ATTN: Democratic Majority (of One)

Yes, that means you (the House) and you (the Senate).

Since it seems all but inevitable now, that the overarching policy of the current Democratic Majority (of One)™ is to delay, delay, delay, I have a small suggestion to you, all of you.

Delay Everything. Really.  everything.  You can't get any timetables?  Never mind, don't need them.

Just don't let ANY FRICKIN BILLS OUT OF COMMITTE.  None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Get the idea?  

The Republican Caucus and the Republican President have refused to change their stance on the re-Surge-nce of their Military Solution to Everything™ policy.

Our Democratic (Majority of One)Party™ cannot or will not try to raise a 60 vote super-majority to over-ride a presidential veto.  Fine.  So you aren't going to go for the moral high-ground by even making a show of trying.

Then go the other way.  If you can't get anything of fucking value past the staggering-from-the-last-scandal Republican Party and the President of 'Gog and Magog', then so be it.

But, for pete's sake, don't help those war-mongering, power-mad, egomaniacs in Congress and the White House destroy what little of value is left of my beloved country.

Don't let one, single, solitary bill out of committee.  Not one.  

With no funding bill, there is no arguement about whom is supporting the troops by authorizing more funding, or whom is supporting the troops by funding their withdrawl from the Theatre of War back home to their families and friends.

The troops will come home.  With no future funds in play, the Administration would be forced to spend available funds re-deploying the forces out of the Iraqi territories, and effectively ending the active military action and occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq.

No one will be able to point a finger and say, "you lost the war because you did...".

Every member of congress can say with a straight face, to their constituents, "I didn't do it".

You all will have plausable deniability.  

The Democratic Caucus may be the Democratic (Majority of One)Party™, but that's all it takes to keep every single bill in committee through the end of the current Congressional Term.

Don't open any bills on the floor for debate.  Don't vote any bills out of committee.

The Republicans can't stop you.  You are actually in control of these actions as the majority party.  Who knew?  You have the power to do something so very simple, and yet, by your (in)action, you will stymie the entire war machine that has been reaping record profits off the blood, sweat and tears of our fellow citizens in uniform.

No bills out of committee?  No riders or amendments with multi-million dollar boondoggle earmarks, attached to a bill in the dark of night (sometimes literally in the dark of night).  Sorry Halliburton, you'll have to start actually bidding for jobs again.  You know, so that the People can be assured that every damn project that goes out for private work is performed for, at the very least, some reasonable amount of cash.  No more 'cost-plus' overruns with no accountability. Espcially on projects on whose outcome the safety of our armed forces rests.  

I'd like to close this brief rant with the suggestion the if you can't fight them actively with Subpeonas or Impeachment, then you practice non-violent non-cooperation.  It worked for Ghandi and India.  Perhaps it will work for These United States.

•  Myopia, there is thy muse. n/t

  by valion on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 09:34:40 PM PDT

•  Need 67 votes to override a veto (in Senate)

  You are mistaken in believing that 60 votes overrides a veto.

  It is extremely difficult to override a veto.  If the President vetoes legislation, a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate is required to reverse the decision and the legislation becomes law without the President's signature.

  Assuming 100 Senators and 435 Representatives vote, that would require 67 Senators opposing the President and 290 members of the House.  The votes aren't transferable across the two houses.  If every Senator (100) and 289 House members voted to override, the veto would stand since the override did not command support from 2/3 in each house.

  You've confused the number of votes needed to shut down debate in the Senate (60) with the number required to overturn a veto.  The Senate has a long tradition of unlimited debate.  As long as one Senator wants to talk about pending legislation, he or she can do so.  Senators can block legislation by endless debate (filibuster), and the only way to stop a filibuster is to "invoke closure" by getting 60 members to agree that enough is enough. The Republicans are filibustering Democratic efforts to end the war more quickly and Democrats do not have the votes to force an up or down vote.

  (You may recall that last year Republicans were talking about a "nuclear option" that would change Senate rules so that simple majorities could demand "up or down" votes. Democrats, understandably, objected, several pointing out that Republicans might some day want to filibuster. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and it turns out Republicans love to filibuster.)

  by blaneyboy on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 10:01:21 PM PDT

  •  you missed my point

    the majority party gets to appoint committee chairs.

    the committee chair decides which bills come up for a vote on whether or not to close questions or committee debate on a bill.

    the next step is that the bill comes out of committee, and to the floor of the House or Senate, respectively.

    I'm saying that the chairs of the various congressional committees should prevent any bills from being moved out of committee to the floor.

    It's that simple.

    by Angie in WA State on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 10:24:39 PM PDT

    •  No I didn't

      I didn't miss your point.  I ignored your point and corrected your facts.  If you can't get your facts straight, why should we accept your point?

      As to your larger point, it is, as you say, simple.  It's also laughable.

      As H.L. Mencken once observed, "For every problem there is a solution that is simple, direct and wrong."

      by blaneyboy on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 07:35:06 AM PDT

•  Once you cut off the funding completely

  What do you do if Bush just leaves them there anyway, and the Right Wing Media starts pounding the drums about Democrats letting the troops die without food or ammo?  He's a sociopath.  Do you think he would lose any sleep?  Do you tell the country that he could have brought the troops back if he wanted to?  Do you think it will be reported?

  I appreciate the sentiment, but stopping funding is not the answer.  Passing funding, that calls for troop withdrawal as part of it, is the only way they will come out with this administration. (And I wouldn't put a signing statement past them either, even then.)

  by Grannus on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 02:29:30 AM PDT