How process shapes substance on Iraq

by Kagro X

The fight within the House Democratic Caucus over the upcoming Iraq supplemental appropriations bill has broken down generally along Blue Dog/Progressive Caucus lines. Caught in the divide is the so-called Murtha Plan -- a mechanism that reportedly used the Congressional "power of the purse" to prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the deployment of troops who were not adequately trained, rested, armored, and combat ready. Additional differences have arisen over the use of the same "power of the purse" to give teeth to the so-called "benchmarks" for progress the president would be required to meet in order to continue to prosecute his war in Iraq.

Now, the bill's not public yet, but I'm told that the language most at issue reads like this:

Funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may not be obligated or expended to deploy or continue to deploy members or units of the Armed Forces in Iraq after the conclusion of the 180 day period for redeployment specified in subsections (c) and (d).

What are subsections (c) and (d) about? I'm informed that they're apparently the ones that lay out the so-called "benchmarks," which means this language -- since removed from the bill at the behest of the Blue Dogs -- was the mechanism for enforcing those benchmarks.

At the moment, it appears that the political calculus hinges on what happens with those "teeth." That is, the leadership's math goes like this: they figure they get and keep more Blue Dog votes by removing the ability to enforce the benchmarks than they lose from the Progressive Caucus, who think the president can't be trusted and will game the benchmarks and continue to humiliate and embarrass Congressional Democrats.

So as things stand now, the language is out, because by the leadership's count, there were more Blue Dogs at least implicitly threatening to vote against a bill that included it than there were Progressive Caucus members threatening to vote against a bill that excluded it.

Fair enough, from a purely political perspective.

But it begs the question: How serious were the Blue Dogs about that? And how would you find out?

With the enforcement language out of the bill, enough Blue Dogs have apparently signaled their consent so that it has a chance to pass, even over the objections of some number of Progressive Caucus members. It's a much more comfortable vote for the Blue Dogs now, though a much more uncomfortable vote for progressives, who view it as a matter of principle that the legislation take what concrete steps are possible to end the war. The flip side, of course, is that many Blue Dogs assert that it is a matter of principle for them that the Congress not "tie the president's hands" in conducting military operations.

But as we can see, procedure has intervened to give the advantage to the Blue Dogs. As the bill stands now, the enforcement mechanism cited above is out, though the Progressive Caucus may or may not be permitted to offer an amendment to put it (and other language aimed at forcing withdrawal) back in. The onus, then, is on the Progressive Caucus to either stand on principle and cast the tough vote that threatens to send the message that Democrats are divided by voting against a bill that's toothless, or to subsume that principle in order to give the Democrats a "win."

Will they choose to be "good Democrats" first, and principled progressives second? Is that even a fair description of the choice they're being given? Nobody can say for sure.

But what if the procedural decision had broken the other way? What if the enforcement mechanism had been left in, and the Blue Dogs had been offered the opportunity to bring an amendment to the floor to eliminate it? What do we think the outcome would have been in that case?

Then the game would have been very different. The onus would have been on the Blue Dogs to either stand on principle (here, that the president's hands not be "tied") and cast the tough vote that threatens to send the message that Democrats are divided by voting to remove the bill's teeth, or to subsume that principle in order to give Democrats a "win."

Do we see a quantum difference between the principles at stake in these two hypothetical votes? Do we see a difference in the likelihood that, put on the spot, the Blue Dogs or Progressives would be forced to buckle and cast the uncomfortable vote? Progressives, if they get to offer an amendment, would be asking to change the status quo to put teeth in. I see that as a vote more of them are likely to stick to their guns on. Blue Dogs, if the roles were reversed, would be taking the floor to ask that the teeth be taken out. I'm not nearly as sure that they'd really show up in numbers to do that.

But as things stand now, the pressure is on the Progressives and enforcement, as opposed to being on the Blue Dogs and benchmarks.

Are there other enforcement mechanisms in the bill? Maybe. Nobody's seen them yet. But I find it very telling that the provisions I've learned have been removed -- as well as who insisted they be removed -- has set up a vote that will require amending on the floor in order to change the status quo with respect to the power of the president vis-a-vis the Congress, rather than forcing those who prefer the status quo to amend the bill in order to freeze it in place. Which do you think would have won?

Comments

[freepatriot]

I've already told my bluedog congressman that he can stand on principles or he can worry about getting reelected

but if he doesn't stand up for his DEMOCRATIC principles, we're gonna find a REAL DEMOCRAT to oppose his sorry ass in the 2008 primary

I also explained how the California Election Code would prevent his sorry ass from running as an independent if he loses the primary

if these sorry piece of shit blue dogs don't want to represent DEMOCRATS, then the DEMOCRATS should throw their asses out in the primary elections

let's start finding candidates NOW

[Mimikatz]

Thanks be for my Congresswoman, Barbara Lee, (one) author of the Progressive position. We need more like her and more districts like hers.

I'm also heartened by the coalition">http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005772.html">coalition to push the Dems on this. (h/t to Laura Rozen.) These folks are absolutely correct about iraq's effect on domestic policy options. not only does it suck up all the oxygen, it sucks up a tremendous amount of money. The Blue Dogs should consider the unlikelihood of much getting done outside of Iraq until that one is settled.

And it can't be over emphasized that being afraid of seeming soft on defense is the easiest way to demonstrate that one is, in fact, soft on defense.

[grimmacing]

"But it begs the question: How serious were the Blue Dogs about that?"

Please.... it raises the question. Raises.

"begging" the question is asking everyone to concede a point you are arguing is true. ARggg. I'm going to go soothe my nerves now by reading the dictionary.

[Dismayed]

Free, I'm with you on the blue dogs, they are Republicans who didn't have the balls to run as such. Hell, some of them are probably party plants. I'm all for differing positions within a party, but these guys are in no way dems nor progressive from what I can see. Pisses me off. Now the blue dogs are running shit. sucks

[Dismayed]

Free, I'm with you on the blue dogs, they are Republicans who didn't have the balls to run as such. Hell, some of them are probably party plants. I'm all for differing positions within a party, but these guys are in no way dems nor progressive from what I can see. Pisses me off. Now the blue dogs are running shit. sucks

[p.lukasiak]

As the bill stands now, the enforcement mechanism cited above is out, though the Progressive Caucus may or may not be permitted to offer an amendment to put it (and other language aimed at forcing withdrawal) back in. The onus, then, is on the Progressive Caucus to either stand on principle and cast the tough vote that threatens to send the message that Democrats are divided by voting against a bill that's toothless, or to subsume that principle in order to give the Democrats a "win."

this is the key question -- not whether the bill passes with the "enforcement" provision, but whether progressives are afforded the opportunity to take a stand on "enforcement."

If there are enough Blue Dogs and Republicans who want a toothless bill, so be it. That's democracy. But we have to make sure that these people recognize that they are risking their political future by continuing to give carte blanche to Bush.

[jwp]

Make a list of Dems waffling on Iraq, post it on KOS.

Put a list of potential primary challengers next to each name.

Start raising money. Post the money amount available for each primary challenge.

Don't talk. Organize.

[priscianus jr]

"begging" the question is asking everyone to concede a point you are arguing is true. ARggg. I'm going to go soothe my nerves now by reading the dictionary.

Mimikatz, you are so right! I always define it as "assuming the very point you are supposed to be arguing for."
Where did this virus come from? It drives me crazy too. In the last few years it seems to have spread to the point that practically everybody says it. Good on you for protesting. You know, when a wrong meaning gets substituted for a right meaning, the language loses a way of conveying an important concept. Cui bono? Obviously , the more people that don't know what question-begging is, the better for the snake-oil salesmen.

[Kevin Hayden]

I still maintain the best way to push the party is to re-register en masse as Independents. To highlight it, burn some old voter registration cards at rallies for the cameras.

People can always choose to re-register back, for the primaries, if they wish.

But it's thhe sort of thing you could even get Republicans to join in: sending messages to BOTH parties that the WAFFLE politics of late is driving their base away.