Posted on 11/13/2007 6:51:04 PM PST by Jean S
Senate Democrats might force Republicans to wage a filibuster if the GOP wants to block the latest Iraq withdrawal bill, aides and senators said Tuesday.
That could set the stage for a dramatic end-of-the-year partisan showdown, which Democrats hope will help them turn voter frustration with Congress and the stalemate over Iraq into anger with the Republican Party.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), the number two Democrat in the chamber, said a forced filibuster is “possible” and would “generate attention.”
“We want to go to the bill, and [Republicans] have to decide initially whether they want us to go to the bill,” Durbin said. “I wouldn’t call it theatrics.”
Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the co-author of the bill that failed after last summer’s all-night Iraq session, said Tuesday that allowing Republicans to carry out a threatened filibuster is a strategy that Democratic leaders have discussed with him. But he declined to comment further.
“I’d rather that statement come from the leadership,” Levin told The Hill.
Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), declined to comment.
The House is expected to take up the bill as soon as Wednesday, and the Senate will likely act later this week.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week suggested the Senate filibuster fight as an incentive for reluctant liberal House members to vote for her Iraq plan. Her offer came after she attended a meeting of the Progressive Caucus last Thursday to woo votes on the Iraq plan.
Some of the members complained that setting a goal for complete withdrawal, instead of a “date certain,” is too timid. Pelosi told them the endgame was the Senate, according to one meeting participant. A date certain would have a hard time winning a majority support in the Senate, while a goal could attract additional wayward Republicans, she reportedly said. Neither option, however, would attract the necessary 60 votes in the Senate, setting the stage for a filibuster.
“Some light bulbs went off over some heads,” the meeting attendee said.
When a senator threatens a filibuster, the Senate can attempt to invoke cloture to end debate on a bill, which requires 60 votes. And if the cloture vote fails, the bill is usually pulled from the floor.
On their latest Iraq plan, Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to cut off debate. Instead, they are considering making Republicans carry out a filibuster to highlight that it is the GOP preventing an unpopular president from changing course in Iraq.
Such a plan resembles the all-night debate — when cots were wheeled out — leading up to the July 18 vote to cut off a filibuster on an amendment by Levin and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to require troops to return from Iraq in nine months. Republicans dismissed the move as theatrics.
Since then, the Levin-Reed language has been softened to include a 12-month goal, rather than a mandate, for withdrawing troops in Iraq. The measure, which is part of a $50 billion interim “bridge” fund for Iraq war operations, would also ban tactics such as water-boarding by setting into law the Army Field Manual, which does not allow for brutal interrogation tactics.
House leaders have been pressing Reid to intensify the fight with Republicans by forcing them to filibuster major bills rather than holding failed cloture votes and criticizing the GOP after bills are pulled from the floor.
That fissure broke into the open last week when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) acknowledged asking Reid to stage more filibusters.
“That is the only way you can give Americans a clear view of who is obstructing change,” Hoyer said.
Reid said Tuesday that if the bridge fund does not pass, the Pentagon can start paying for the war out of its regular appropriation. That $459 billion spending bill passed last week and was signed into law Tuesday. If that’s seen as not supporting the troops, voters should blame Republicans and President Bush, not congressional Democrats, he said.
“If they don’t [agree to restrictions], it’s not us taking away the bridge fund, it’s them taking away the bridge fund,” said Reid, who met with Hoyer Tuesday morning and spoke with Pelosi last Friday.
A filibuster on the floor would help the Democrats highlight Reid’s argument, supporters of the strategy say.
But Senate Republicans said Tuesday they believed the strategy would backfire. They warned they would use their floor time to argue that the Democratic-controlled Congress has wasted time on frivolous votes and failed to produce substantive legislation.
“Republicans, I think, would not at all be unwilling to talk about the necessity of supporting the troops by giving them the funding necessary to carry out their mission,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. “If Democrats are going to force us to talk about that, I think they’ll find a very willing partner in talking about it.”
“I think that’s a strategy that’s going to backfire on our Democratic colleagues because the surge has clearly worked,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who sits on the Armed Services Committee, referring to the troop buildup Bush announced in January. “You’d have to suspend disbelief to believe it hasn’t worked.”
Striking a similar note, the White House would almost certainly ratchet up attacks if Congress does not send a bridge fund to the president’s desk.
“The president has made it clear that strategic decisions should be left to our military commanders,” said Sean Kevelighan, a spokesman for the White House budget office. “Congress should stop playing politics with funding for our troops on the field in harm’s way.”
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is up for re-election next year, said Tuesday that “for the umpteenth time that matters that have any level of controversy about them in the Senate will require 60 votes.”
McConnell said he plans to use a procedural maneuver to allow the “clean” bridge fund — without any withdrawal language — to move to the floor by week’s end.
Oooh, the dem's are pushing the "f" word and making the country shake with concern. LOL!
A clear view of who is supportig the troops and who isn't. Or who is soft on defense and who isn't. Do the dems seriously wish to go there heading into a national election?
A filibuster in the Senate is like the time Cindy Sheehan went on a hunger strike. It was Hagen Daz and other luxuries fit for a dictator's mistress.
The dems’ desperation has made them stupid. The country doesn’t care about filibusters; they want to see the troops funded. Period.
I hope they do it. They will look like the losers they are. We’ve won the surge. Troops are coming home. But the Dhimmis are just playing vicious partisan politics. That’s a great show for the American public. Everything they do sends their ratings lower and lower. Is it possible to have a rating below zero?
I'd be content if they just sat and filibustered for the next 15 years.
This drives me CRAZY! The filibuster is a move to prevent the cloture vote from happening. It is the DEMS that would have to filibuster, not the Pubs, who I am sure are more than happy to hold the cloture vote over and over.
I say let them filibuster, for real. As long as they’re occupied they won’t be passing some stupid law or tax increase or investigation or some other nonsense.
Withdraw funding or shut up. Even your crazies doubt your sincerity. They should. Because you have the numbers to strip funding right now...or do you?
Taft from Ohio tried his best, but still managed single digit approval. Though if this Congress continues, maybe they can break his record and score negative digits.
Typical for the RATS to do all in their power to prevent our victory in Iraq. News for the RATS, we’re winning the war and hopefully the ‘08 election.
They're showing their desperation.
Dear Sen. Drubin:
The only people you can fool all of the time are those who always vote Democrat.
"Ain't no light bulb ovaa ma head..."
Hell Yeah Bring it on...
Wait let me get this straight the Surge is working it has shown marked progress in the last 6 months. Attacks are down peace is returning and no in the end stage instead of recognizing the vic;tory the Democrats want to cut off the funds NOW.... OMG this is priceless... but it will take an agressive campaign to inform America of what is really happening in Iraq since the Drive By’s have largely decided that good news is not worth reporting...
“changing course in Iraq”
So shouldn’t we start the debate with the requirement? Is is necessary at this point to “Change Course in Iraq”
I mean violence is significantly down are we attempting to entice violence? Our soldiers are not dying everyday now do we need to change that? I get a little confused on exactly what the Democrats want to do so if the say to “Change Course in Iraq” they better start saying what that means.
With this Congress it is.
And all those smug "more conservative than YOU!" people who wanted to teach RINOs a lesson... thanks to you we have this contingent of court jesters playing around with our Troops and our futures. A huge THANK YOU, jerks.
Bring it, Dems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.