Posted by
on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:04:54 AM
Democrats are playing the game again, only this time they are closer to the votes they need in the House according to the story Allah @ Hot Air picked up from the WaPo:
To be sure, House Democratic leaders appear to be making progress toward securing the votes to pass a $124 billion emergency war spending bill that would establish strict readiness standards for deploying combat forces and set a firm deadline of Aug. 31, 2008, to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. Clyburn and other House Democratic leaders locked down two critical Democratic converts -- one liberal, one conservative -- yesterday.
At a closed-door gathering of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and an early opponent of the bill, announced that she had changed her position and will support it when it comes to a vote.
After the caucus meeting, Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats, said that he, too, will vote for the bill. "The alternative is an open-ended bleeding of our blood and treasure, with no end in sight and no pressure on the Iraqi government to make the changes necessary," he said.
But their late conversions only pointed up the difficulties in the whip organization. Schakowsky, like Waters, is one of nine chief deputy whips, and her early statements of opposition had stunned leaders. She pledged yesterday to press liberal members of the House Out of Iraq Caucus and Progressive Caucus to fall into line.
Tanner, the Blue Dog representative on the chief deputy whip's team, had been undecided until yesterday morning. Now that he is on board, he hastened to add that he is not about to start leaning on his Blue Dog colleagues. "I don't ask people to vote on the leadership's behalf, particularly on a vote like this," he said.
Kristie Greco, a spokeswoman for Clyburn, said the Democrats' whip organization is broad and diverse, precisely so that a few defections over policy would not affect the vote-counting operation. The days of lock-step discipline under the threat of retribution went out with the Republican majority, she said.
But defections have consequences. With Woolsey adamantly opposed to the bill, Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), a fellow Western regional whip, has to do the work of two. Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) said leaders are pulling in members from outside the whip organization, handing out the names of undecided Democrats to anyone willing to step in.
Confronted yesterday about his balky whip organization, Clyburn was all smiles. Lewis is a pacifist who has earned, in the trenches of the civil rights movement, the right to oppose any additional funding for the war, Clyburn said. Besides, he added, Lewis will not actively work against the bill.
This is not a "line up, sound off, and be heard" sort of a vote coming up. Allah notes some serious strong-arm tactics going on:
The most outspoken critics of the $124 billion wartime spending bill in the House are facing withering support in their fight to defeat it.
California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey said that many of their liberal colleagues were caving under pressure from Democratic leaders who, according to at least one congressman, have threatened to block requests for new funds for his district.
They also cited MoveOn.org's endorsement of the measure Monday as a blow to their efforts.
"For people who are undecided and looking for a reason to vote for the supplemental, MoveOn is going to make a difference, providing instant cover for these members," Woolsey said. ...
... "This is a vote of conscience," Waters said. "Jim Clyburn said he was doing an assessment, so that's what I was doing. Now that he's whipping, I'm going to start whipping."
Clyburn disputed her assertion. "That's not what she told me," he said. "I beg to differ that there's anybody whipping against this bill."
One congressman, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution from leaders, bristled at how aggressively he was being pressured to vote for the bill, singling out Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) as especially forceful.
"I really resent this," the lawmaker said. "Rahm Emanuel told us a vote against this bill is a vote to give the Republicans victory."
The congressman also noted that Democratic leaders had "made clear" to him that they might yank funding requests he had made for projects in his district if he did not support the measure. ...
... Some anti-war activists assailed MoveOn.org's approach to the Iraq bill, alleging that the organization had used a skewed poll to conclude that 85 percent of its members backed the measure.
"MoveOn put out a dishonest poll that did not offer its members a real choice to end the war, and now the peace movement is lobbying activists to reform MoveOn or drop off its list," David Swanson, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, said in an e-mail to The Politico. "I unsubscribed from MoveOn this morning."
In the poll, MoveOn.org gave its members a choice of supporting, opposing or being "not sure" of the plan proposed by the Democratic leadership, according to an e-mail sent to members Sunday by MoveOn.org official Eli Pariser.
It did not mention a more aggressive withdrawal proposal backed by Woolsey, Waters and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.).
Pariser said MoveOn.org had held out as long as possible before backing the leadership proposal.
"We were basically declining to take a position as long as we could to strengthen the hand of the progressives. We did the poll at the last time we felt we could have an impact on the final vote."
He said he would support the progressive proposal if it came to a vote. "We'll encourage people to vote for that and for the supplemental," he said. "We are trying to end the war. That's the mandate."
Democratic leaders are pressing hard on the bill even though some members of their whip operation are themselves opposed. Waters, one of nine chief deputy whips, has said she will not whip for a bill she staunchly opposes.
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The Democrats are up to it again, playing politics with the troops and national security. Now we all know that should this bill miraculously pass the House and the Senate, the president will veto it. And while they may have the votes to make the initial passage, the problem then comes down to the sheer and simple fact that they lack the necessary majority to override his veto.
While there may, indeed, be a couple of defections from the Republicans in the House, Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, will keep the GOP in line in the Senate. The Democrats should be wary of the bill making it to the Senate if they cannot get the necessary defections because Joe Lieberman will defect into the GOP camp on this vote. The new "Zell Miller" of the Senate is well aware of how antiwar and fringe his party has become in the last couple of years. He ran on a platform of supporting the troops and the war. He wil not abandon them in this vote.
As things stand now, the Democrats are short a number of votes. They need 218 to pass it, and the Politico has a hard count, as of right now, of 204 -- 14 shy of the necessary votes. But they also have 48 hours to brow beat their colleagues, and place pressure on the Republicans. One thing is certain: This will get ugly in the home stretch, and I expect some feathers to be ruffled over this vote.
Marcie