I for one liked the idea of raising money to commission polls. If Democrats aren't going to play the frame game, then we ought to do it for them.

Not only could we poll to see which outcome the American people would favor, but we could use such polls to re-frame issues, in the hopes that their results would be aired on the news.

I think the thing to do after the Veto of the bill with the withdrawal language is to do what I advocate here...

That is, as quickly as possible, send a different bill back to the president, minus the withdrawal language, but with a repeal of the ban on federal spending for stem cell research.

The chances of actually forcing an administration that doesn't want to withdraw to withdraw (without a majority capable of overriding a veto) is minimal to nonexistant at this point.

So after the veto we need to turn the situation as much to our advantage as possible - to me, that means using the leverage to either get a different popular measure passed (Stem cell research), or forcing the president to issue a second veto, which would be totally indefensible to the public.   Another option would be to put restrictions in the bill which come short of withdrawal - but would still be enough to provoke a veto, given the premium this administration places on consolidation of power.

The strategy, essentially, is to force the administration to make a series of increasingly indefensible moves, or to force them to give in on an issue that they don't want to.

We may not be able to force withdrawal, but we have a pretty big lever to work with here to get other goals accomplished.

The one key is to work quickly - we need to ensure as much as possible that any delays in funding are due to executive recalcitrance and not due to congressional wrangling.

I think the best strategy is to keep sending the bill back to Bush...after 2 or 3 times he either caves or the Republicans cave on the override votes.  It would show resolve and strength on the part of the Democrats (which has obviously been sorely lacking for over a decade.)

What is probably going to happen is that Blue Dogs once again will come to the rescue of the president and hold the caucus hostage by arguing that we need to give Bush a blank check or else we are weak on defense and they will lose their seats. Bush gets the blank check after override is not accomplished.

Why would anybody think the President has the upper hand in these battles?  A clear majority of the American public wants the war to end, and Bush's approval rating is in the neighborhood of 30%.

Bush is not emotionally capable of compromise.  He won't try to compromise.  Not on Iraq.  This is his signature issue, and he thinks he has the right to tell Congress to fund his war without any conditions.

Congress should not cave.  

They could pass another bill that was essentially the same, if they wanted to.

Commissioning polls is a good idea, but we need an immediate strategy.  I say we give him what he wants - half of what he wants. Then we go through the same vote in about six months time for the other half, he'll do the same, probably with less Republican support, and we can remind the public who it is that is perpetuating this war.  

The key is to always keep it fresh in the voters' minds whose war this is.

Our strategy seems clear as day to me. From this day forth, the bill will be referred to as a "spending bill". "We have sent a spending bill funding the troops in Iraq, and demanding a change in course that insists our military is not kept in harms way merely to protect someone's vanity. It remains to be seen if this President will fund the soldiers so they can finally get the armor and equipment they need to complete the mission he has tasked them with, but if the President chooses to protect his ego over the safety of our troops, rest assured that the Democratic Congress will let no one, most especially the President, prevent us from get the soldiers whatever they need."

My idea is to fund a 'clean bill' once and only once - and only for one quarter of funding, not an annual supplemental. Here's how I think it would play out...

My suggested Democratic Congress response to a veto:

  1. Fund one quarter of the Iraq supplemental + Demcoratic add-ons for VA spending + military care

  2. Repass stronger hard timetables for withdrawal in 3 months

  3. President will veto again

  4. Switch gears, Pass and Fund withdrawal from Iraq

  5. President vetoes withdrawal funding

  6. Repass and Fund withdrawal from Iraq

  7. President vetoes again

  8. Call on President to act as responsible Commander in Chief to command the responsible safe withdrawal of US troops from harm's way consistent with his duty as CIC with existing DoD funds - if he fails impeach him for dereliction
 - - -

If you play out these scenarios funding a clean quarter of an Iraq supplemental does nothing to harm the withdrawal timetable and allows the media narrative to sync up with public opinion. It's also a clear compromise with Bush. In 3 months Bush isn't going to be stronger, he's going to be weaker and a better, stronger withdrawal bill can be passed. There doesn't have to be a great confrontation by some arbitrary date (April 15) that is the construction of the White House. Funding quarterly keeps the initiative with Congress. I think it will only be one or two quarters until the American people bring enough pressure to end the war.

saying that the withdrawal section is unconstitutional and will be ignored.

That is not a prediction, but it is a plausible alternative.

George

chris - i am very glad to see that so far, chris, i was wrong about the senate vote (there was, at least, a watered down version of the withdrawal timeline).  hope i get to keep saying "i was wrong"... .

for your first set of questions.... IF the conference committee keeps the house withdrawal language AND bush vetos it... then my suggestion is as follows:

step 1. compromise wrt to some of the details - BUT keep the hard final withdrawal deadlines in 2008. try to show some good faith negotiations - but not on the big issue of a) the troops are coming home. and b) no permanent bases.... (iraq's future belongs to iraqis).

step 2. if that gets vetoed, then a similar bill but with funding for only 3 months at a time - extends the debate and makes the republicans vote for an endless occupation until public opinion forces them to vote to bring the troops home. make the republicans (and blue dog dems) separate themselves from bush and his occupation.

How about we approve funding for the next 30 days, so that we can keep talking about this issue, and forcing the Repulicons to vote in favor of more meaningless death, and destruction, and war without end.

1. The Congress has passed funding a bill for the war in Iraq which sets a withdrawal deadline of April 2008, but the President has promised to veto any restrictions on his war powers. Who has the most credibility in this standoff?

A. I trust the President to make all decisions regarding war conduct.
B. I trust the Congress to set reasonable guidelines for military funding.

2. Regarding the political conflict describes above, both the President and the Congress claim Constitutional authority to make the decision about war funding guidelines. Who seems to be acting within their constitutional rights and responsibilities, and who is overstepping their Constitutional authority?

A. The President lacks the authority to defy Congress's restrictions.
B. Congress lacks the authority to restrict the President's war powers.

Both questions serves mostly the same purpose as your first question, Chris, but the aim for each is a bit different (I wouldn't ask all three, but you might think about which is most appropriate): much of this debate (on TV) is going to be about who's within their rights, and who we want making the decision (yours, I would say, measures whose outcome is more accepted), and these questions are aimed to get at those two issues, which will be so widely discussed by our chattering pundit classes.

If we've learned anything in the last 6 years, there is no way to compromise with Bush. But playing chicken with him using the troops is not a good idea. Bush would let the troops suffer just for kicks, so you can be sure he'll win a game of chicken with responsible Democrats.

I think this issue will be played out in the corporate media and they will amplify any suffering by the troops to harm the Democrat's position. How can the Democrats win the PR battle? Can Congress submit the same bill twice? How much modification would be needed to put it back on Bush's desk? How about making the money contingent on Bush providing a detailed plan for the stabilization of Iraq and a timetable for withdrawal? Could they ask him come up to the Hill with a plan in hand?

As soon as the bill is signed, fan our guys out on the talk shows, emphasizing how many, many more Americans are being sent into a dire situation without the equipment they need, and that we must pass this funding bill NOW. Hold rallies demanding that the President not play politics with our soldiers' lives. He sent them there, now he wants to cut them loose? There are times when a leader's pride must take a back seat to the needs of the nation... isn't it time this President sacrifice a little something for those who have sacrificed so much for his mistakes?

I am an idiot, of course, but my suggestion for a post-veto strategy is a continuing-resolution approach.  Not even the Pentagon can spend a hundred billion dollars overnight, so why does Bush need the hundred billion dollars all at once?  Let the Democrats pass a "clean" supplemental for about $10 billion -- enough to keep the Pentagon out of hock for another month or so.  Let Bush veto THAT.  

Naturally, if he takes the money, he will have to ask Congress for another supplemental the next month.  Month by month, Congress can offer immediate no-strings stop-gap funding PLUS the balance conditioned on withdrawal.  Month by month, Dubya's pigheadedness becomes more glaring.  Month by month, 08 gets closer.

-- TP

If time is an issue then appropriate a supplemental for a shorter time period say 2 or 3 months and say that the deadlines for bringing our boys home are still out there. Then come back with the same bill.  

The budget cannot be filibustered.  So that helps us going forward from Oct 2007.  Set aside money specifically for troop redeployment and don't budget money for the war. There would only be money for redeployment and continuing necessary operations.  There would not be money to stay the course.  

Right now it seems almost impossible that we could override a veto. Of course, last week it was thought unlikely that we could get the Senate to pass a bill with a specific timeline in it...

I think the Dems already have the answer to your question: the outside pressure of constant investigations, imminent subpoenas, and congressional hearings targeting people throughout the administration. The firing of the AGs would have normally been considered too esoteric for the average Joe citizen, but it nevertheless had a discernible impact on public opinion. If these investigations get closer & closer to the president, we simulataneously cleave additional GOP congressmen away from his Iraq & Iran positions, while also pressuring him to give in.

The Dems need to realize that they have the pliers on this one, and Bush is the nut.

Memekiller, I like your strategy best.

But the bottom line is that, especially because it's the Democrats we're talking about, we cannot, ever, EVER, back down.

We've drawn our line in the sand, and we have to hold to it.

If we get called heartless and cruel, we hold to it.

Because if we don't, we will be called weak, and the media will jump up and down on this point like a ten-year-old's first experience with a trampoline.  

And the public will not forgive us for being weak.  They won't be happy about the standoff, they won't be happy if troops don't get what they are perceived as needing, but then they haven't before and aren't now.  We have to remind them of that, and constantly.

We will need to help steady the Congressional Democrats, supplement their spine, and craft and promote very short, sharp, messages.  It will be very hard work.

But we can win this, as long as we do not back down.

Bush said that if the troops are left in the field without resources (he vetoes bill, Congress does not pass alternate) the American people will know who is responsible. We will - him.

Dems should immediately pass a bill setting aside funds for  troop withdrawal so that no matter the political debate, if war funding is stopped, these funds would be used to bring our forces home.

This bill would have a pretty good shot to pass (Who wants to vote against NO TROOP LEFT BEHIND?) and then gives Dems the leverage on the issue.

Simply state "In the election of 06, the American people made their voice heard on Iraq. We've done our work, it's time to come home. Now the President must make a decision - end this war with honor (sign bill) or put his pride before the well being of the nation and use the lives of troops as political betting chips. (veto)

Didn't the Iraq Study Group recommend a redeployment and more aggressive diplomacy?  Aren't lots of former generals saying the same thing?  

"We've sent the President a bill that funds the new strategy recommended by James Baker's Iraq Study Group.  He is vetoing it and insisting on his own strategy, using funding for the troops as a blackmail tool."

I don't like any of the first three options listed, and I think they are all potential losers, in terms of framing the issue for the press.  

Harry Reid is doing a great job at preparing for the veto, putting the onus on the Bush to take the initiative to compromise with Congress, and offer an acceptable alternative to what he's rejected.  

Bush is the one who will lose, if there is a stalemate, and he's the one who vetoed the spending bill.  

Therefore, both for the legitimate purpose of getting the troops out and for the political purpose of forcing Bush to either compromise or jeopardize what little support he has left, Congressional Dems should call for the President to come to the table and compromise, while at the same time stating that the bill he's rejected is the best deal he is likely to get.  

Don't try to pass the current bill again, or try to override the veto.  If anything, pass a bill with stronger terms than the ones he's rejected.    

In negotiating, there are many strategies.  The one most Americans are familiar with is the old "ask for more than you want, then you can give something away to get what you really want" method.  But it's not the only method.  

The method Bush prefers is "take it or leave it," but that's not really a negotiation strategy.  The other strategy that is used, at least in legal practice, is to offer a good deal first, and then, if the offer is rejected, to take a much harder line.  Lots of Americans are familiar with this method of negotiation.  It occurs on many "law" shows on t.v., and is a routine practice with many prosecutors.  "Come clean now, and we'll go easy on you.  Make us work for it, and you'll pay a much heavier price."  This is the strategy that we need to pursue.  This offer is the good offer, the most compromise that Dems can stomach and still hold everything together.  If he doesn't like this, we need to go back with another, even more unpalatable bill.  

He may threaten to veto, and even veto, that one too.  But the Dems can say that we tried to compromise, but the President is too inflexible, he doesn't get that the American people are behind Congress, and he's got to demonstrate that he intends to abide by the will of the American people.  Make it Bush versus the people, and not allow him to make it Bush versus Congressional Democrats.  

I'm reminded of the Kruschev/Kennedy positions in the Cuban Missile Crisis -- both sides privately told the other that they were "committed."  Kruschev finally had to back down, and it destroyed him politically.  Pelosi and Reid need to frame this issue that the Dems are committed to making Bush understand that the American people are not going to continue to write blank checks, and if he didn't like this bill, he's going to like what happens next even less.  

That's how this issue needs to be framed, and that's the strategy that ought to be pursued.  You don't engage in continuous negotiations with a three year old throwing a tantrum.  You give him a choice -- behave, or you'll go in time out until you are ready to behave.  

Bush is long overdue for such a time out.    

This is the PERFECT opportunity to completely switch the frame on this issue 180 degrees.

Think of what Bush is vetoing: he's not only vetoing the withdrawal timetable -- but he's vetoing actual funding for the troops!  

This sets up a brilliant reframing slogan: "Bush would rather CUT OFF FUNDING FOR THE TROOPS than agree to a timetable to get out of this war."

For once, the Republicans will be on record as being so wedded to ideology that they refuse to support the troops in the field.

I think it needs to be bigger picture, why clash there is not upside, keep restating where we know we are right ie, we will not sign off on the "inept Bush war without end"  Substitute any other i term that fits, incompentent, idiotic, insincere, whatever works for the speaker.

Try to work out a compromise with Bush somewhere between this bill and a blank check. This is the "get anything you can" strategy, but keep in mind that the current bill is already compromised.

I think before we start even suggesting this sort of thing we need to figure out and have firmly in mind the answers to two questions:

- What is it Bush wants?

- What is it we want?

We need to know the second thing-- what is it we want out of this, anyway?-- because otherwise there's no point. We don't want "anything we can get", exactly-- there are some things that are important to us and some things that are not. It's not worth it to get a bill passed just for the sake of getting to brag that we passed a bill. We have to figure out: With this supplemental bill, what is our specific foremost goal? Which of the things in this bill are non-negotiable? Which of the things in this bill are just stuff we'd like but can live without? The Democrats should probably internally settle on one specific aspect of the bill-- say, the existence of a timetable-- and say, this one thing is what we're fighting for, everything else can be used as bargaining chips.

We need to know the first thing-- what is it Bush wants?-- because otherwise negotiation can go nowhere. The Bush Administration surely has their own non-negotiables, and the Democrats need to be at least somewhat aware of what these things probably are going in.

Besides all this there are two problems.

The first is that it may well turn out to be that the single thing the Democrats most want to get and the single thing Bush most wants to avoid are the same thing-- say, the existence of a timetable.

The second, and perhaps more threatening possibility, is that perhaps in fact the sole and only thing Bush is objecting to is that Congress is doing anything at all. That is, it could be that what Bush is objecting to is not any particular detail of the contested supplemental provisions, but the mere fact that his absolute power to dictate the progression of the war exactly always as he sees fit is being questioned or limited. If this is the case, negotiation is basically impossible, because the White House's sole objection is that they shouldn't have to negotiate with anyone. If this really is the case, however, maybe the Democrats should still make a go at negotiation, but perhaps with different goals-- that is, instead of a goal of getting concessions that will never come, the Democrats should negotiate with an eye just to making it very clear in the public eye and press that the White House is simply not willing to work with anyone.

I'm sorry, but everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the amendment survived on a razor. 50-48. Don't assume you can do whatever you want with that bill next time. Minimal changes in round 2.

Also, several above are pessimistic about taking on Bush's obstinacy. Actually, he sucks at chicken, because it's the only game he knows. Didn't work with Korea. Ain't gonna work with Iran. He's a chronic bluffer and today's bullshit speech about Americans taking his side over congress' was, in the vernacular, a major tell.

I think one of the mistakes the left blogosphere continually makes is that they are oversold on the importance of framing.

Framing works well when people are already predisposed to trust the framer. Its simply taking credibility from one area and using it to leverage credibility in another. If Bush is trusted on national security, his attempts to frame opposition to the Patriot Act as evidence of Democratic weak knees is likely to work.

But that isn't what we have right now. I don't think you can frame your way back in to credibility. You have to result your way back in.

I strongly believe that the Dems need to keep showing backbone here. The public wants the war to end. If Bush refuses to accept funding for the troops under the condition of a deadline, I am quite confident that the public will blame him, not the Dems.

That said, I don't expect that the result of all this will necessarily be what has been predicted. I suspect one of:

1) Bush eventually signs the bill, with a signing statement that he rejects the Constitutionality of Congress' attempt to impose a deadline, and states that he has no intention to comply with the deadline.

2) A few Dems buckle at the knees and the bill passes without the deadline, but with a clear policy distinction having been made between Dems and Republicans.

3) Bush makes do without the appropriations bill, relying on executive authority to reassign other funds to Iraq. Iraq continues, at the expense of funding problems for other defense priorities. The Democrats express anger at Bush's willingness to jeopardize national security to insist on his own way in the Iraq fiasco, but realize that they have to be big and fund America's other defense priorities, which are passed without an Iraq deadline.