Liberal and Loving It

Offer up an Iraq funding bill with no restrictions

Ok, it looks like the Democratic leadership is going to offer up a bill with a couple of minor reporting requirements. In other words, give G.W. Bush exactly what he wants.

Ok, lets do it. Pull out even the reporting requirements. Don't even offer a fig leaf of reporting requirements. Craft a bill that is exactly what he requested down to the last punctuation mark.

Why?

Now before you all grab torches and pitchforks to come after me, here is why I propose this. The Democratic leadership has folded their cards. A give Bush everything he wants bill is coming. And there is no way they can credibly back up from this and insist that they are serious about having real restrictions in the bill.

But what can happen is this bill can move forward and be voted down. Think of the effect if the bill Bush wants comes up for a vote and is voted down. That would make it totally clear to Bush that if he wants funding, he is going to have to compromise.

And that is why we don't want even a single fig leaf in the bill. Because congress can see the writing on the wall. Yes voting against funding can be used against them in '08. But so can voting for a blank check. There is no way to know today which vote would hurt their re-election chances more.

It's not a great next step. But I think it may be our best alternative today. And if the bill is voted down, then it would be a very powerful step. At the very least we can give those trying to stop the war a clear chance to cleanly vote no.

A hero to save us... (not)

For those that have missed it, a couple of GOP wingnuts are trying to bring down the entire Hawaii Republican party. The emails they sent over the last 2 days are here. The first is funny but the second makes them look like a bunch of whiners.

So today they sent this one. (Notice in the picture at the bottom everyone voting has long pants on - must have been real cold that election day.)

And at the bottom it talks about a plan "they found on the internet." Someone who can save the Hawaii GOP. What luck that they just happened to stumble on this plan. We know people as obviously honorable and forthright as this group (who uses an anonomous email account and stole the email list from the GOP) would not be lying to us. No way.

So who is this hero that they found for us (actually for you as I don't live in Hawaii)? His name is Eric Ryan and a quick google search shows that his total political activity (aside from bitching in web posts) was a failed effort to stop a rail tax 14 years ago. And that appears to be the only thing he has done.

This is the best they could find? Someone who's entire political effort (writing doesn't count unless you get paid to do it) was a single failure 14 years ago? Wow, they are really pulling out the big guns.

And his plan of action. To kick out every Republican who has accomplished something. Getting elected is hard. Running a state effectively is even harder. The elected Republicans and the Lingle administration are the Republicans who have accomplished this difficult task. And this is who he wants to get rid of?

This guy is dumber than George Bush. Give a moron a soapbox and he's still a moron.

Why do we have to pass a bill Bush will sign?

Ok, lets look at his from a purely political perspective. Put aside what is the right thing to do (for now). Put aside what the Democratic base wants. Lets look at the Iraq funding issue purely from the perspective of what will get Democrats re-elected.

The country is conflicted over Iraq. Clearly the mood is that we never should have invaded and to bring the troops home. But at the same time, the country does not want to admit defeat and is afraid of how much worse Iraq will be if we leave. And all of these are understandable emotions.

So politically congress needs to pass an Iraq funding bill. Doing nothing will not fly. Forcing an immediate withdrawal would be a political death sentence for many many many in congress (remember, this discussion is political expediency only).

But giving Bush a blank check is not popular either. It's not a political death sentence (at least for Democrats). But it won't be popular either. Especially when you have to measure it's effect not today but in the fall of 2008. At the speed that the Iraq war is becoming a larger and larger disaster in people's minds, a blank check vote now is bad news.

So here's the interesting question. What if congress keeps passing bills with timetables, benchmarks, etc and keeps sending them to Bush. And he keeps vetoing them. How does he sell that the problem is congress if they keep giving him bills with "reasonable" restrictions and he keeps vetoing them?

It will be impossible for him to lay blame on congress if they keep giving him bills and he keeps vetoing them. Congress can turn the argument around that they have passed the funding and Bush refuses to accept it and deliver it to the troops. It will put the Republicans in an almost impossible political position if Bush continues to veto bills. To the point that either you get a veto override or Bush accepts one.

What is key to this is that Congress must do two things. First, as the deadline approaches they must continuously hammering out new bills and passing them. If it gets real close or goes past the point where the military has to start cutting back, they can go into 24/7 session - no adjournment until they pass a bill that is accepted or the veto overridden. Think of the picture of Congress in session at 3:00 am trying to work out a good compromise while Bush complains - he loses that battle.

Second, each bill must be substantially different and must have real restrictions in it. The substantially different gives Congress the argument that they are trying and compromising. The real restrictions put Bush in a bind and are what the country wants to see happen. That will give the Democrats something to proudly run on in '08. (One suggestion to add - include taxes to pay for the funding.)

Too many people have bought Bush's argument that an acceptable bill must be passed in time. That not doing so will be a political loser. I think there is a much stronger argument that Congress continuing to clearly work for a good compromise, and offering bill after bill, is a much better political tactic for the Democrats.

It also is the right thing to do. But that's not part of this discussion...

Hawaii GOP self-destructing

If you think the Republicans have it bad nationwide right now, you should take a look at Hawaii. Hawaii has historically been Democratic to the point that out of 55 state house seats, the Republicans have at times held as few as 5.

Right now the Republicans have maybe 20% of the legislature. The Democrats hold both House and both Senate seats. The only bright spot for the Republicans is that the governor is Republican. Needless to say, to get elected and re-elected in Hawaii she is a very moderate Republican. (A good one too in my opinion.)

So what does the Republican base in Hawaii do? Do they build on the governorship to increase the number of Republicans elected? Do they stress the corruption and ineptitude of the state government that comes from 40 years of one party rule? Do they understand that politics is the art of the compromise and figure out how to appeal to 50% + 1 voters?

Take a look at this email blast that was just sent out to all Republicans in Hawaii (and Democrats like me that are on the list). And this went to the Hawaii GOP mail list - maybe not officially but that is the only way I would have gotten this.

No - these bozos form a circular firing squad and decide to show themselves as more obtuse and insular than G.W. Bush. It appears that a significant chunk of the politically active base in Hawaii has decided that they want to take the Libertarian route - to be ideologically pure even if it means they can never get anyone elected.

Before you say good - that anything that hurts the Republicans is a good thing, keep in mind that the Democrats own Hawaii. The state desperately needs a competitive political system to give the voters a choice. And only with a choice will they see the government improve.

I hope with this that the moderate Republicans will invite these self-righteous politically incompetent blowhards to leave the party. It might be the best route to the Hawaii GOP becoming competitive - drop the wingnuts and go after the moderates.

But in the meantime, the Hawaii GOP is busy making themselves a bigger disaster than the national Republicans. I guess they figure if they are going to drive off the cliff - they should do so at top speed.

Update:

Apparently the wingnuts are taking lessons from spammers (what a great role model) and sending an email a day. Here's todays. The first one was clever. This one just makes them look like crybabies. (My mom is 2nd from the bottom on the far left.)

The next Iraq funding bill - an idea

All the discussion around what bill to send to President Bush has missed one key item. And it is not only necessary, but it also will force the Republicans to face just how serious they are about the war.

The war needs to be paid for. We can pay now or we can pay later but the costs must be covered. And without question the responsible course, the only sustainable course, is to pay now. Every other war this country has fought has been accompanied with higher taxes.

If the Republicans are serious about fighting, then they must be willing to fund it. So here is my proposal...

The next bill sent to Bush, with or without benchmarks, with or without timelines - it includes tax increases to fully fund the bill. And this tax increase is a corporate tax surcharge (they make the profits from the war) clearly set to fully fund the "supplemental" bill.

First off, it's the right thing to do if we are going to continue funding the war. Second, it puts the Republicans in a very difficult politial position - either increase taxes or say they aren't really serious about the war.