OT-help me understand

[Inuca]

I am not feeling well, so I am at home, and streaming CSPAN. McConnell and especially just finished piling it on Reid re; the Iraq resolutions. Now Gregg just started doing the same. Can somebody help me better understand what happened these last few days. I understand what each side was trying to do, I am referring to the Senate strategy, not the real and truly important part ("shame on us"). But my gut feeling is that Reid messed up the strategy, and he is no match for McConnell and Lott. Lott almost ridiculed him saying that he has to learn about being majority leader. Anyway, if anybody feels like commenting,I would appreciate.

[Mass]

1. It seems to me that Reid got scammed by the GOP once again.

He accepted to withdraw the non-binding Biden-Hagel resolution on the promise that a milder Warner-Levin proposal would get 60 votes and send a strong message to the White House.

He also more or less accepted that the Dodd and Kennedy resolution, which were offering binding actions, would not be offered as resolution (I am not sure whether they could be offered as amendments).

Once this happened, the Republicans pushed to add more resolutions supporting Bush, the McCain resolution that imposes benchmarks, but support the surge, and the Gregg resolution, which basically says the Congress has to fund whatever Bush tells them to fund.

And, after that, they announce they would filibuster all that except if they could get a 60 votes on each of these resolutions.

For some reasons I do not see, Reid refused that the Gregg's resolution be put at a 60 votes level. This is absolutely not evident for me why he would object that, but he did, and this is where the negotiations fell.

Somehow, my feeling is that there are things we do not see. Some Democrats did not want to have to vote on the Gregg bill as it was casted as a "support the troops" bill but included a number of perfectly unacceptable points.

Anyway, it is clear that this seems one of these "inside the Beltway" things and that this does not look good.

The NYTimes had an editorial today asking for Reid to go back to the work table and do something, even as they were acknowledging that the GOP was wrong.

[Inuca]

2. What you said pretty much mirrors

the way I see it. The opposition to Gregg's amendment did not look good, what I have been reading this morning (and consistent to what Gregg himself implied a bit earlier) was that Gregg's was probably the only one that would have obtained the 60 votes. And now all kind of idiots (Vitter, Cornyn, Martinez) keep saying how all they want to do is debate the Iraq issue, but are not able to because of the unreasonable requests of the majority leader. Schumer up now, not a big fan, but he talks well. "the republicans are knotting themselves into a pretzel" :-)

[sandnsea]

3. The Gregg resolution

Is that the one Tay Tay was talking about the other day, where the Senate was going to vote that it couldn't defund the war? That's what the Gregg amendment sound like to me, permanent war funding. I can see why they don't want that to come up for a vote. Permanently fund the war or be accused of not funding the troops. The problem is they aren't bringing this stuff to the public and letting people know Republicans are STILL playing gamees while our troops die and the country's needs remain unmet.

[Mass]

4. Exactly.

[Mass]

5. NY Times editorial

It’s the War, Senators

It is not an inspiring sight to watch the United States Senate turn the most important issue facing America into a political football, and then fumble it. Yet that is what now seems to have come from a once-promising bipartisan effort to finally have the debate about the Iraq war that Americans have been denied for four years.

The Democrats’ ultimate goal was to express the Senate’s opposition to President Bush’s latest escalation. But the Democrats’ leaders have made that more difficult — allowing the Republicans to maneuver them into the embarrassing position of blocking a vote on a counterproposal that they feared too many Democrats might vote for.

We oppose that resolution, which is essentially a promise never to cut off funds for this or any future military operation Mr. Bush might undertake in Iraq. But the right way for the Senate to debate Iraq is to debate Iraq, not to bar proposals from the floor because they might be passed. The majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, needs to call a timeout and regroup. By changing the issue from Iraq to partisan parliamentary tactics, his leadership team threatens to muddy the message of any anti-escalation resolution the Senate may eventually pass.

As it happens, the blocked Republican alternative, proposed by Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, itself represents an end run around the Senate’s constitutional responsibilities. The rational way to oppose cuts in funds is to vote against them, if and when any ever come before the Senate. Mr. Reid should not be shy about urging fellow Democrats to vote against this hollow gimmick, which tries to make it look as if the senators support Mr. Bush’s failed Iraq policies by playing on their fears of being accused of not supporting the troops.

...

Senators need to acknowledge the reality of four years of failed presidential leadership on Iraq and enact a set of binding benchmarks. These should require the hard steps toward national reconciliation that the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki continues to evade and that the White House refuses to insist on.

[Inuca]

6. Thanks, Mass

Good editorial (+ your editorializing it by emphaszing the important parts). It answers my questions, and confirms my suspicions. Reid did not play it right. And many repubs are gloating now. Right now its Isaakson's turn, he can't even remember Maliki's name, but Gof is he "forcefull". "we did not vote for failure" "we paru Al Malaki (sic) will prevail", etc. nonsense... stupid gradstanding... I can only go back to what JK said yesterday, "shame on us", so TRUE.

[emulatorloo]

7. Reid needs to toughen up and play hardball. I hope he has it in him to do so

And he outta listen harder to some of the more forthright Senators on his team rather than ignoring them.

[MarjorieG]

8. Exactly. How about JK's tough talk.

Any media talk about kerry's nimble and blunt appraisal? Seems people use the words and thoughts as truthful point of center, without attribution.

If that NYT hit piece is to be at all believed, Reid dosen't like Kerry's grandstanding. Well, I call it solutions.

[_dynamicdems]

9. Kerry is more free to speak his mind than Reid, which Reid should appreciate and make use of.

It wouldn't surprise me if Reid and Kerry actually work more closely than it appears. The article notwithstanding, I see a bit of the old "good cop, bad cop" approach being used by Reid and Kerry. Reid lets Kerry carry the stick so he can offer the carrot. Just an observation. It may or not be intended, but it works out quite nicely. The only thing that goads me is that Kerry is still being ignored, as you point out. He doesn't get the credit for the toughness he exhibits.