Source: Senate Leadership's Backing Of Obey's Short Term Iraq Funding Plan "Unlikely"
That new Iraq war funding plan crafted by Dem Rep. David Obey that we reported on below? It's "unlikely" to get the Senate leadership's support, a source tells us.
The plan would fund the war through July but then make continued funding contingent on progress in Iraq. It has been stirring cautious optimism among some House staffers, because it allows House Dems a way of continuing their confrontation with the White House over the war. More on the plan here.
But it may not get very far in the Senate. We just checked in with a Senior leadership aide and asked if the Senate leadership was open to the approach or viewed it as a nonstarter. The aide's answer:
One of a number of options -- but unlikely
The reason for the Senate's reluctance was unclear, but one Hill staffer speculated that it was mainly "procedural."
Meanwhile, another leadership aide tells me that Nancy Pelosi -- who hasn't taken a position on the Obey proposal -- is "open" to it. But a House aide told CQ Congress Daily (sub. only) that her backing was unlikely, because the proposal would lead to a second Presidential veto.
What's so bad about a second veto?
May 4, 2007 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
indeed! that's what I've been sayin'
May 4, 2007 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't let the Broders get to you Senate Dems, the American People are behind you.
May 4, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what if Bush vetoes funding bills? If Dems keep sending them to him, the ultimate message will be, "We're trying to fund this war, and Bush keeps killing it." If we wash, rinse, repeat two or three times, it'll be plain to everyone just who's playing games with the funding.
As far as Obey v. Senate Dems is concerned, it's fine for them to fight a bit. No House/Senate agreement = no bill = no funding. If they keep fighting, then ultimately, they'll have to pass a 60-day extension because it'll be all they can agree on for now. If Bush vetoes that, then it's his problem. He can't guarantee that enough Congresspersons will ever agree on anything else.
May 4, 2007 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is Pelosi so worried about a second veto? Let him veto a thousand times. Who cares? As long as he eventually loses, that's what counts. The Democrats are being unnecessarily wimpy, in my opinion. The public is behind a timetable. The Democrats should listen to the public.
May 4, 2007 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, wait. This says that an aide said Senate leadership(?) support was "unlikely", and then goes on to say something about "the Senate's reluctance".
Let's not take one aide's opinion about Senate leadership as any kind of meaningful measure of actual lack of support in the Senate. This is cutting it uncomfortably close to what the WashPost did recently.
May 4, 2007 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
it seems to be that there are some "house aides" that are completely off-message --and promoting their own agenda....and a bunch of irresponsible "journalists" who won't bother to contact Pelosi's office for comment on these kids of rumors...)
*************
HEY! ITS FRIDAY! WHERE IS MY DOCUMENT DUMP!?!?!
May 4, 2007 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vetoing a different second bill is probably even better than vetoing the same one b/c it shows that the Democrats are trying to be flexible, and Bush is the stubborn one who won't change course.
Obviously that's abundantly clear to everyone paying attention, but there are many, many voters who do not pay very much attention at all to these things, an dthis would further clarify for them.
May 4, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been calling Pelosi's office (415.556.4862) and the poor gal at the other end of the line says it's been a LONG week.
May 4, 2007 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Dems need to enlarge this philosophy to point out that this is the PAYGO system but tied to the Iraqi War. (It is also necessary to point out that the Republicans dumped all benchmarks on the progress of domestic spending programs to reaching stated goals as well).
Democrats believe that a responsible Congress wants all spending to be done with an eye toward achievable and verifiable benchmarks toward success. And, like domestic spending programs, if progress is not made the program is automatically ended.
May 4, 2007 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats have finally gotten some control of the government and they going to give it away. Stop talking through the press and start talking to each other. One plan and jam it down Bush's throat. No redos take it or leave it. You negotiate in private and stand together in public. If the president vetos the bill then let him shuffle the money to pay for the war.
Indecision and inching up on a plan is going to end them back on the street. You make a plan and stay with it. The Dems are in this position because they don't seem to have the guts to stick to a plan. The troops aren't going to starve, so what if they have to stay in the barracks and can't fight. If the D's don't have the guts to play, there going to go to the back of the bus.
No guts no glory.
May 5, 2007 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink