Well, the GOP's (certainly, the WH's) best result was a nil return. That way, the Warlord avoids an official (albeit nonbinding) expression of disapproval about his stellar surge strategy - plus he gets to crow about Congressional Dem leaders not being able to run an orgy in a brothel.

Hang on, you say, weren't there supposed to be 60 votes for the Warner-Levin text?

Indeed, that was the supposition, after the verbiage had been tweaked to accommodate wavering GOP without (it was hoped) making it too watery for Dems.

The argument from McConnell seems to have been something like this:

We'll be debating Iraq on and off for the rest of the Congress; Warner's going to have plenty of chances to get a vote on his plan; so, nothing lost if we don't get to the substance on Warner-Levin. (Assuming one can say that a nonbinding resolution has any substance.)

Plus - this is a great chance for a party bonding exercise, all shades of red coming together to show we can, and kick old Uncle Harry in the pants.

Joe Sixpack will neither understand nor care; so, why not?

The act of responsible legislators? Of course not: no sich animule.

But - right before the result of the vote was announced, Reid changed his vote to enable him to make a motion to reconsider (which he duly did just after the vote result was announced).

I'm not sure when the motion to reconsider will be voted on - Rule 13 provides a time limit for making the motion in the first place, but not on when the vote should take place.

My guess would be that the GOP supporters of Warner-Levin, having made their sacrificial vote in the cause of party unity, will want to vote for reconsideration and, on reconsideration, for cloture on the MTP.

And McConnell, accepting that today's pep rally could not be an everyday requirement, would shrug his shoulders.

Not, of course, in accepting defeat: there's more than one way to skin a cat, and I'm fairly sure there will be other shots in his locker. (Which, on maturer reflection, I might be able to identify. Some of them. Possibly.)

But - that would only be a guess...

Update [2007-2-5 20:11:24 by skeptic06]:

Reid mentioned just before the vote that there would be other chances to advance measures critical of Bush's Iraq policy - HR 1 (9/11 Commission bill) and the Iraq supplemental, in particular.

Which is true - but, of course, the surge will likely be over by then (in terms of the stepup in overall numbers of forces).

But - hey! Bush announced the surge on January 10; Congress has been in session all this time; nothing it's been doing has been acutely time-critical.

If MCs were worried about getting in with resolutions and bills opposing the surge before the whole thing was over, why in Sam Hill didn't they start straight away?

And put the 100 Hours stuff on hold. And really work five-day work weeks. (Unlike last week. And the week before.)

If it was so all-fired urgent, the matter was in the hands of the Dem leaderships.

Could it be that they said to themselves, We've counted, and we know we'll only be able to pass a nonbinding res. So let's stay cool and stick with our original plans, just possibly?

Because, for all the stirring references to the Founding Fathers and the power of the purse, to be the new leaders of a Congress and leap straight into making history as the first leaders to try to end a war by defunding with 100,000+ US troops still in the field - that would take Mt Rushmore-size cojones.

And, let's face it, Congressional Dem cojones have been rather more lychee-sized in the last decade or so.

Plus - the 110th is a test-pad. No one expects much to be achieved legislatively, but it's a chance for the Dems to show their competence in government and let some of their policies off the leash.

Impeachment would be one way of stymieing that; a constitutional crisis over Iraq funding would be another.

I'd hope (but not expect) that, if the Harry and Nancy's best advice was that it stood a good chance of success, they'd give it a go. (All of those terms need exhaustive definition and winnowing out of wishful thinking - not a job for the lefty sphere, perhaps...)

It's a hell of a risk, though. And, if the alternative on offer is a Dem prez in 09 who will surely hopefully bring the war to an end on taking office - but that alternative is made much less likely by a defunding crisis?

There are so many angles to be worked through here - and one piece of low-voltage hi-jinks like today's is not worth a hill of beans in comparison.

Update [2007-2-5 20:11:24 by skeptic06]:

While the site has been down and I've been waiting to post the first update, I drifted over to TPM which offers a link to a Post piece (timed at 1822 ET) offering the following explanation (emphasis mine):

As well as the Warner-Levin and McCain-Lieberman texts, there

are two others replete with political mischief-making. The first, drafted by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), recognizes the power of the president to deploy troops and the "responsibility" of Congress to fund them before stating, "Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of fund." A second, hastily written by Democrats, would simply oppose the president's plan and insist all troops are properly protected with body armor and other materiel.

The Democratic leadership gave Republicans a choice: Allow all four resolutions to come to a vote, with a simple majority needed for passage, or debate and vote on just two resolutions, Warner's and McCain's.

McConnell said each of the resolutions should only come to a vote if it attains the 60 votes needed to cut off debate. The reason was simple. Both Democrats and Republicans believe the only measure that could win 60 votes is Gregg's.

Democratic leaders feared that a debate designed to put the Senate on record opposing President Bush's war plan could conclude with passage of a resolution opposing a cutoff of funds for that plan.

Uh oh.

So, get this: by the Post, Gregg had the filibuster-proof majority - and Warner-Levin didn't!

Then what was all the fuss about? Why would Uncle Harry have moved forward with Warner-Levin believing it was a dead duck?

On this basis, McConnell has done Reid a most colossal favor!

Whoda thunkit.