"...not enough votes to override a veto..." is a meaningless canard....

[mike_c]

It's propaganda, smoke and mirrors. The Democratic leadership of the House does not need even a single vote to stop the war crimes against Iraq. Not one-- not if Nancy Pelosi has their support as Speaker of the House, which is just about as solid as any speaker has ever enjoyed because Pelosi is an historic figure.

All appropriations must originate in the House. They must be authored and sponsored by members of the House. They must be placed on the legislative agenda of the House, both at the committee level and on the floor, by the democratic leadership, i.e. Nancy Pelosi. Not one single vote is necessary to override a presidential veto if any of those things fail to happen, all of which are under absolute and unassailable House democratic party control. Bear in mind that Nancy Pelosi's district is one of the most liberal in California, so she would not even face reelection issues in her district.

Also, it is the proper role of congress to do just this-- to appropriate OR DECLINE TO APPROPRIATE funds for war. This is one of the essential constitutional checks and balances on the power of the executive to wage war. There is nothing controversial or subversive about the House declining to produce a supplemental appropriation for the war. Not doing so would not even directly affect the already established and appropriated defense budget.

That canard about there not being enough votes to override a veto is a distraction from the real issue. House dems can stop the war without even a single vote. There would be nothing to veto, and no override necessary.

[pinto]

1. Good point. But the funding through September (federal fiscal year) is already there.

They already have the money. Dems could stop funding tomorrow and it wouldn't *stop* anything in the short term. In all reality, nothing will stop the war before September - not a funding cut, not impeachment, and - sadly - not the continued loss of life in Iraq.

[mike_c]

4. then why the rush to buy a democratic share in the war now...?

It's already funded for the summer anyway!

[EFerrari]

9. Because they just made an opening move to Wall Street for 2008.

The Dem leadership might argue that garnering such support is worth the short term loss.

I might argue that short term losses tend to become long term HABITS and meanwhile, people are getting dead.

[pinto]

16. Wall Street?

[EFerrari]

19. I'm thinking about the trade deal. n/t

[pinto]

20. I don't get some of the short term political maneuvering, to be honest. But it's not over yet.

Reid and Pelosi seem to be maneuvering to lay some legislation that is veto proof in the Senate - and we need, what, a solid Dem vote of 51 and 16 Repubs to carry that, 67 - 33.

I understand the frustration with what many see as show votes, yet without a solid consensus in the Congress, *any* vote is a show vote given our slim majority. Seems the MO for now is to keep revisiting the funding issue in terms that have a chance of sticking.

While many of us may favor resending bills to be vetoed, over and over again, as a means of dissent, I doubt the general public would put up with that for very long. Americans want an end to this. The sooner the better. Yet I don't think they want a deadlock that resolves nothing.

I support Feingold's clear advocacy and the collateral support of Gov. Richardson for a clear, quick, clean end to this deadly world game the Neocons have engineered. And I realize the legislative mechanics to that end are more convoluted than we would wish.

Still, I support the Democratic legislative leaderships' actions...for now.

Thanks.

[Nite Owl]

2. I find it insulting that they actually

think we are stupid enough not to know just that. They are afraid to fight this, they are afraid to labeled with the 'they don't support the troops' label if they refuse funding. Of course they could have been saying that * is the one who refused the money, * is the one who doesn't support the troops etc. This is just the reason why people keep voting for the GOP, right or wrong by golly they stick by their principles(or lack thereof), never back down. This is what makes people think that if they (the dems) can't fight for their beliefs they certainly won't be there for them in a crisis. It's all about the perception and they perceive, right or wrong, that the dems are weak, they will run from a fight.

[mike_c]

5. the troops are supported by the defense appropriations bill...

...that is already established. Dems can point this out if they want to. They can point to their enthusiastic support for that prior legislation. The supplemental is for the additional cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan-- not to support the troops in any meaningful way. Quite the opposite-- it keeps them in harms way with possibly insufficient support through the regular defense appropriation.

[Patsy Stone]

3. Does anyone else know about this?

Like, the House?

:shrug:

[mike_c]

6. yeah, one wonders, huh...?

eom

[EFerrari]

7. Maybe we need to sign them up for mike_c's course in Civics.

:shrug:

[Patsy Stone]

8. Someone should probably be told.

This seems like it might be important. Oy.

:hi:

[mike_c]

11. HAH! Even my university wouldn't let ME get near a course with political content...

...LOL. Well, maybe that's not entirely true, but I've got a pretty outspoken reputation on campus. Thank god for academic freedom and tenure....

[EFerrari]

15. Yes! I miss the Free World.

:toast:

[partylessinOhio]

10. Pelosi was a mistake, she is too weak and gullible.

Being a female is bad too because she succumbs to BushyBoy like a lovesick teenager.

I am thoroughly disgusted that she would set women back years like this.

[dave_p]

22. Sounds like it wan't her choice

Time to look at the Congressional party, not just the leadership

[OzarkDem]

24. Did I miss something?

Was someone holding a gun to her head? She's the leader, period.

[dave_p]

30. I think we all missed something

Leaders are there to lead, but they also need to carry their party to honor its pledge.

If Pelosi's against the deal she negotiated, others must have been refusing to honor the party's undertaking to end the bloodshed.

I think they're the bigger problem.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. I think you forgot the sarcasm tag. n/t

[thunder rising]

12. A big FU to Mahoney

To: Blue Dog Tick Congressman Mahoney.

Blue Dog? Nah, just a Blue Tick coward sucking pennies out of common Floridian's pockets. It's getting hard to think of you as a Democrat. POS DINO.

This is the contents of the message. Feel free to use it if you need to.

[mike_c]

13. welcome to DU!

:thumbsup:

[Patsy Stone]

14. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Lost4words]

17. Welcome to DU thunder rising!

:hi: 8643

[BikeWriter]

18. Fuck them canarys.

[leftofthedial]

21. besides which, that argument implies that

only a two-thirds majority in Congress will ever provide the checks and balances delineated in the Constitution


My disgust for the "Democratic" leadership and congress is making me physically ill. I don't know which emotion will win out...anger or despair.

[Rydz777]

23. Well said. It's as if they are convinced that Bush is The Decider

and must be obeyed. When you have the power of the purse, you have the power to decide - why can't they understand that and act on it!

[EFerrari]

25. kick

[tyedyeto]

26. To all those who are new here:

READ your Constitution. The House of Representatives alone has the power to appropriate money for ANY reason. If they don't vote for Iraq monies, supposedly they (the Pentagon) won't get it.

Pelosi: It's in your power as Speaker of the House to delay any and all funding for this illegal war!!!


edit cause my fingers don't always hit the key I meant to hit. ie: spelling (typo)

[mike_c]

27. not only the sole power to appropriate money, but it is their proper role...

...to use non-appropriation as a check against presidential authority to wage war.

People speak as though there is something radical or controversial about that. My god, it's what the founders of this country intended.

:hi:

[question everything]

28. Does the Senate have anything to do with this?

Because, of course, the House has the votes, but not the Senate to over ride a veto.

[mike_c]

29. no, the senate has nothing to do with it...

...UNTIL the House approves a bill and sends it to the Senate. The process of originating appropriations is solely a House responsibility, and as has been stated elsewhere, the proper role of the House is to decide whether to appropriate funds at all. The Senate has nothing to do with that.

[GeorgeGist]

31. Obviously...

it's truly phenomenal how easily, even intelligent people can be deceived. I guess they just don't like to see the elephants before the stampede begins.

[bigtree]

32. the thing that you so conveniently ignore is that that course has already been rejected

by the majority in our party. What you want is some sort of imposing action by the Speaker in contradiction to the well-documented intentions of the majority of Democratic legislators to fashion supportable legislation to confront Bush at his desk.

It's an interesting scheme which doesn't yet have the support of enough representatives to encourage the Speaker to take such a drastic, unilateral action. Most of our legislators are still intent on passing something, and do not appear to have been convinced that having the Speaker just sit on the appropriations bills is the best course to affect Bush into ending the occupation. She must know this intimately. She does serve at the discretion of the majority of the party.

[onenote]

37. exactly

Contrary to the views of some DUers, Pelosi, whether she could be or not, isn't a dictatorial Speaker who will defy the will of her own members. She and other Democrats that would like to see the war end as soon as possible recognize that a majority of the public does not yet support immediate defunding of the war and they recognize that they would be putting at risk a number of members of the Democratic caucus -- and the chances of the Democrats gaining a larger, more effective majority in Congress in 2008, if they forced them to vote for immediate defunding.

[EFerrari]

38. So instead, she's putting herself at risk in her own district. n/t

[onenote]

39. her district will always elect a Democrat

that can't be said for some of the red-leaning districts with Blue Dog Democrats who could end up losing their seats to repubs if they ignored the views of a majority of their constituents.

[mike_c]

40. so "the will of her own members" is to join the republicans in prosecuting...

...an illegal, immoral, and unnecessary war against Iraq? I mean, we can't have it both ways. Opposing the war while giving Bush a blank check to finance it for the next two years? That's talking out of both sides of their mouths, at best.

[onenote]

42. well, the public is of two minds, so you shouldn't be surprised that their representatives are

First, a majority of the public wants the war to end (i.e. supports a timetable) but doesn't support immediate defunding.

Second, the will of the Democratic caucus reflects this two-mindedness.

Finally, this is nothing new. During the campaign, many Democrats ran campaigns that opposed the war, but did not push for immediate withdrawal. Indeed, that was probably the position of far more Democrats than those who publicly proclaimed they were for immediate withdrawal.

Maybe that's having it both ways, or maybe its representing an electorate that massively supported the war initially and is slowly but surely changing its mind. Its hardly a surprise that many of those who once supported but are now changing their position aren't as far along in their opposition as those of us who opposed the war from the outset.

[dogday]

34. Because they know we will be there for decades according to Pentagon Studies

<snip>

A series of military installations could be maintained around Iraq, with a total of total of 30,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops, for a long period of time — maybe a few decades. There are currently about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

The bases would be located in various strategic locations, ones that served by air landing strips, for instance. The bases would be sealed and U.S. forces wouldn't be on patrols as they are now.

But maintaining a troop presence in Iraq would allow the U.S. military to continue training Iraqi forces. It would also help discourage other countries, like Iran and Turkey, from entering Iraq.

</snip>


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10292643

[PBS Poll-435]

35. Actually

All bill relating to TAXES are to originate in the House. All bills related to spending are to originate in the Senate.

[onenote]

36. nope

There is nothing in the Constitution relating to the origination of spending bills, so the assertion that "all bills related to spending are to originate in the Senate" is incorrect.

Moreover, while the Constitution specifies that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate" in the House, the House takes the position that this really means that all bills for raising and appropriating revenue must originate in the House. As a result, the House simply refuses to consider approps bills that originate in the Senate, and the Senate has all but given up trying to send such bills over to the House.

That being said, bigtree makes the proper point in response to the OP: while Pelosi enjoys the support of the Democratic caucus, that doesn't mean she can or will direct them to take actions that they don't support -- and its pretty clear that a significant number of Democrats in the House (certainly enough to forge a majority with repubs) are opposed to immediate defunding. This is hardly surprising since that is the view held by a majority of the public, according to most polls, and almost certainly is the majority view in the districts of a significant number of Democratic members of the House...members without whom the Democrats wouldn't control Congress and its committees, wouldn't be holding hearings on Gonzales, et al.

[Nikki Stone1]

41. Reid and Ron Emmanuel are part of this capitulation

The larger issue is that most Dems did, in fact, vote for this war (giving Chucklenuts the power to wage war for no apparent reason). Why did they do this? Find that out and you will find out the reason that they are still funding the damned thing. My guess is that the oil corporations want this war and no "will of the people" is going to stop them. Yes, the Dems aren't listening to the people, but neither is Bush. In fact, Bush isn't even listening to the slippery friends of his Daddy who are telling him to get the hell out. Everyone is ignoring the obvious: that the war was morally and strategically wrong and has destroyed the economic health and worldwide reputation of the USA. The only interest this war now serves is to the oil companies (primarily) and the war profiteers (like Haliburton) secondarily. But these companies have more clout than all of the American populace put together and can keep this war going (and their toadies in office) for as long as they want the war to last, especially with the support of a complicit and financially connected media.