Call Gregg’s Bluff

Call Gregg\’s Bluff

They\’re kidding, right? Welcome to the dumbest headline of the day: Maybe
the Duck Isn’t So Lame – Bush finds a way to win, or at least a way not
to lose, a crucial showdown on Iraq.

We\’ve got a majority in the House, a squeaker of one in the Senate, but Bush
gets off with his first \”win,\” according to the hack pack. There\’s
no \”win\” on the Iraq war for Republicans. That said, not having a debate doesn\’t work in our favor either, regardless of how you spin it.

The newly empowered Democratic majority failed to win the vote on the nonbinding resolution to block Bush from sending new troops into Iraq. But the president’s real victory lay in keeping his party together at a crucial juncture. How did the White House hold its ground? They ran a play from the tried-and-true Karl Rove playbook. They tapped into the rock-star cachet of the military’s hottest general. And they engaged in some old-fashioned arm-twisting. (snip) The Democrats may have carried the day in November, but they’re still fearful of being labeled as weak—or insufficiently supportive of the troops. So the White House figured, correctly, that the opposition would be unwilling to cut off funding for the forces in Iraq. It seemed no coincidence that Sen. Judd Gregg—one of President Bush’s few personal friends in the Senate—offered the only proposal that was likely to get a rock-solid 60 votes. Gregg’s plan asserted the president’s power to deploy troops and the responsibility of Congress to fund those troops. Gregg’s proposal gave Republicans something to vote for that would not repudiate the president’s plan. It also boxed Democrats in; opposing the measure would have put them on record as voting against funding boots on the ground. The Democrats backed off, postponing the showdown for a time. The White House also played the Petraeus card. .. … Newsweek

The Petraeus card?

I don\’t think so.

Try the Dick
Cheney card. The muscling worked, too.

Harry Reid blinked. He didn\’t want a vote on the Gregg amendment resolution. Bob
Geiger posts on it today.

But here\’s the part of the resolution that Gregg and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) want Democrats to have to vote on: \”Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.\”

The Warner-Levin
Resolution has virtually the same language. What\’s the problem?

Reid doesn\’t want to have the Democrats come down on it. Why are Democrats
afraid to vote on the Gregg amendment resolution? Because Reid can\’t keep his caucus together,
call the Republicans\’ bluff, then move on to other resolutions and win on those.

Seven Republicans want a way out, as was seen yesterday. They\’re squealing for it.

So call Gregg\’s bluff. Vote on it, if only strategically, then move on. Why
not? Because Democrats won\’t play politics with war and shove the Gregg amendment resolution down the
Republicans\’ chickenhawk throats by hanging together on this one. That\’s the problem or the problem with principles, but sometimes when playing hardball you\’ve got to play strategically. Feingold is doubtful to do it, as are others. Republicans can keep
their caucus together and the Democrats can\’t. It may not be Harry\’s fault, because he can\’t force senators to do his will to make a political point that would be to vote on Gregg, but it would throw the Republicans back on their butts if Harry could pull it off. It\’s an ugly reality.

Just be sure of one thing. This isn\’t what voters want to see out of the Senate. They want to hear the debate. As the old saying goes, bring it on.