Reid opens the door to a deal with the GOP — but is it a good one?

August 31, 2007

I suspect everyone, no matter what he or she thinks of the war in Iraq, can pretty much guess how the next funding debate is going to go. Dems will include a withdrawal timeline in the spending bill, and Republicans will filibuster. Unable to break the filibuster, Dems will grudgingly give Bush what he wants. If, by chance, the GOP doesn’t filibuster, the president will veto the spending bill, Dems will be unable to override, and then Dems will grudgingly give Bush what he wants.

Knowing in advance how it’s going to turn out, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is reaching out to Republican senators to see if there’s some kind of deal they can reach.

Saying the coming weeks will be “one of the last opportunities” to alter the course of the war, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he is now willing to compromise with Republicans to find ways to limit troop deployments in Iraq.

Reid acknowledged that his previous firm demand for a spring withdrawal deadline had become an obstacle for a small but growing number of Republicans who have said they want to end the war but have been unwilling to set a timeline.

“I don’t think we have to think that our way is the only way,” Reid said of specific dates during an interview in his office here. “I’m not saying, ‘Republicans, do what we want to do.’ Just give me something that you think you would like to do, that accomplishes some or all of what I want to do.”

Reid, to his credit, has been arguing consistently for months that he’s desperate to end the war, but hasn’t been able to figure out how. This outreach, therefore, is a surprising concession — Reid is effectively admitting that he won’t get what he wants, so he’s willing to see what he can get.

I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea of Reid reaching out across the aisle to see what kind of flexibility, if any, Republicans have on shaping a new Iraq policy, but as usual, the devil’s in the details. And in this case, the details don’t look encouraging.

Reid told the WaPo, “There is no reason that this be Democrat versus Republican.” But, he said, Republicans are going to have to eventually stand up to Bush. “All these people saying September is here, September is the time — they’re going to have belly up to the bar and decide how to vote,” Reid said.

Very true, but in the same respect, Reid is going to run into an up-or-down moment of his own: either Bush is going to get another blank check or he won’t. Greg Sargent asked Reid’s office if the senator is open to funding the war without a timetable for withdrawal. Reid’s spokesperson said:

As he said in the piece, it’s time for Republican critics of the war in the Senate to belly up to the bar, because it’s absolutely evident that the President isn’t going to move from his failed stay the course strategy. While Senator Reid remains absolutely committed to bringing our troops home, the question is whether we can find enough Republicans willing to break with the President to give us the 60 votes necessary.

I recognize the underlying message here — Reid doesn’t have the votes to get what he wants — but Senate Dems have another option: bring up the funding bill with a timeline. If the GOP blocks it, don’t bring up another one. If it passes and Bush vetoes, again, don’t bring up another one.

The White House has always entered these fights with a no-compromise, I-demand-everything attitude. If Democrats entered the fight with the same approach, they might be surprised by the results.

Well, my stomach turned when I just read the headline of this post. Who says Reid has to “get” anything? It’s Bush who wants something. Hey Reid, Just Say No.

  • Already time to capitulate? Man that was quick.

    Stop the damn thing. Deny King George his ransom and remind him that We, The People, are the bosses in this country, not him.

    If he insists on keeping the troops in harms way when the funds run out, impeachment becomes an easy sell. And hang it around the neck of every ReThug who continues to support their Dear Leader.

  • The problem now is one of “accidental war.” Lets assume that had the Dems entered the fight this past spring – the first time they did so with a majority – credibly signalling the WH that they were taking a “no compromise” line. As Steve says, the results might have been surprising – the WH might have reached out to seek a compromise.

    But now the WH has been “trained” that the Dems will eventually back down. So now the Dems say “if you block or veto the bill, there wont be another one.” The WH internal discussion goes a little like this:

    DEF SEC GATES: “We cant end up with no bill, so maybe we should work with them this time.”

    VP CHENEY: “No way. They’ll back down, they always do. Tell ’em they can go f**k themselves.”

    And in the end, despite agreeing that Gates would be right if his premise was correct, but believe his premise is wrong and that Cheney’s is correct instead the WH takes a hard line. And so does the Senate. And in the end, there is no bill, which is then the worst kind of least-organized defunding and withdrawal imaginable.

    The result is one nobody wanted, but they got there because the signals the Dems were sending were not credible. I’m not sure what can be done about it – the Dems screwed this one up horribly this spring and summer – but I think this scenario represents a legit problem we now have to face.

  • As you draw up the plans to withdraw and surrender, make sure you place the order for all the body bags you’ll need for the american civilians the terrorists will kill. Send the bill to Reid.

  • I’d really like to give Reid the benefit of the doubt, but these things never seem to work out very well. There’s some merit in seeing what’s possible without committing to anything. Unfortunately I’m convinced that there won’t be any offers worth taking.

    Forcing the GOP to veto/filibuster is terrible and not great for the military or the country at large, but I’m afraid that might be the only real option.

  • Why not give Bush all the money he wants, but pay for it with a one time Wealth surcharge (not including value of principle residences)?

    Reid: okay GOP you want $50 Billion more for the Iraq War, fine. But its going to come from the wealthiest in this country.

    GOP: uhhh…uhhh…we’d rather just borrow the money from the Chinese.

  • Re: len @ #4

    I think that I speak for the vast majority of readers here at TCR, go [expletive] yourself, you [expletive] piece of [expletive]. No one here wants to hear your [expletive] [expletive].

  • I agree Edo. If we’re going to allow Bush’s policy to continue, at least let’s find a way to pay for it without borrowing more from China. I’m sure our friend Len at #4 would agree with that much at least. You’d be willing to pay more tax to keep us from having to withdraw, right Len? Or should we keep putting this foreign adventure on the national credit card?

  • Thanks Haik.

    I do want to be clear that I don’t want to suggest raising taxes across the board. I think a one-time surcharge on wealth above $1,000,000 (excluding principle residence) or 2006 Income above $500,000.

  • Why is it seen that Democrats can’t get enough votes to withdraw the troops when it should be Republicans can’t get enough votes to continue funding this occupation?

    Why doesn’t Reid start from that position of strength telling republicans and the president you will never get the funding unless you agree to my terms.

    Will Bush continue to hold the troops “hostage” as blackmail to get his funding saying, “give me the money I ask for or I’ll leave the troops out there to die”?
    When will Reid just learn to say NO. What part of no does he not understand.

    Republicans will not side with Reid for no other reason than they know thast Reid and the Dems will give in and that it is political suicide for them to do so, to be seen as weak and cowardly.
    btw… The extra $50billion is to cover the initial cost of attacking Iran. That’s why gates didn’t know about it even though it’s his defense budget, he couldn’t very well have budgeted that in could he? Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse.

    Who are the Dems listening to because it sure isn’t their constituents? Why can’t they see that siding with Bush and giving him the funding goes against the whole reason they won the majority? It must stop, and it must stop now and the funding is the only way left to stop it because Bush will never stop until he is “forced” to.

    I wish I could tell my friends that Bush and the republicans cannot get enough votes to continue funding this occupation or to continue the surge policy. The Democrats will never give it to him. God, when will Reid stop playing the victim(wah..”we” can’t get enough votes) and start from a winning position (“they” can’t get enough votes…even if we have to filibuster). That’s why Democrats in congress has such a low approval rating…they are in victim mode playing the “kick me” game.

  • “Reid opens the door to a deal with the GOP — but is it a good one?”

    No. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions (hat tip Atrios).

  • What is wrong with Harry Reid? What is wrong with all of these Democrats who go all mealy-mouthed about compromise and bi-partisanship and “fairness,” when the result of any compromise means a longer occupation, more dead and injured Americans and no pressure on the Iraqi “government” to take control. What honor is there when “bi-partisan” translates to “aiding and abetting?”

    The American people overwhelmingly want us out and our troops home. What Reid should be saying is, if you want to fund more death and more failure and more heartache, you’ll have to do it without our votes. And he ought to be getting the Democratic caucus in line however he has to.

    You’d think a former boxer like Reid would not only know a head-fake when he sees one – especially since there have already been so many (which is why the September Report should come with the following warning: “Caution: while the events and facts depicted herein are based on real-life events, it is a work of fiction”), but you’d think he’d also know where the soft spots are, and how to deliver a knock-out punch. But he doesn’t.

    He must have been one bad fighter.

  • Who are the Dems listening to because it sure isn’t their constituents? Why can’t they see that siding with Bush and giving him the funding goes against the whole reason they won the majority? It must stop, and it must stop now and the funding is the only way left to stop it because Bush will never stop until he is “forced” to. — bjobotts #12.

    The crux question indeed. From outside the congressional hub scene, it seems so obvious that closing the purse strings tight is the easy, simple, constitutionally given solution. Why don’t they just do it? They have the votes and the power — where’s the problem?

    The only conclusion one can come to is that there is a Capitol Hill Fog syndrome just as there is a Green Zone Fog syndrome. Something about the cozy, cloistered atmosphere in the chambers blurs members memories and perceptions. They lose connection with the outside. They even seem to forget why they are there. It’s all ‘chums in it together’, and the big nasty reality that they are responsible for gets forgotten.

    Is there any better explanation of their befuddled uselessness?

  • I wish someone would run another survey asking whether people would support Congress cutting off funding for the Iraq occupation if the president won’t agree to withdrawal timetables. I saw two in the spring that asked the question more or less directly and if memory serves, support ran 20-something in one and 30-something percent in the other, likely because the question was asked a little differently. Anyway, that basically boils down to us liberal/progressive types and not much of anyone else. But I wonder if events of the last several months have succeeded in widening that circle at all.

    You can bet the White House already knows the answer to that question though and until/unless that number goes up signicantly, there’s no way they’re not going to deal. They may be dumb but they’re smart enough to know that Democrats can’t survive the PR war in a stalemate fight without broad public support. So unless that support is there, that’s a fight they’d love to have.

  • it’s really fucking simple. just stop funding the war. and keep passing the bill, regardless of veto or filibuster. the public is on our side. it’s time to act.

    • Comments are closed.