? And a 20th? If it fails, move it again and again and again.

It's a committee chair's nightmare.

[DerBeppo]

15. If the goal is defunding

they need to sack up and do it. Enough with this back and forth positioning.

[onenote]

18. because they won't get a majority to support it

THere is not majority support for defunding the war. More than enough blue dog Democrats in the House will jump ship if asked to support a policy that is directly or indirectly aimed at immediatlely cutting off funding. So it would be a pointless exercise that would only make the Democrats look weak and divided.

[Joe Fields]

21. That's what I want to know.

[Hart2008]

22. How about Reid scheduling the veto override vote in the Senate?

The override vote is REQUIRED by the Constitution, United States Constitution, Article I, Setion 7:
"But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3249256


http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[w4rma]

23. John Edwards: "Send the Bill Back" (Edwards' first political ad buy)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=26163&mesg_id=26163