MyDD :: Warner Iraq resolution - what's the whip count?

Warner Iraq resolution - what's the whip count?

by skeptic06, Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:54:25 PM EST

Since we have the Politico Senate poll on Iraq (Chris's piece earlier today), which includes a question on the surge, I thought I'd play about with the numbers.

Chris says that 58 senators pronounced themselves against the surge (it's PDF, rather than Excel - I'm not going to count it manually!).

So far as I can see, of Dem senators, only Lieberman, Lincoln and (for obvious reasons) Johnson failed to to so.

Ten GOP senators say they oppose (counting just straight Nos):

Alexander
Brownback
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Hagel
Murkowski
Smith
Specter
Warner

Snowe in the poll says she supports the surge - but she is also one of 13 cosponsors of S Con Res 7, the latest version of Warner-Levin: Collins, Hagel and Smith are the other GOP cosponsors.

So, let's reckon up: the Dem strength, I'd put at 51, less Lieberman, Lincoln and Johnson, 48.

The GOP, the ten naysayers from the poll plus Snowe: 11.

Total, 59 - Chris's 58, plus Snowe.

That's a maximum: how likely would the votes be of the six GOP naysayers who aren't cosponsoring S Con Res 7?

There are several GOP who didn't say yes or no to the poll; conceivably, one or two of them might be won to the Warner-Levin cause. But - you wouldn't bet the farm on it happening, surely?

Bottom line: from this back-of-the-envelope reckoning, it looks as if, failing some intervening event, the chance of any sort of anti-surge measure passing Congress is small.

Defunding looks like Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Can the numbers be parsed more hopefully? Have at it!

Update [2007-2-6 22:47:1 by skeptic06]:

The other count needing figuring is that on the Gregg text - which apparently has at least 60 votes.

I haven't seen the text - it's not on THOMAS, nor on his Senate site, that I could see - but it doesn't sound the sort of thing that supporters of Warner-Levin would support.

My understanding is that Gregg not only opposes all defunding - something not incompatible with support of Warner-Levin - but also supports the surge - which surely is completely incompatible with support of Warner-Levin!

A Post piece says that the text

...drafted by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., would staunchly back the White House and the president's decision to boost troop strength in Iraq. It 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 funds."

On the other hand, this piece from a NH rag describes the Gregg text as

a straightforward measure that looks to affirm support for the troops and maintain funding without taking a position on the president's plans.

And the LA Times calls it

a short resolution that opposes any limit on funds for American troops in the field.

Bugger! Avoiding this sort of confusion is what they have THOMAS for...

Reverting to the numbers - with 59 pro-Warner, on my numbers, and Johnson hors de combat, that leaves a base of 40 for Gregg. Which senators make up the other (minimum) 20?

Tags: Vote Counting, Gregg Resolution, Warner-Levin Resolution, S Con Res 7, S 470, Iraq Surge, Defunding the Iraq War, Iraq Withdrawal, Poll of Senators on Iraq Legislation (all tags)

Permalink :: 9 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Warner Iraq resolution - what's the whip count (none / 0)

Cheney or someone scared the hell out of all of them somehow. It simply isn't going to happen without a few more months of increasing public disapproval. When it becomes clear just how steep a price they're paying for loyalty to Cheney, they'll back down. But it will be too late.

Defunding is another opportunity to get them on the record. The blood is on their hands.

And it will get worse. No matter what ANYONE says, you're dealing with 1000 (yes, one thousand) years of mutual hatred. There isn't a military solution that doesn't involve nuking the place off the planet (a Final Solution, in other words).

by lightyearsfromhome on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:36:18 PM EST

Re: Warner Iraq resolution - what's the whip count (none / 0)

Yes, but apparently we need some of their votes.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:10:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Iraq resolution - what's the whip count (none / 0)

If Gregg only insures funding it is not incompatible with future bills which mandate timed withdrawal but do not attack funding, no?

If they put the sense of Levin-Warner with the binding affirmation of support for the troops and maintainance of funding why would anyone object to that? They just want their electorates to see them as protecting the interests of the troops in service it seems to me, or are they really standing up for Bush?

Is cutting the funding the only way to get the troops out of Iraq, ultimately?

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:09:04 AM EST

Re: Warner Iraq resolution - what's the whip count (none / 0)

The Gregg text is something of a smokescreen, as I see it: the basic fact is that there are not 60 votes for Warner-Levin (ie, enough for cloture).

So, if they'd want to, the GOP could just have 'filibustered'. Gregg just means that, instead of just obstruction, they have a proposal of their own.

But, it goes one better: although there is currently zero prospect of any kind of defunding passing Congress, the Dems would not want to concede the point.

Plus - the GOP passing 'its' measure, while the Dems are unable to pass theirs, raises the question: who's in charge of the damned Senate anyway?!

So, with Gregg, the GOP have turned a shield (the fact that there are many fewer votes than needed for defunding) into a sword.

So, I'd say, the Dems couldn't accept combining Warner-Levin and Gregg, because denying themselves the possibility of defunding in future would be too big a gift to Bush.

And it could be that there wouldn't be a majority for the combined res, because, for critical GOP, Gregg would be stating the obvious, and wouldn't make them feel better about going for Warner-Levin.

The latest is that the House may try for a res next week - presumably, if the numbers break as in the Senate, there should be the simple majority needed.

But - I'd watch out for the motion to recommit. Up till now in this Congress, this has been its usual futile self.

But I wonder whether Gregg isn't just the sort of amendment that might sneak through. Again, based on the Senate numbers.

And Harry said yesterday that

I spoke to Speaker Pelosi a couple of hours ago. Next week, the House is going to take up the Iraq situation. The legislation they will deal with, I have been told by the Speaker, is whether the House of Representatives will support the surge, the escalation in Iraq. They will finish that next week, and we will get it then, and it will be very direct and to the point.

by skeptic06 on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:59:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Iraq resolution - what's the whip count (none / 0)

So they're going to shift the action to the house, OK. It's the denying themselves the possibility of defunding in future would be too big a gift to Bush that I am wondering about. It's really a gift to the Republican senators. Are they really doing this for Bush or to cover their tails. We only need ten of them. Maybe they are the same ten we need for a binding withdrawal bill.

McGovern-Hatfield was a different set of circumstances. What if the Democrats did concede the point but got a bill heavily critical of the Bush administration with it? I'll bet you could make it surprisingly critical. They'd get cloture and it would unnerve the Republicans. Nice sword, thanks for holding it for us.

What's the worse that could happen if we are planning to deauthorise or mandate withdrawal and not defund? I reckon defunding is risky anyhow. And you just made a whole bunch of new Republican friends. Don't some of them want the war over too before they face re-election? Follow it quickly with the withdrawal bill after cutting a deal. By now they must be secretly believing Bush is crazy too.

And it all sails through the House. Ta-da.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 08:43:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Iraq resolution - what's the whip count (none / 0)

Using one's opponent's weapon against him - definitely has attractions!

The problem is that Senate support for withdrawal timetables is very weak - as (to some extent) confirmed by the Politico poll: if only 23 favor a timetable, that's 16 fewer that voted for the sense of Congress Levin Amendment last June that the WH should publish a redeployment timetable, and reduce US forces in Iraq to numbers required for training and other noncombat roles.

I can't see how bundling the Gregg text with a withdrawal res similar to the Levin Amendment would get the numbers up from 23 to 60.

Back on the surge question and Warner-Levin - with the GOP's skillful use of Gregg, the substance of the fight has almost become of secondary importance to the politics.

Even if Gregg might, in theory, be useful as some kind of bargaining counter, Reid can't give it houseroom. Having had Gregg used against him, it would be a loss of face for him to take it on board, even if a worthwhile concession in exchange could be got.

When the House-passed anti-surge nonbinding res comes across to the Senate (after the Presidents Day recess, presumably - they're back on February 26), we'll get a re-run of this week, I suspect.

But - numbers rule: if Warner-Levin is close to 60 right now (56 or 57, say), I wonder whether enough momentum could be built up with the House res to close the gap.

If so, Harry could fill the amendment tree, move for cloture and Bob's your uncle. Gregg would be just a bad memory.

(GOP anti-surgists who voted against cloture on the motion to proceed on S 470 and bleated that it was all about the freedom to debate may decide that they've paid their dues to the leadership and can now follow their consciences (or political interest).)

But - if I were Harry, I'd be using the breather to work on Dem supporters of Gregg: if Gregg supporters could be reduced below 60, it could no longer be wielded as something on a par with the Warner-Levin text, worthy of equal consideration.

by skeptic06 on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 08:28:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Iraq resolution - what's the whip count (none / 0)

Thanks for your response, it gives me a much better insight in to the tactical frame of these debates, or absence of them.

Firstly, something must be done about the lack of support for a withdrawal bill. The Democrats, especially after the initial 100 hours enthusiasm, must know they are now perceived as obliged to do something besides sense of Congress motions. But what? The press is already splashing the logjam and whether the Republicans or Democrats are to blame doesn't always come up in the first paragraph. It will become an increasingly bigger perception problem as time passes.

I think defunding is a non-starter for reasons I will happily discuss elsewhere. So a binding withdrawal seems like the only course, why am I in the minority on this opinion? Well, I don't know but if the whole thing has descended to a principle of procedure the Republicans have faked us out because we, the majority, have more to lose than they do. Loss of face is not the issue for the electorate.

Running it through the House first achieves what? In the hope there will be a few more Republican defectors? Sounds like a fishing trip.

My point is that there is alot of electoral pressure on some of these Republican Senators to put some distance between themselves and the war. Why make it hard for them to do that? Let's make it hard for them not to.

I realise it is too early for the binding withdrawal to fly but it surely isn't to early to start a, dare I say it, bipartisan process to move something on Iraq. There has got to be a significant and worthwhile quid pro quo we could squeeze out of these Republicans, at least a few of them, in exchange for supporting the troops. Which we would be foolish not to do anyhow.

Some of them must surely be praying they don't have to campaign on the war in Iraq ever again, how do we test the depth of their angst without getting their backs further to the wall?

I realise this is grossly speculative but the electorate will not accept delay in Congress and we will get spattered with any mud no matter who has been blocking the process.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 09:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Iraq resolution - what's the whip count (none / 0)

The basic problem is that there are not currently not the numbers in the Senate even for a milk-and-water text like Warner-Levin.

The Politico poll suggests we are miles off 60 votes for a withdrawal res - even, I suspect, if nonbinding.

The advantage of a House-passed res along Warner-Levin lines, which had garnered some GOP support, would simply be to give Harry another crack at passing a res; but, this time, a res which had the House stamp of approval and would only need to get 60 votes to become official.

If the gap between 60 and the current number for Warner-Levin is only two or three, that might be enough to close it.

Once the House-passed res has 60, Harry can fill the amendment tree, move for cloture and Bob's your uncle.

I think that GOP senators looking for cover would be delighted to be able to vote for something like Warner-Levin, which shows them as dissenters but not bomb-throwers. I can't see any of them going for anything close to a call for withdrawal.

I'm going to think a bit more about this, and pen another piece, I think...

by skeptic06 on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 03:02:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Iraq resolution - what's the whip count (none / 0)

I take your point about Warner-Levin and understand the tactics much better after your patient explanation. Let's hope they can do it, I am sure there is plenty of pressure on wavering Republicans and two or three seems achievable. There was an interesting letter on the subject today to Harry. What are they trying to tell us?

I still think there is some merit in conceding the defunding option in exchange for some significant quid pro quo that would advance a withdrawal proposal. I notice Senator Obama's bill now has two co-sponsors. But that seems like a future step.

I am wondering why the sterling work of Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight, is not getting more coverage. The Bush administration has sent $4B dollars of cash, 363 tons of crisp $100 notes, to the Iraqi government in years past. Isn't it obvious that this money, unaccounted for by the way, was likely used to finance the very militias we are now suppressing? I think the Democrats could get a lot more mileage out of this kind of revelation. It just looks bad and must further erode support, even among Senate Republicans.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 06:30:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.