Thursday, May 24, 2007

David Sirota shows how the Dems are going to stealth-pass the blank check bill

Ok, now I'm really pissed.

Here's how it is expected to work today in a process only Dick Cheney could love (though you never know - it could change at the last minute). Every bill comes to the House floor with what is known as a "rule" that sets the terms of the debate over the legislation in question. House members first vote to approve this parliamentary rule, and then vote on the legislation. Today, however, Democrats are planning to essentially include the Iraq blank check bill IN the rule itself, by making sure the underlying bill the rule brings to the floor includes no timelines for withdrawal, and that the rule only allows amendments that fund the war with no restrictions - blank check amendments that House Democratic leaders know Republicans will have the votes to pass.

This means that when the public goes to look for the real vote on the Iraq supplemental bill, the public won't find that. All we will find is a complex parliamentary procedure vote, which was the real vote. Democratic lawmakers, of course, will use the Memorial Day recess to tell their angry constituents they really are using all of their power to end the war, that they voted against the Republican blank check amendment which the rule deliberately propels, and that the vote on the rule - which was the real vote for war - wasn't really the important vote, when, in fact, they know very well it is the biggest vote on the war since original 2002 authorization for the invasion. It is a devious, deliberately confusing cherry on top of the manure sundae being served up to the American public, which voted Democrats into office on the premise that they would use their congressional majority to end the war.

1 comment:

Gonzo said...

Wow. I see the pain.

I see a possibly fallacious assumption here that I've been harping about since November.

If you recall I've disputed the reasons for the Democratic landslide in November. I saw it more as a rebellion against the status quo while Dems argued that it was a repudiation of specific issues, mainly the war in Iraq.

What's happening here is that Congress is tacitly siding with my opinion and afraid to act on their boast that they had a mandate on Iraq. Democratic supporters, buying into the whole "mandate" rationale for the elections are hurt and confused and don't understand why Dem politicians are not following the mandate.

Friends, what is happening versus the rhetoric is exactly what one would expect if my position was correct. There was no mandate, they now know it, and Congress proceeds timidly and uncertainly.

Discuss?