http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/18/iraq_and_the_defense_bill_a_post_mortem_guide_for_the_perplexedIraq and the Defense Bill: A Post-Mortem Guide for the Perplexed
By Spencer Ackerman | bio
So Harry Reid (D-NV) withdrew the defense authorization bill this morning after the Democrats weren't able to break the GOP filibuster.
The indignation spilled out across the aisle, with Republicans bemoaning Reid's all-night session as a political stunt, and Democrats warning the GOP that they'll pay a hefty political price for their obstruction.
But the whole mess remains complex. What actually just happened? What are the procedural and political nuances? What comes next for the Dems? Does yanking the Defense authorization bill have a prayer of forcing Republicans to stop blocking redeployment? Is this a political winner or loser for Dems in the long run?
To answer those questions, Election Central has put together a massive guide to what happened today that we hope will prove useful as a road map for following the debate as it unfolds over the coming weeks.
1. Procedurally, what's next for Reid? What various options does he have?
The problem for Reid right now is this: How can he get the Reed-Levin proposal on redeployment, his chosen way of ending the war, to a vote, now that it's been revealed yet again that the GOP has the votes necessary to block it? What legislative vehicles are available to him?
At the Dems' post-vote press conference, Reid said that he's "not tipping my mitt" by answering the question. But leadership staffers acknowledge that there are really only three courses of action open to Reid going forward:
A) Keep them attached to the defense authorization bill. Reid voted against the bill today in order to reserve the right to bring defense authorization to the floor again later. But obviously, as a senior leadership aide conceded to me, this course would just replay today's blocked cloture vote unless the GOP agreed not to block it again, which is an open question.
B) Attach the amendment to the upcoming defense appropriations bill, and reintroduce it that way. The GOP might filibuster again, and the same game would start. This time, each side would try and blame the other for blocking the year's half-trillion-dollars of Pentagon funding.
C) Introduce the amendment as a free-standing bill. This would be a potentially even tougher road to follow, because there's no larger Defense-funding measure to accuse Republicans of opposing. Furthermore, Democrats uncomfortable with a mandated timeline for redeployment, like Nebraska's Ben Nelson, could balk for the same reason.
Reid indicated at the presser that the most likely vehicle for Levin-Reed is going to stay with the defense authorization. "There are two things that I want to accomplish," he said. "One is to pass a defense authorization bill, but with a deadline dealing with Iraq."
While Reid may not want to be hemmed in by his statement, it's a fair indicator of his intent. Sticking with the defense authorization may be the best course politically for the Dems. That's because it has the political upshot of not tying the Dems' Iraq effort to a bill supplying actual money to the Pentagon, which would be the case with the Defense appropriations bill. And that means Dems won't be opened up to the charge that they're willing to defund the Pentagon in order to stop the war.
2. Will pulling the defense authorization bill really succeed in ratcheting up pressure on the GOP?
Reid, for one, thinks this is a virtual certainty. "It's a politically untenable position for the GOP," says the senior leadership aide. "They cannot possibly hold out much longer. A change is around the corner."
The thinking goes that the public, exhausted with the war and knowing that President Bush won't end it, is going to hold the GOP increasingly responsible for the war the longer the U.S. remains in Iraq. Reid thinks he's actually succeeded in darkening the GOP's political fortunes by yanking the defense authorization bill. That's because he thinks he'll also be able to blame the GOP for not just the continuation of the war, but for the total lack of Congressional action on it, which he thinks will further inflame voters and increase the pressure on Republicans even more.
There's a lot of post-hoc rationalization here. The Democrats gambled incorrectly that ten GOP Senators would be nervous enough in July about the war's cost that they would break with their leadership. It could similarly be the case that Reid is misjudging Republican tolerance for constituents' antiwar pressure, and that the August recess won't bring enough of a change to get more GOPers to break ranks by the time Petraeus throws his stars into the ring.
3. What will Reid do if the GOP continues to refuse up-or-down votes on the Iraq amendments?
Totally unclear. The leadership aide says he "won't speculate" on this question. But this is the ballgame: If the Democrats are incorrect about the level of public pressure that Republicans can withstand over the war, they won't have any additional mechanism to compel its end.
The other available options are far more extreme than the ones Dems have been willing to risk so far. After all, Democrats have so far rejected defunding the war, in order to avoid the charge of cutting funding for the troops in the midst of the fight. If the GOP is able to prevent defections even after the summer, then Democrats may find themselves with fewer legislative options to stop the war than they think.
4. What are the prospects for the Dems succeeding in breaking the GOP filibuster?
They're actually better now that the softer Iraq amendments can't get passed. That's yanking the bill rules out the introduction of other, nonbinding amendments that nervous Republicans were inclined to support. Without the option of supporting such amendments, Republicans can't plausibly claim to constituents to have done anything to stop the war. In turn, that increases the pressure on them to support the only available option left -- i.e., a binding measure mandating withdrawal, such as the one favored by Dems.
That's probably the real reason why Republicans are furious with Reid today for removing the bill and all its amendments. (Well, that and sleepiness.) Case in point: Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). In his floor statement right after the cloture vote failed, a visibly angry Specter inveighed against the Senate's lack of debate on the most prominent GOP amendment -- John Warner and Richard Lugar's toothless proposal for Bush to submit a post-surge strategy to Congress after Petraeus's report. Specter, clearly, wanted the option of supporting Warner-Lugar, an option Reid has taken away.
As a result, when debate eventually resumes, Specter will have to choose between either staying with the surge or mandated redeployment. Even for a moderate GOP Senator not up for reelection next year, stark choices are not pleasant ones. Get ready to see more waverers -- though, as Greg has been pointing out, not all waverers actually vote their wavering consciences.
The wild card here for the WINOs is the September Petraeus report. No matter how nuanced a picture of Iraq Petraeus paints to Congress, the White House will use it as a rallying cry for continuing the war. How much support that can give to a GOP Senator whose constituents loudly hate the war is one of the big unknowns.
One thing that could conceivably cause more Republicans to defect, ironically, would be President Bush portraying Petraeus's report as more optimistic than it in reality. The same could happen if Petraeus's report itself is more optimistic than Iraq seems to warrant. Either of those could diminish whatever credibility on Petraeus' part the White House is out to exploit, leaving the GOP caucus set to fracture ahead of the next election.
5. Stop this equivocating! Who won?
The GOP won -- today, at least. Sen. Mitch McConnell prevented the crucial ten Republican defections. Much of the media is portraying the Democrats as either obstructionists -- which must rankle them, since they weren't the ones filibustering the defense bill -- or as losers. And since the Dems didn't break the filibuster, that last part is true enough.
Looking beyond the day's vote, however, reveals a more complicated picture. After the Democrats lost the Iraq battle over the supplemental appropriation in the spring and didn't launch another fight against the war, many on the left were disillusioned with the Democrats. Antiwar liberals appear much more energized now, so clearly today's events had one positive effect for Reid: It appeared to shore up his support on the left again.
More importantly, by raising the Iraq debate in the summer, the Democrats have created something of a public expectation that September is the beginning of the end for the war. Even Fred Barnes's summation piece for the Weekly Standard is titled "McConnell Holds The Line; At Least Until September." The benefit for the Democrats of the July push, even the unsuccessful one, has been to redefine the debate over the war.
By forcing the discussion now, Dems forced Republicans into the fall-back position of saying, "The war should begin to end not now, but in September." That means it will be tougher for Republicans to continue to back the war come September -- Petraeus report or no.
Two weeks ago, it was hardly clear that September would be the beginning of the end, as opposed to a potential rallying point for Republicans when Petraeus comes to Washington. But thanks to how the July debate unfolded, come September the GOP's victory today could look like a Pyrrhic one.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
