Dems don't have the votes, but what should they do?

[ProSense]

What We Need: A Do Nothing Congress

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:41:17 AM EST

Brian Beutler has a terrific run down of what went wrong tactically with the Democratic Congress last week (S-CHIP, FISA, etc.) But Beutler still is looking at the tactical picture and looking at a Congress that he wants to do something. The problem is that, and this is true, they do not have the votes to do something in contested areas like S-CHIP, Iraq funding and FISA. This mistaken focus is exemplified here:

There is no hypothetical package of enticements the Democrats can offer a Republican that outweigh the price that that Republican will pay within his own party. He'll only be treated leniently when his party bosses realize that, if they don't let him vote with the opposition, he might lose his seat. At some point the Republicans realized something crucial: That, for now anyhow, upholding the veto is politically neutral. . . .

What does this mean? It means that even on issues as politically popular as S-CHIP, Bush can stop all Democratic initiatives. The question is then what can the Democrats do? Simply this, END all the Bush travesties. Iraq, FISA, etc. By using the power of the purse and NOT funding them. More.

The question then becomes, as always, a political one, for the Democrats. How would such a counterintuitive strategy of achievement, of NOT doing, be sold politically?

KagroX writes today about Iraq funding:

In the meantime, Bush uses the same old leverage to scare the Dems -- the ones who won office to oppose this sort of nonsense -- into standing the Constitution on its head, and feeling "forced" to rubber stamp whatever ridiculous request the president makes.

The WaPo correctly describes the landscape:

The Democrats who won control of Congress last year on the back of public opposition to the Iraq war instantly denounced Bush's spending plan and ridiculed him for seeking so much for the conflicts after vetoing the expansion of a children's health insurance program just weeks earlier. But Bush's proposal will force Democrats to confront the politically volatile choice of again following his lead or refusing to provide everything he wants. What's more, the debate may play out just as the presidential nominating campaigns reach their climax. Although Bush wants the spending approved within two months, Democrats said the military does not need the money until early February, and they do not anticipate acting until early next year. Presidential voting begins with Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3 and the nominations could be sealed when voters in about 22 states cast ballots Feb. 5.

How do you see this one ending?

If one accepts the analytical structure that Beutler adopts, that Congress must do "something," to have political achievements, then indeed the ending is easy to see. But if a different understanding can be brought to bear, then the ending can be quite different.

more

Bush has 15 months left in office. What should they do to counter a veto or a bad bill? Can they afford to do nothing for 15 months?

[Vincardog]

1. Exactly correct. It does not take 60 votes to NOT bring a single * imitative to the floor.

[The Stranger]

2. Stop repeating the lie that they "Don't have the votes."

[ProSense]

3. Sorry, they didn't have the votes to override the SCHIP veto. So that's a fact! n/t

[Lerkfish]

4. bottom line, the republican party, in minority, is more powerful than the dem party in majority

you can slice it anyway you want, but that's the reality.

we were promised that if we got a majority in, slim or otherwise, it would change things.


what we really need to LEARN is how the republicans, in minority, is able to do what the dems in minority said they could not.

[mmonk]

5. The dems are supposed to be the ones in charge

of the House where these bills are produced. Simply don't send them a bill. I think an impeachment inquiry would be good since it only involves one more democrat in terms of numbers than republicans. But some are on the republican side in that regard. We have no say in the matter quite frankly. We are at their mercy. To be frank, we can have anything taken from us. That is why more people need to become activists. Waiting to be rescued might not work.

[backscatter712]

6. If they can't pass our agenda, at least blockade their agenda.

It's just 41 Senators to prevent cloture on a filibuster.

Filibuster all the Iraq War funding bills, filibuster all the freedom-stripping bills, hell filibuster every bill.

I don't care. Shut down the entire fucking government. Shut it all down. It'd be better than letting the Drunktator continue to have his way.