So, today the Senate approved a measure that, similar to the House bill passed earlier in the week, posits a deadline for pulling out of Iraq. What is sort of interesting about the bill, though, is that Republicans preferred to not filibuster the bill. Instead, they'll be relying on the presidential veto to kill the bill.
This is one of those times when I wish that major papers would include good old institutional analysis as part of their regular reporting. In a lot of ways, filibustering makes for sense for Republicans. First, it's a good way to win some institutional leverage. The members that stand up and talk for hours on end have the chance of getting on TV, impressing their colleagues etc. This is a great way to get attention, that in turn translates into more power to achieve your own policy goals.
In addition, the filibuster (or at least the *threat* to filibuster) is a huge bargaining chip. If Democrats really want to pass this legislation, in any form, they need to craft a bill that will please the "60th member" of Congress. Basically, they need to identify the pivotal vote, and build a bill that pleases that member - or else the bill will be killed. So, why not use the power of the filibuster to craft an Iraq appropriation bill that built in ways to kill the pullout date restriction (like: extending that deadline if certain checkpoints are reached, or guaranteeing a debate before the final withdrawal or whatever) - or even other, unrelated perks?
Well, because Republicans are *scared.* The fear is that things in Iraq will go even more to shit than they have already. So, basically, they're shirking their own institutional check onto the lame duck (and unpopular) president. If he vetoes it - there's limited damage that does to him or the party, since he's on his way out. But if Congressional Republicans kill this or neuter it ... and Iraq gets worse ..... guess who has to answer for it in a few years?
I mean, this isn't really ground breaking analysis ... I just think it should be right there, upfront in the media, so people can really evaluate what parties and members are up to.
This is one of those times when I wish that major papers would include good old institutional analysis as part of their regular reporting. In a lot of ways, filibustering makes for sense for Republicans. First, it's a good way to win some institutional leverage. The members that stand up and talk for hours on end have the chance of getting on TV, impressing their colleagues etc. This is a great way to get attention, that in turn translates into more power to achieve your own policy goals.
In addition, the filibuster (or at least the *threat* to filibuster) is a huge bargaining chip. If Democrats really want to pass this legislation, in any form, they need to craft a bill that will please the "60th member" of Congress. Basically, they need to identify the pivotal vote, and build a bill that pleases that member - or else the bill will be killed. So, why not use the power of the filibuster to craft an Iraq appropriation bill that built in ways to kill the pullout date restriction (like: extending that deadline if certain checkpoints are reached, or guaranteeing a debate before the final withdrawal or whatever) - or even other, unrelated perks?
Well, because Republicans are *scared.* The fear is that things in Iraq will go even more to shit than they have already. So, basically, they're shirking their own institutional check onto the lame duck (and unpopular) president. If he vetoes it - there's limited damage that does to him or the party, since he's on his way out. But if Congressional Republicans kill this or neuter it ... and Iraq gets worse ..... guess who has to answer for it in a few years?
I mean, this isn't really ground breaking analysis ... I just think it should be right there, upfront in the media, so people can really evaluate what parties and members are up to.
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
Quincy, Il on Tuesday, tho...