By now, we all know the kerfuffle. Obama allegedly said something or other to give some AP reporter the impression that if Bush vetoes the supplemental, Democrats will 'cave' and give him a 'clean' funding bill.
Netroots folks, obsessed with sound bites and pseudo-'framing' issues, went berserk.
The three principal charges thrown around were:
- Obama is a LiebermanDLCVichyDem;
- Obama was accepting a 'bad frame' on funding by calling it a game of chicken with Bush; and
- Obama was unnecessarily tipping his hand, which is simply stupid negotiation strategy.
(1) is the typical crap that gets thrown at Obama because he doesn't feed people enough red meat.
(2) and (3) are worthy (though inaccurate) arguments and interrelated. Under the theory of (2) by adopting a bad frame with regard to the possibility of refusing to provide funds for Bush, the theory goes, Obama made the possibility of defunding less politically supportable and also reduced its potency as a threat. Along similar lines, the theory behind (3) is that regardless of whether or not Democrats intend to allow funding to stop, it's a bad idea to take that option off the table for negotations purposes.
Now, before I debunk (2) and (3) let's first address what he allegedly said. It bears noting that there is no quote anywhere wherein Obama states that Democrats will give Bush the full $120 billion free and clear of any strings. No such quote exists. The AP misrepresented what he said--perhaps out of malice but more likely out of intellectual laziness. Kos et al ran with this misconception, and then claimed that since Obama didn't directly address them and their charges, that they must be true. Which is Feithian horseshit.
The best evidence of what he's been saying and thinking is to look at his actual words. Here they are, thoughts, cleanly and articulately presented the Moveon forum:
I’m committed to putting as much pressure on the President and this war as possible in a responsible fashion, and I’m hopeful that the President is going to heed the advice of some of his own party, including Rudy Giuliani to reach an agreement with the Democrats. But assuming that he vetoes the bill, I’m committed to finding the 67 votes we need to override this veto. I would support putting conditions on the next version of legislation if we can’t muster 67 votes, and I’m also looking at options of giving the President a much shorter leash moving to appropriate enough money for 3 to 4 months at a time, during which we continue to build more Republican support for veto override.
In a nutshell, Obama states that the response to a veto should either be another bill with restraints or a 3-4 month funding bill that would force Bush to come back for more money and force Republicans to vote on the issue again.
Implicit in that statement is a declaration that Democrats won't cut off funds for the war effort.
Which is a good thing, not a bad thing. Here's why:
The notion that this represents bad framing of defunding misses an important point: Democrats have absolutely, positively no intention of allowing a defunding to happen.
None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Not. gonna. happen.
If the Democrats aren't going to defund no matter what, then the only way that defunding matters is as a potential bargaining chip--a threat to be used in negotiations.
And this is where people are missing the point.
The threat of defunding is not only useless in the negotiations that will begin the process of ending the war, it's actually counterproductive.
This is so for a couple of reasons.
First, let's be clear.
We will not negotiate with Bush.
The only people we are going to negotiate with are Congressional Republicans like
Wayne Gilchrest.
A diverse collection of House Republicans has formed an ad hoc group to negotiate with the White House on a compromise Iraq spending bill, Politico's Ryan Grim reports. The group plans to hold talks with National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, who has been working behind the scenes to cement opposition among Republicans to the spending bill that would require U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq at some point.
The group includes five Republicans, diverse in geography and ideology: Reps. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, Mac Thornberry of Texas and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland. Of the five, only Gilchrest broke with his party to support a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
Now, Gilchrest says the group will encourage the White House to compromise on negotiations with Syria and Iran and on setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq. And the group has national security bona fides that will help it be taken seriously.
These are the people we're going to have to peel off. These are the ones we have to lean on hard enough that they'll rein Bush in or throw him under the bus.
So, in approaching negotiations with these Congressional Republicans, we need to ask ourselves:
What do they want and what do they fear?
Here's what they fear:
Having to tie their political fate to Bush.
Having to vote repeatedly in support of Bush's Iraq policy
So, to the extent that Obama is pushing the idea of short-term, repeated funding bills that force them to vote every three months, he is threatening them with what they fear.
Now, what do they want?
They want us to try to cut off funds and play chicken with Bush.
In the House, Republicans were able to stay unified last week, largely because they believed they had kept the focus on the troops, not on the president. Just two Republicans, Reps. Wayne T. Gilchrest (Md.) and Walter B. Jones (N.C.), voted for the Democrats' $124 billion war spending bill, which sets a firm deadline of Aug. 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops.
But one House lawmaker with close ties to GOP leaders said the outcome would have been considerably different if Republicans thought that they were simply defending the administration.
"We have toed the line enough for the president, and we have gotten no thanks or gratitude. By and large, Republicans are sick of defending an ungrateful president," the Republican House member said.
If we try to cut off funds, they get to triangulate by saying that they're not supporting Bush by voting with him, but rather just trying to make sure that they support the troops.
To recap: Threats of defunding EMBOLDEN the Congressional Republicans because it takes away the prospect of having to vote repeatedly with Bush and allows them to triangulate their way out of the equation completely. They get a free pass under the defunding scenario.
Threats to fully fund the Iraq effort but forcing them to tie their political fate to Bush scare the crap out of them.
Shawn Steele, the former Republican Party chairman in California, said the candidates were being dragged down by their associations with Mr. Bush as well as with the war. Mr. Steele and other Republicans argued that the candidates were in a difficult position as they tried to distance themselves from a president who is having so many difficulties, while at the same time not alienating Republican base voters and donors who remain loyal to Mr. Bush and his foreign policy.
"It’s a dying administration," Mr. Steele said. "There’s a fatigue factor and there’s a rubbing-off when it’s not very smart to be closely associated with such low ratings."
We need to pressure the Congressional Republicans, and the way to do that is to threaten them with political ruin and take way their hope of triangulating their way out of their predicament.
Comments are closed on this story.